Culprit Vessel Versus Multivessel Versus In-Hospital Staged Intervention for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome: 2-Year Results of the BIOVASC Study

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel coronary disease, immediate complete revascularization was noninferior to staged complete revascularization for the primary composite outcome at 1 year. The authors report clinical outcomes at 2 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with ACS and multivessel coronary disease were randomly assigned to immediate complete revascularization or to staged complete revascularization at 29 sites in Europe. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular event.

RESULTS

In total, 764 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to the immediate complete revascularization arm and 761 to the staged complete revascularization arm. Two-year follow-up was complete for 97.6% of patients. At 2 years, the primary outcome had occurred in 12.5% of patients in the immediate complete revascularization group and 12.4% of patients in the staged complete revascularization group (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.73-1.30; P = 0.88). Myocardial infarction occurred more frequently in the staged complete revascularization group (6.2% vs 3.8%; HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37-0.96; P = 0.032). In the immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization groups, the rates of all-cause mortality (3.3% vs 2.0%; HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.88-3.16; P = 0.12), any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (7.0% vs 7.9%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.26; P = 0.57), and cerebrovascular event (2.5% vs 1.7%; HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.68-2.83; P = 0.37) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS and multivessel disease, there was no significant difference between immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization with respect to the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular event at 2 years. Immediate complete revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in myocardial infarction, mainly due to fewer early events. (Direct Complete Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease [BioVasc]; NCT03621501).

Immediate multivessel revascularization after myocardial infarction: change of strategy?

Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) is a frequently encountered condition in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel. Several studies have demonstrated the benefit of complete coronary revascularization compared with the treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with STEMI. Based on this evidence, the current European guidelines recommend that in haemodynamically stable patients with STEMI and MVD, routine complete revascularization should be achieved either during the same procedure in concomitance with the treatment of the culprit lesion (immediate multivessel PCI) or with a subsequent intervention within 45 days from the index PCI of the culprit lesion (deferred multivessel PCI). However, the guidelines do not express a preference for immediate vs. delayed multivessel PCI. Therefore, the optimal timing of the treatment of non-culprit lesions in patients with STEMI and haemodynamic stability is still debated and has been evaluated in recent studies that showed the non-inferiority of immediate vs. delayed multivessel PCI. The article discusses the results and clinical implications of these studies on the timing of complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions in haemodynamically stable patients with STEMI.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors, and prognostic analyses of coronary small vessel disease: a retrospective cohort study of 986 patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Coronary small vessel disease (CSVD) is often associated with significant percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) related complications, complex lesions, complex PCI, and poor long-term prognosis. We designed this retrospective study to clarify the characteristics, risk factors, and prognostic analyses of CSVD in Chinese populations.

METHODS

A total of 986 patients who underwent coronary angiography and stent implantation at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine were evaluated. Patients were grouped into CSVD or non-small vessel disease (non-CSVD) according to stent diameter. Clinical data, coronary angiography, and long-term follow-up were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression, the Kaplan-Meier method, Log-rank Test, and Cox regression model were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Alcohol consumption (OR = 0.420, 95% CI: 0.299-0.588, P < 0.001) was implicated as a negative CSVD correlation factor. CSVD was more likely to be associated with multi-vessel lesions (79.2% vs. 49.4%, P < 0.001), bifurcation lesions (24.0% vs. 12.4%, P < 0.001), chronic total obstruction lesions (29.5% vs. 9.4%, P < 0.001), and long lesions (55.2% vs. 35.7%, P < 0.001), which reduced the efficacy of revascularization (70.1% vs. 85.1%, P < 0.001). In the follow-ups, cardiac death (2.3% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.008), stroke (1.9% vs. 0.3%, P = 0.007), target lesion revascularization (5.8% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.029), target vessel revascularization (6.8% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.016), and non-target vessel revascularization (7.8% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.012) were all substantially higher in CSVD patients. Troponin I level (OR = 1.008, 95% CI: 1.004-1.012, P < 0.001), complete revascularization (OR = 0.292, 95% CI: 0.160-0.531, P < 0.001), and aspirin administration (OR = 0.041, 95% CI: 0.013-0.131, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of MACE events of all patients.

CONCLUSION

Compared to non-CSVD, CSVD was associated with more complex lesions, had worse revascularization efficacy, and a poorer prognosis.

Comparison of Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularisation in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-randomized Studies

Acute myocardial infarction is a critical medical condition that poses a significant health burden, leading to substantial morbidity. Despite advancements in medical care, managing this condition is challenging for patients and society. The preferred approach appears to be comprehensive multivessel revascularization, yet the optimal timing remains uncertain. This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularisation and stage complete vascularization in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). The Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines conducted the present meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using online databases, including PubMed, and EMBASE from 2010 onwards, to identify articles that compared cardiovascular outcomes between patients undergoing immediate and staged complete revascularization. We also searched Google Scholar for additional studies relevant to the present meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed in this study was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. A total of 15 studies fulfilled pre-defined eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. Our analysis shows that staged revascularization is associated with improved outcomes in patients with ACS and multivessel CAD, including all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, without increasing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, and the need for unplanned revascularization.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease, complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PCI for non-culprit lesions should be attempted during the index procedure or staged.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial was done at 29 hospitals across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. We included patients aged 18-85 years presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel (ie, two or more coronary arteries with a diameter of 2·5 mm or more and ≥70% stenosis based on visual estimation or positive coronary physiology testing) coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion. A web-based randomisation module was used to randomly assign patients (1:1), with a random block size of four to eight, stratified by study centre, to undergo immediate complete revascularisation (PCI of the culprit lesion first, followed by other non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularisation (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator within 6 weeks after the index procedure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 1 year after the index procedure. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularisation was considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not exceed 1·39. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03621501.

FINDINGS

Between June 26, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021, 764 patients (median age 65·7 years [IQR 57·2-72·9] and 598 [78·3%] males) were randomly assigned to the immediate complete revascularisation group and 761 patients (median age 65·3 years [58·6-72·9] and 589 [77·4%] males) were randomly assigned to the staged complete revascularisation group, and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 57 (7·6%) of 764 patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 71 (9·4%) of 761 patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, pnon-inferiority=0·0011). There was no difference in all-cause death between the immediate and staged complete revascularisation groups (14 [1·9%] vs nine [1·2%]; HR 1·56, 95% CI 0·68-3·61, p=0·30). Myocardial infarction occurred in 14 (1·9%) patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 34 (4·5%) patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·76, p=0·0045). More unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisations were performed in the staged complete revascularisation group than in the immediate complete revascularisation group (50 [6·7%] patients vs 31 [4·2%] patients; HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·39-0·95, p=0·030).

INTERPRETATION

In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularisation was non-inferior to staged complete revascularisation for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation.

FUNDING

Erasmus University Medical Center and Biotronik.

Immediate versus staged revascularisation of non-culprit arteries in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Although there is robust evidence that revascularisation of non-culprit vessels should be pursued in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), the optimal timing of complete revascularisation remains disputed. In this systematic review and meta-analysis our results suggest that outcomes are comparable for immediate and staged complete revascularisation in patients with ACS and MVD. However, evidence from randomised controlled trials remains scarce and cautious interpretation of these results is recommended. More non-biased evidence is necessary to aid future decision making on the optimal timing of complete revascularisation.

Staged revascularization vs. culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in elderly patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Backgroundand objective

Studies have highlighted the significant role of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for a multivessel disease (MVD) among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the relative benefit of staged vs. culprit-only PCI for MVD in elderly patients with STEMI remains undetermined. Thus, the present study compared the clinical outcomes of staged and culprit-only PCI in this cohort.

Methods

From January 2014 to September 2019, 617 patients aged ≥65 years with STEMI and MVD who underwent primary PCI of the culprit vessels within 12 h of symptom onset were enrolled. They were then categorized into the staged and culprit-only PCI groups according to intervention strategy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust for confounding factors between groups. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization.

Results

During a mean follow-up of 56 months, 209 patients experienced MACCE and 119 died. Staged revascularization was associated with a lower risk of MACCE, all-cause death, and cardiac death than culprit-only PCI in both overall patients and the PSM cohorts. In contrast, there was no significant difference in stroke or ischemia-driven revascularization. Moreover, on multivariate Cox regression analysis, staged PCI was a significant predictor of a lower incidence of MACCE and all-cause death.

Conclusion

In elderly patients with STEMI and MVD, staged PCI is superior to culprit-only PCI.

Management of patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: what are the options in 2022?

Multivessel coronary disease is a frequent finding in patients with STEMI. However, choosing the optimal treatment strategy for these patients can be challenging. The benefit of complete versus culprit-vessel-only revascularization demonstrated by several studies led to a change in the current 2018 ESC/EACTS revascularization guidelines recommending treatment of nonculprit lesions before hospital discharge. This article summarizes current data in this area, looks at remaining knowledge gaps and gives an outlook regarding ongoing trials. The latter will provide further robust evidence for the optimal management of patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.

The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a pairwise and network meta-analysis

Objective:

To investigate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Methods:

Trials that randomized patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease to immediate multivessel PCI, staged multivessel PCI, or culprit-only PCI and prospective observational studies that investigated all-cause death were included. Random effect risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Results:

A total of 13 randomized trials with 7627 patients and 21 prospective observational studies with 60311 patients were included. In the pairwise and network meta-analysis based on randomized trials, immediate or staged multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE; RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.74) than culprit-only PCI, which was mainly due to lower risks of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.88) and revascularization (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.51), without any significant difference in all-cause death (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.04; I² = 0.0%). However, short-term outcomes were deficient in randomized trials. The results from real-world prospective observational studies suggested that staged multivessel PCI reduced long-term all-cause death (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.71; I² = 15.6%), whereas immediate multivessel PCI increased short-term all-cause death (RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.05; I² = 43.8%) relative to culprit-only PCI.

Conclusion:

For patients in randomized trials, multivessel PCI in an immediate or staged procedure was preferred due to improvements in long-term outcomes. As a supplement, the results in real-world patients derived from prospective observational studies suggested that staged multivessel PCI was superior to immediate multivessel PCI. Therefore, staged multivessel PCI may be the optimal PCI strategy for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Complete Revascularization and Survival in STEMI

Background

Complete revascularization (CR) of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) has proven better regarding combined endpoints than incomplete revascularization (IR) in recent randomized control trials with no impact on survival.

Objective

To retrospectively evaluate the impact of complete CR during the index hospitalization on survival in STEMI patients with MVD.

Methods and results

We included all patients with MVD who underwent successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI during their index hospitalization at the University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia (from 1 January 2009 to 3 April 2011). Coronary angiograms were reviewed for non-culprit coronary arteries (>2 mm in diameter and ≥50% stenosis) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Rates of all-cause and cardiovascular death were compared between 235 patients who underwent CR (N = 70) or IR (N = 165). After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (interquartile range 6.0-8.2) the CR group had lower rates of all-cause death (15.7% vs 35.8%, log-rank p = 0.003) and cardiovascular death (12.9% vs 23.6%, log-rank p = 0.046). Multivariable analysis with adjustment for confounders showed no benefit of CR for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-1.18, p = 0.139) or cardiovascular death (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.37-1.72, p = 0.560). Age, elevated serum creatinine at inclusion, diabetes and cardiogenic shock at presentation were predictors of death.

Conclusions

Patients with STEMI and MVD who underwent CR showed lower all-cause and cardiovascular death during follow-up than those who underwent IR. However, after adjustment for confounders, the real determinates of survival were independent of the revascularization method.

Immediate Versus Staged Multivessel PCI Strategies in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines and randomized clinical trials favor the multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) strategy undertaken immediately or staged after primary PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. However, the optimal strategy of MV-PCI remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a search of PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane database (CENTRAL), clinicaltrial.gov, and Google Scholar for studies comparing immediate versus staged MV-PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Eighteen (4 randomized clinical trials) studies with 8,100 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Relative to staged MV-PCI, immediate MV-PCI was associated with higher short-term (within 30 days) (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.07-7.59; P<0.0001) and long-term (above 6 months) mortality (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.46-3.07; P<0.0001), short-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)(OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.13-3.50; P=0.02) and cardiac death (OR, 4.78; 95% CI, 2.17-10.53; P=0.0001). There was a nonsignificant trend towards higher long-term MACE (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.54; P=0.07) and cardiac death (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 0.93-3.30; P=0.08) with immediate versus staged MV-PCI. Revascularization, myocardial infarction, and safety endpoints including stroke, major bleeding, and renal failure were similar between immediate versus staged MV-PCI. However, pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials did not show any significant differences in long-term MACE, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, staged instead of immediate MV-PCI may be the optimal revascularization strategy.

Impact of completeness of revascularisation on long-term outcomes in patients with multivessel disease undergoing PCI: CR versus IR outcomes in multivessel CAD

AIMS

We aimed to study long-term clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over the last 10 years with respect to the completeness of revascularisation at a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 2,960 consecutive MVD patients taken for PCI between 2008 to 2017 were enrolled in the study with baseline demographic, procedural, and follow-up details retrieved from custom-made departmental software. Of those, 2,598 patients with follow-up details constituted the study cohort. Complete revascularisation (CR) was achieved in 1,854 (71.4%) and incomplete revascularisation (IR) in 744 (28.6%) patients. Propensity matching was performed and 740 matched pairs identified in the two groups. The primary endpoint was survival free of any major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with each individual MACE event being a secondary endpoint. IR occurred more often in patients with acute coronary syndrome (64.1% vs 58.3%, p=0.003), complex lesion intervention (40.7% vs 29.6%, p<0.001) and in those with mean stent length ≥38 mm per vessel intervened (21.0% vs 13.5%, p<0.001). Median follow-up was 54 months (interquartile range: 31-84 months). After propensity matching, CR resulted in a better survival free of all adverse events, i.e., 86.4% vs 81.1% (HR 1.52, CI: 1.21-2.02; p<0.01). Individual MACE endpoints were, however, not statistically different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In MVD patients undergoing PCI, CR results in better survival free of all adverse events including all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI, repeat revascularisation and recurrent angina.

Benefit of a staged in-hospital revascularization strategy in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: Analyses by risk stratification

AIMS

The proper timing and indication of revascularization for a non-culprit artery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) without cardiogenic shock remains controversial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This multicenter study included patients with STEMI and MVD without cardiogenic shock. Data were analyzed at 3 years according to the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy: immediate multivessel revascularization (MVR) (n = 351), stepwise MVR (n = 510), and culprit-only PCI (n = 1,142). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The stepwise MVR group had a lower risk of all-cause death. The results were consistent after multivariate regression, propensity-score matching, inverse probability weighting, and Bayesian proportional hazards modeling. In subgroup analyses stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, stepwise MVR also lowered the risk of all-cause death compared to culprit-only PCI and immediate MVR in high risk patients but not in patients at low to intermediate risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI and MVD without cardiogenic shock, in-hospital stepwise MVR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death than culprit-only PCI or immediate MVR, particularly in the high-risk subgroup.

Rationale and design of the MULTISTARS AMI Trial: A randomized comparison of immediate versus staged complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

About half of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) present with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). Recent evidence supports complete revascularization in these patients. However, optimal timing of non-culprit lesion revascularization in STEMI patients is unknown because dedicated randomized trials on this topic are lacking. STUDY DESIGN: The MULTISTARS AMI trial is a prospective, international, multicenter, randomized, two-arm, open-label study planning to enroll at least 840 patients. It is designed to investigate whether immediate complete revascularization is non-inferior to staged (within 19-45 days) complete revascularization in patients in stable hemodynamic conditions presenting with STEMI and MVD and undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). After successful primary PCI of the culprit artery, patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to immediate or staged complete revascularization. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The MULTISTARS AMI trial tests the hypothesis that immediate complete revascularization is non-inferior to staged complete revascularization in stable patients with STEMI and MVD.

Revascularization Strategies in Patients Presenting With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Disease

The optimal revascularization strategy for residual coronary stenosis following primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remains controversial. This is a retrospective single-centre study including patients with STEMI and MVD. Based on the revascularization strategy, 3 groups were identified: (1) culprit only (CO), (2) ad hoc multivessel revascularization (MVR), and (3) staged MVR. Clinical outcomes were compared in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction, and any unplanned revascularization at a long-term follow-up. A total of 958 patients were evaluated, 489 in the CO, 254 in the ad hoc, and 215 in the staged group. In the staged group, 65.6% of the patients received planned percutaneous coronary intervention, 9.7% coronary artery bypass grafting, 8.4% no further intervention after lesion reassessment, and in 16.3% an event occurred before the planned procedure. At 1,095 days, MACE was 36.1%, 16.7%, and 31% for CO, ad hoc, and staged groups, respectively. A MVR strategy was associated with lower rate of all-cause death compared with CO (HR 0.50; 95%CI [0.31 to 0.80]; p = 0.004). Complete revascularization reduced the rate of MACE (HR 0.30 [0.21 to 0.43] p < 0.001) compared with incomplete revascularization. Ad hoc MVR had lower rate of MACE compared with staged MVR (HR 0.61 [0.39 to 0.96] p = 0.032) mainly driven by less unplanned revascularizations. In conclusion, in patients with STEMI and MVD, complete revascularization reduced the risk of MACE. Ad hoc MVR appeared a reasonable strategy with lower contrast and stent usage and costs.

Predictors and Outcomes of Staged Versus One-Time Multivessel Revascularization in Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the VA CART Program

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine predictors and outcomes associated with staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus one-time multivessel revascularization (OTMVR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

Prior observational studies have not evaluated predictors and outcomes of staged PCI versus OTMVR in a heterogenous population of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who undergo multivessel revascularization.

METHODS

Data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) CART (Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking) Program were used to evaluate patients who underwent PCI of >2 vessels between October 1, 2007, and September 3, 2014. Associations between individual factors and the decision to perform staged PCI were assessed. Additionally, the impact of measured patient and procedural factors, site factors, and unmeasured site factors on the decision to perform staged PCI was compared. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between staged PCI and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 7,599 patients at 61 sites were included. The decision to perform staged PCI was driven by procedural characteristics and unmeasured site factors. Staged PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality compared with OTMVR (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.84; p < 0.01). This mortality benefit was observed among the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.47; p < 0.01), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.87; p < 0.01), unstable angina (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.89; p < 0.01) and stable angina (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.00; p = 0.05) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to pursue staged PCI was driven by procedural characteristics and unmeasured site variation and was associated with lower mortality compared with OTMVR. After adjustment, there was an association between staged PCI and reduced mortality. Given the observational nature of these findings, a randomized trial comparing the 2 is needed to guide practice.

Cardiac Shock Care Centers: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Despite advances over the past decade, the incidence of cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction has increased, with an unchanged mortality near 50%. Recent trials have not clarified the best strategies in treatment. While dedicated cardiac shock centers are being established, there are no standardized agreements on the utilization of mechanical circulatory support and the timeliness of percutaneous coronary intervention strategies. In some centers and prospective registries, outcomes after placement of advanced mechanical circulatory support prior to reperfusion therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention have been encouraging with improved survival. Here, we suggest systems of care with a treatment pathway for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock: evolving definitions and future directions in management

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex and highly morbid entity conceptualised as a vicious cycle of injury, cardiac and systemic decompensation, and further injury and decompensation. The pathophysiology of CS is incompletely understood but limited clinical trial experience suggests that early and robust support of the failing heart to allow for restoration of systemic homoeostasis appears critical for survival. We review the pathophysiology, clinical features and trial data to construct a contemporary model of CS as a systemic process characterised with maladaptive compensatory mechanisms requiring prompt and appropriately tailored medical and mechanical support for optimal outcomes. We conclude with an algorithmic approach to acute CS incorporating clinical and haemodynamic data to match the patient’s cardiac and systemic needs as a template for contemporary management.

Outcome of staged percutaneous coronary intervention within two weeks from admission in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

The optimum timing of revascularization strategy for stenoses in nonculprit vessels in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remains unclear. At present, there is no evidence investigating the outcome of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within two weeks from admission among STEMI patients with MVD.

METHODS

A total of 210 STEMI patients with MVD who underwent primary PCI were analyzed. We compared the all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, unstable angina, and stroke) with median follow-up of 1200 days among the patients who underwent staged PCI within two weeks from admission (staged PCI ≤2 W) (n = 75), staged PCI after two weeks from admission (staged PCI >2 W) (n = 37) and culprit-only PCI (n = 98) in patients with STEMI and MVD.

RESULTS

The staged PCI ≤2 W showed lower all-cause mortality than culprit-only PCI (4.0 vs 29.6%, log-rank P = 0.001), and lower incidence of MACE than the staged PCI >2 W group (1.3 vs 18.9%, log-rank P = 0.001) and culprit-only PCI group (1.3 vs 22.5%, log-rank P = 0.001). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, the staged PCI ≤2 W was a predictor of lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.176; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.049-0.630; P = 0.008) and lower incidence of MACE (HR, 0.068; 95% CI, 0.009-0.533; P = 0.011), but staged PCI >2 W was not.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, staged PCI within two weeks after admission showed more favorable outcomes compared with staged PCI after two weeks from admission or culprit-only PCI in STEMI patients with MVD.

Comparison of 30-Day MACE between Immediate versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease, and the Effect of Coronary Lesion Complexity

Background and objective: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, the timing of intervention to non-culprit lesions is still a matter of debate, especially in patients without shock. This study aimed to compare the effect of multivessel intervention, performed at index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (MVI-I) or index hospitalization (MVI-S), on the 30-day results of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and to investigate the effect of coronary lesion complexity assessed by the Syntax (Sx) score on the timing of multivessel intervention. Materials and methods: We enrolled 180 patients with MVI-I, and 425 patients with MVI-S. The major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) for this study were identified as mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, acute heart failure, ischemia driven revascularization, major bleeding, and acute renal failure developed within 30 days. Results: The unadjusted MACE rates at 30 days were 11.2% and 5% among those who underwent MVI-I and MVI-S, respectively (OR 3.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51–6.02; p = 0.002). Associations were statistically significant after adjusting for covariates in the penalized multivariable model (adjusted OR 2.06; 95%CI 1.02–4.18; p = 0.043), propensity score adjusted multivariable model (adjusted OR 2.46; 95%CI 1.19–5.07; p = 0.015), and IPW (adjusted OR 2.11; 95%CI 1.28–3.47; p = 0.041). We found that the Syntax score of lesions did not affect the results. Conclusion: MVI-S was associated with a lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days after discharge.

Major adverse cardiovascular events while awaiting staged non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The optimal therapeutic strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients found to have multi-vessel disease (MVD) is controversial but recent data support complete revascularisation (CR). Whether CR should be completed during the index admission or during a second staged admission remains unclear. Our main objective was to measure rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) during the waiting period in STEMI patients selected for staged revascularisation (SR), in order to determine the safety of delaying CR. For completeness, we also describe 30-day and long-term outcomes in STEMI patients with MVD who underwent in-hospital CR.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective analysis of 931 STEMI patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) identified 397 patients with MVD who were haemodynamically stable and presented within 12 hours of chest pain onset. Of these, 191 underwent multi-vessel PCI: 49 during the index admission and 142 patients undergoing a strategy of SR.

RESULTS

Our main finding was that waiting period MACE were 2% (three of 142) in patients allocated to SR (at a median of 31 days). In patients allocated to in-hospital CR, 30-day MACE rates were 10% (five of 49). During a median follow up of 39 months, all-cause mortality was 7.0% vs. 28.6%, and cardiac mortality was 2% vs. 8%, in patients allocated to SR or CR, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with STEMI and MVD who, based on clinical judgement, were allocated to a second admission SR strategy had very few adverse events during the waiting period and excellent long-term outcomes.

Optimal timing of complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a pairwise and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is unclear. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for treating these patients.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrial.gov, and the reference lists of relevant papers were performed covering the period between the year 2000 and March 20, 2017. A pairwise analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to compare the effectiveness of early complete revascularization (CR) during the index hospitalization, delayed CR, and culprit only revascularization (COR). The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were defined as the composite of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were the rates of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and repeat revascularization. This study is registered at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42017059980.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,170 patients were identified. A pairwise meta-analysis showed that compared with COR, early CR was associated with significantly decreased risks of MACE (relative risk [RR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.56), MI (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.83), and repeat revascularization (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27-0.46) but not of all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52-1.16). These results were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that early CR had the highest probability of being the first treatment option during MACE (89.2%), MI (83.3%), and repeat revascularization (80.4%).

CONCLUSION

Early CR during the index hospitalization was markedly superior to COR with respect to reducing the risk of MACE, as CR significantly decreased the risks of MI and repeat revascularization compared with COR. However, further study is warranted to determine whether CR during the index hospitalization can improve survival in patients with concurrent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The optimal timing of CR remains inconclusive considering the small number of studies and patients included in the analysis comparing early and delayed CR.

Outcomes after culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison of registry and clinical trial outcomes

BACKGROUND

The PRAMI and CvLPRIT trials support preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel coronary disease found during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We assess our real-world experience of the management of multivessel disease identified during primary PCI (PPCI) in a large UK regional centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All STEMI patients who underwent culprit-only PPCI during the study period (August 2011 to August 2013) were retrospectively assessed for eligibility to each trial. The two resulting groups were designated as the 'observational' cohorts. Primary outcomes were then determined and compared with the culprit-only revascularisation cohorts from the respective published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

A total of 1143 consecutive cases were presented during the study period. Of these, 343 would have been suitable for inclusion to PRAMI and were included in the 'observational PRAMI' cohort; 196 patients were included in the 'observational CvLPRIT' cohort.The 'observational PRAMI' cohort experienced fewer primary outcome events (13.1 vs. 22.9%), cardiac deaths (0.6 vs. 4.3%) and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (3.5 vs. 8.7%) than the culprit-only PCI PRAMI cohort (n=231); there were significantly more diabetics (P=0.022) and anterior STEMI initial presentations in the culprit-only PCI PRAMI cohort. Primary outcomes were comparable to those of the preventive PCI PRAMI cohort.The 'observational CvLPRIT' cohort showed no significant difference in primary outcomes over 12 months (16.8 vs. 21.2%), but significantly lower all-cause mortality (2 vs. 6.9%) than the culprit-only PCI CvPLRIT cohort (n=146). The 30-day event rates were similar to the preventive PCI arm; the 12-month events were better than the nonpreventive, but not as good as the preventive RCT cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes from culprit-only primary PCI for multivessel disease in patients selected by the RCT criteria from an all-comers population representing real-life experience are better than those published in the two main RCTs. The RCTs may have selected a high-risk population for study exaggerating the benefits of preventive PCI.

Current perspectives on revascularization in multivessel ST elevation myocardial infarction

Up to 50% of patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are found to have multivessel coronary artery disease. These patients have a worse prognosis compared with the overall STEMI population. Two revascularization strategies are possible for these patients: treating the infarct-related artery percutaneous coronary intervention (IRA-PCI) only or achieving Complete revascularization (CR), either through an immediate multivessel PCI during the index angiography or during a second-staged procedure. Until recently, most clinical data on this issue were derived from observational studies - which all showed a clear advantage to the IRA-PCI over the CR approach. Over the past few years, several groundbreaking randomized trials have suggested that the CR approach may be at least equivalent, and perhaps superior, to the IRA-PCI strategy. This has caused a paradigm shift reflected in the recent US and European guidelines. However, there is still uncertainty on the optimal timing for achieving CR (immediate/during the index admission/during a subsequent elective admission) and several other important issues in terms of revascularization: the extent of revascularization needed to achieve maximal benefit, the optimal means to evaluate the significance of intermediate coronary stenosis in the context of acute myocardial infarction, and the best approach to treat chronic total occlusions have not been thoroughly examined, and are the subject of an ongoing debate.

The prognostic impact of revascularization strategy in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Insights from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel is associated with improved outcomes. A large majority of these patients have multivessel disease (MVD). Whether or not PCI of non-culprit disease in the acute setting improves outcomes continues to be debated. We evaluated the prognostic impact of revascularization strategy for patients presenting with AMI and CS.

METHODS

We compared culprit vessel intervention (CVI) versus multivessel intervention in 649 patients with AMI, CS, and MVD enrolled in the British Columbia Cardiac Registry. We evaluated mortality at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

CVI was associated with lower mortality at 30 days (23.7% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.004) and 1 year (32.6% vs. 44.3%, P = 0.003). CVI was an independent predictor for survival at 30 days (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45-0.88, P = 0.009) and 1 year (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54-0.96, P = 0.027). These findings were confirmed in propensity-matched cohorts. Subgroup analyses indicated that CVI was associated with lower mortality in patients aged <80 years; non-diabetics; and those presenting with ST-elevation MI. When analyzing non-culprit anatomy, PCI of non-culprit LAD disease was associated with higher 1-year mortality (HR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.13-2.01, P = 0.006), primarily with non-culprit proximal LAD disease (HR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.20-2.76, P = 0.005). However, PCI of non-culprit non-proximal LAD, LCx, and RCA disease was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AMI and CS, a strategy of CVI appears to be associated with lower mortality. These findings are consistent with recently published randomized-controlled trial data.

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI: a Contemporary Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization of the culprit coronary vessel and restoration of coronary flow is the goal of the initial management. However, obstructive non-culprit disease is frequently concomitantly found during initial angiography and portends a poor prognosis. Management of non-culprit lesions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been the subject of extensive debate. This review will examine the currently available evidence, with a specific focus on randomized clinical trials performed to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although early observational data suggested better outcomes with culprit-only revascularization, more recent data from several randomized trials have suggested improved outcomes with complete multivessel revascularization, either during the index PCI procedure or as a staged procedure. Data from recent randomized controlled trials have suggested the superiority of complete or multivessel revascularization and have subsequently led to changes to the most recent iterations of STEMI guidelines. However, the optimal management and timing of revascularization of non-culprit lesions in STEMI remain controversial.

In-hospital mortality after acute STEMI in patients undergoing primary PCI

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is the main cause of global and in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiovascular diseases. We aimed to examine the association between the coronary artery involved and the in-hospital mortality in patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) after ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

The in-hospital mortality of STEMI patients who underwent pPCI was assessed at the Department of Cardiology, Harzklinik Goslar, Germany, which has no access to immediate mechanical circulatory support (MCS), between 2013 and 2017.

RESULTS

We enrolled 312 STEMI patients, with a mean age of 67.1 ± 13.4 years, of whom 211 (68%) were male. In-hospital mortality was documented in 31 patients (10%). In-hospital mortality was associated with pre-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR; n = 39/12.5%), older age, lower systolic blood pressure, Killip class > 1, triple-vessel disease (each p < 0.0001), female gender (p = 0.0158), and with the localization of the treated culprit lesion in the left main coronary artery (LMCA; p = 0.0083) and in the ramus circumflexus (RCX; p = 0.0141).

CONCLUSION

In this monocentric cohort, all-cause in-hospital mortality of STEMI patients after pPCI was significantly higher in those patients with culprit lesions in the LMCA and in the RCX, which may prove to be a substantial novel risk factor for STEMI-related mortality. Increasing age and female gender may be interdependent risk factors for mortality in this patient population. Furthermore, our data highlight the importance of the availability of MCS options in pPCI centers for patients after CPR.

The prognostic significance of incomplete revascularization and untreated coronary anatomy following percutaneous coronary intervention: An analysis of 6,755 patients with multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

More than half of the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have multivessel disease. Whether complete revascularization impacts long-term mortality or whether selected patients or those with specific coronary anatomy benefit from complete revascularization is unclear.

METHODS

A total of 14,452 patients underwent PCI between 2004 and 2015 at Harefield Hospital, UK. Of these, 7,076 patients had multivessel disease. We excluded 321 patients with left main-stem stenosis ≥50%, with 6,755 patients included in the analysis (936 patients had complete revascularization).

RESULTS

The unadjusted 3-year mortality rates were lower with complete revascularization (10.8% vs 13.1%, P = 0.047). However, multivariable-adjusted analyses indicated that complete revascularization was not independently associated with mortality (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.78-1.31, P = 0.939). These findings were unchanged when addressing measured confounding using propensity-matched analyses (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.81-1.65, P = 0.417) and inverse probability treatment weighted analyses (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.77-1.33, P = 0.950); and unmeasured confounding using instrumental variable analyses (Δ = 0.9%, 95% CI: -2.5%, 4.3%, P = 0.958). There was no association with mortality and untreated LAD disease (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.17, P = 0.482) and LCx disease (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.74-1.10, P = 0.999). However, untreated proximal LAD disease (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.06-1.51, P = 0.045) and RCA disease (HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.08-1.65, P = 0.007) was associated with increased mortality, particularly in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of unselected patients undergoing PCI, complete revascularization did not confer a mortality benefit. However, the presence of untreated proximal LAD and RCA disease was prognostic in patients with STEACS. Thus, complete revascularization may be considered in select patient groups with anatomical subsets of coronary disease.

Revascularization Strategies in STEMI with Multivessel Disease: Deciding on Culprit Versus Complete-Ad Hoc or Staged

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will address the clinical conundrum of those who may derive clinical benefit from complete revascularization of coronary stenosis that are discovered at the time of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The decision to revascularize additional vessels with angiographic stenosis beyond the culprit lesion remains controversial, as does the timing of revascularization.

RECENT FINDINGS

STEMI patients represent a high-risk patient population that have up to a 50% prevalence of multivessel disease. Multivessel disease represents an important risk factor for short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Potential benefits of multivessel PCI for STEMI might include reduced short- and long-term mortality, revascularization, reduced resource utilization, and costs. Which population will benefit and what the optimal timing of revascularization in the peri-MI period remains controversial. Consideration of multivessel revascularization in the setting of STEMI may occur in up to one half of STEMI patients. Evaluation of the comorbidities including diabetes, extent of myocardium at risk, lesion complexity, ventricular function, and risk factors for complications such as contrast induced nephropathy which is important in determining the appropriate care pathway.

Complete versus culprit only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction-a perspective on recent trials and recommendations

The presence of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is strongly associated with higher 30-day mortality, reduced myocardial reperfusion success, reinfarction, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year compared with single-vessel CAD. Despite higher morbidity and mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and coexistent multivessel CAD, major guidelines recommended against percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on non-culprit lesions at the time of primary PCI in patients with STEMI who are hemodynamically stable. The presence of multivessel CAD often poses a therapeutic dilemma for interventional cardiologists. A few larger scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have been conducted. The conclusions regarding multivessel PCI generally trend towards lower risk of MACE, repeat revascularization, with similar risks of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality. However, none of the RCTs were adequately powered for hard outcomes of death and MI.