Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Highlights
- • This study investigates optimal approach for management of patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.
- • Previous studies comparing culprit vessel only versus multi-vessel coronary intervention have had mixed results.
- • There is lower short-term mortality and renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy with CV-PCI compared to MV-PCI.
Abstract
Background
Previous studies comparing outcomes between culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CV-PCI) versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis investigates the optimal approach for management of these patients considering recently published data.