Objectives: Our purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) with medical therapy in patients randomized >12 h after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Background: There is ongoing uncertainty about the risk-benefit ratio of late PCI in stable patients with AMI.
Methods: PubMed, CENTRAL, and other databases were searched (July 2007). Studies were included if they compared PCI with medical management and randomized patients >12 h and up to 60 days after AMI, and were excluded if patients were hemodynamically unstable. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled for dichotomous outcomes, with all-cause mortality as the primary end point. Left cardiac remodeling parameters were also pooled with generic inverse-variance weighting.
Results: We retrieved 10 studies that enrolled 3,560 patients, with median time from AMI to randomization of 12 days (range 1 to 26 days), and follow-up of 2.8 years (42 days to 10 years). Randomization allocated 1,779 subjects to PCI and 1,781 to medical treatment. There were 112 (6.3%) and 149 (8.4%) deaths in the 2 groups, respectively, yielding significantly improved survival in the PCI group (OR 0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.94], p = 0.030). These benefits were associated with similarly favorable effects on cardiac remodeling, such as improved left ventricular ejection fraction in the PCI group (+4.4% change [95% CI 1.1 to 7.6], p = 0.009).
Conclusions: Percutaneous coronary intervention of the IRA performed late (12 h to 60 days) after AMI is associated with significant improvements in cardiac function and survival.