Evidence Hub

Complete versus partial revascularization for older adults with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized and multivariable adjusted data

André Luiz Carvalho Ferreira, Luanna Paula Garcez de Carvalho Feitoza, A. Y. Cáceres Lessa, Juliana Chaves de Oliveira, Lucas Chierici Pereira, M. B. Benitez Gonzalez, Ana Emanuela Coelho Pessoa Lima, Henrique Alexsander Ferreira Neves et al.

Coronary Artery Disease, 2024

1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evidence from randomized studies support complete over culprit-only revascularization for patients with acute coronary artery syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery diseases (MVD). Whether these findings extend to elderly patients, however, has not been thoroughly explored.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of elderly individuals (defined as age ≥75 years) with ACS and MVD submitted to complete vs partial-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched. We computed pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to preserve time time-to-event data.

RESULTS

We included 7 studies, of which 2 were RCT and 5 were multivariable adjusted cohorts, comprising a total 10 147, of whom 43.8% underwent complete revascularization. As compared with partial-only PCI, complete revascularization was associated with a lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% CI 0.60-0.85; P < 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.79; P < 0.01), and recurrent myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 0.65; 95% CI 0.50-0.85; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the risk of revascularizations (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.53-1.20; P = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Among elderly patients with ACS and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and recurrent…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free