Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing complete versus incomplete or culprit-only revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Background: Complete revascularization (CR) is favored over culprit-only or incomplete revascularization (IR) for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multi-vessel disease (MVD) due to better long-term outcomes. However, the optimal revascularization strategy is currently uncertain in elderly patients, where frailty, polypharmacy, multi-morbidity, inherent bleeding risk and presumed cognitive decline can often burden the decision-making process.

Methods: We searched Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar from inception to April 2024. The search of databases identified relevant studies that reported the comparative effects of CR and IR in the elderly population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data was pooled for individual studies using random-effects models on Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

Results: The meta-analysis included 14 studies and 62577 patients. CR demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality [RR: 0.680; 95 % CI: 0.57-0.82; p=<0.001], cardiovascular-related mortality [RR: 0.620; 95 % CI: 0.478-0.805; p=<0.001], and myocardial infarction [RR: 0.675; 95 % CI: 0.553-0.823; p=<0.001] rates. There was no difference between the risk of stroke [RR: 1.044; 95 % CI: 0.733-1.486; p = 0.81], major bleeding [RR: 1.001; 95 % CI: 0.787-1.274; p = 0.991], stent thrombosis [RR: 1.015; 95 % CI: 0.538-1.916; p = 0.936], and contrast-induced acute kidney injury [RR: 1.187; 95 % CI: 0.963-1.464; p = 0.109].

Conclusion: The meta-analysis suggests that CR may be a favorable revascularization strategy for elderly patients undergoing PCI, displaying a significant decrease in mortality and repeat myocardial infarction risk.