Angiography versus FFR guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization for patients presenting with STEMI: Network meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different revascularization strategies among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MVD is present in about one-half of patients presenting with STEMI. Despite several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete revascularization (CR) and culprit-only revascularization (COR), the optimal PCI strategy for STEMI patients with MVD remains unsettled. Moreover, it is unclear whether angiography-guided CR or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided CR is associated with better outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing CR strategies with COR strategy in patients with STEMI between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2021 were identified. A frequentist network meta-analyses were performed for three PCI strategies: (1) COR; (2) angiography-guided CR; and (3) FFR-guided CR. Ten RCTs including 7979 patients were included. A strategy of angiography-guided CR or FFR-guided CR was associated with a significantly lower rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and unplanned revascularization compared with COR. Although there were no statistical significant difference between angiography-guided CR and FFR-guided CR, P score analysis showed that angiography-guided CR was ranked as the best strategy for reducing MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. In patients presenting with STEMI and MVD undergoing primary PCI, angiography-guided CR or FFR-guided CR improve outcomes compared with COR. Furthermore, the strategy of angiography-guided CR ranked as the best revascularization strategy in those patients.