Culprit-Lesion-Only Versus Multivessel Revascularization Using Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-Based Analysis

Two-Year Clinical Outcomes Between Prediabetic and Diabetic Patients With STEMI and Multivessel Disease Who Underwent Successful PCI Using Drug-Eluting Stents

To evaluate clinical implication of prediabetes, we compared a 2-year major clinical outcome including patient-oriented composite outcomes (POCOs), stent thrombosis (ST), and stroke between prediabetes and diabetes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD). A total of 4097 patients with STEMI and MVD (normoglycemia [group A: 1001], prediabetes [group B: 1518], and diabetes [group C: 1578]) who received drug-eluting stents were evaluated. Patient-oriented composite outcomes were defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or any repeat revascularization. The cumulative incidences of POCOs, ST, and stroke were similar between groups B and C. The cumulative incidences of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.483; 95% CI: 1.027-2.143; P = .036) and all-cause death or MI (aHR: 1.429, 95% CI: 1.034-1.974; P = .031) were higher in group B than in group A. The cumulative incidences of all-cause death (aHR: 1.563; 95% CI: 1.089-2.243; P = .015), cardiac death (aHR: 1.661; 95% CI: 1.123-2.457; P = .011), and all-cause death or MI were higher in group C than in group A. In conclusion, prediabetes could potentially have a similar impact as diabetes on major clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI and MVD.

Impact of stent generation on 2-year clinical outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease who underwent culprit-only or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Data concerning the impact of stent generation on long-term outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with culprit-only PCI (C-PCI) or multivessel PCI (M-PCI) are limited.

METHODS

A total of 7,266 patients were separated into the two groups, a C-PCI (n = 4,901) or M-PCI group (n = 2,365). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization. The secondary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) at 2 years.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of MACE was significantly higher in the bare-metal stents (BMS) group than the first-generation (1G)-drug-eluting stents (DES) (C-PCI: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.940; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.389-2.709; p < .001; M-PCI: aHR, 1.544; 95% CI, 1.099-2.074; p = .038), and the second-generation (2G)-DES group (C-PCI: aHR, 2.271; 95% CI, 1.657-3.114; p < .001; M-PCI: aHR, 2.999; 95% CI, 1.899-4.704; p < .001). In the M-PCI group, 1G-DES showed a higher incidence of MACE compared with 2G-DES (aHR, 1.639; 95% CI, 1.028-2.614; p = .004). The cumulative incidences of ST in the both groups were similar.

CONCLUSION

The cumulative incidence of MACE was the lowest for 2G-DES, the highest for BMS, and intermediate for 1G-DES in the STEMI patients with MVD after C-PCI or M-PCI. However, cumulative incidence of ST in the two different reperfusion strategy groups was similar regardless of stent generation.

Angiography-guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Ischemia-guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Medical Therapy in the Management of Significant Disease in Non-Infarct-related Arteries in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Multivessel Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel (MV) disease, after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), emerging evidence suggests that significant disease in non-infarct-related coronary arteries (IRAs) should be routinely stented. Whether this procedure should be guided by angiography alone or ischemia testing is unclear.

METHODS

All STEMI patients treated with primary PCI between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2012, at a tertiary cardiology center were reviewed retrospectively. Inclusion criterion is patients with at least 70% stenosis in non-IRAs. There were 3 treatment groups: (1) angiography-guided MV-PCI, (2) ischemia-guided PCI, and (3) medical therapy. Primary endpoint is all-cause mortality, and secondary end point is major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including death, acute coronary syndrome, revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Event-free survivals were compared using multivariate Cox proportional-hazards analysis. A propensity score-adjusted analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty-seven STEMI patients had >70% stenosis in non-IRAs. For all-cause mortality, the 3 strategies did not differ. For MACE, ischemia-guided PCI was associated with the lowest MACE rate, followed by angiography-guided PCI and medical therapy, which was associated with the highest MACE rate, driven by death and myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) for MACE: angiography-guided MV-PCI versus ischemia-guided MV-PCI: HR = 2.23 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-4.48; P = 0.023]; medical therapy versus angiography-guided MV-PCI: HR = 1.58 (95% CI, 0.99-2.63; P = 0.062); medical therapy versus ischemia-guided MV-PCI: HR = 1.72 (95% CI, 1.08-2.74; P = 0.022). Propensity score-adjusted analysis yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

After primary PCI, complete revascularization in STEMI multivessel disease is associated with lower MACE rates than medical therapy. However, ischemia-testing-guided rather than angiography-guided revascularization was associated with the lowest MACE. This study provides preliminary data and hypotheses for future randomized controlled studies.

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.

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.

Clinical Significance of Reciprocal ST-segment Changes in Patients With STEMI: A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the association of reciprocal change in the ST-segment with myocardial injury assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

We performed CMR imaging in 244 patients who underwent primary PCI for their first STEMI; CMR was performed a median 3 days after primary PCI. The first electrocardiogram was analyzed, and patients were stratified according to the presence of reciprocal change. The primary outcome was infarct size measured by CMR. Secondary outcomes were area at risk and myocardial salvage index.

RESULTS

Patients with reciprocal change (n=133, 54.5%) had a lower incidence of anterior infarction (27.8% vs 71.2%, P < .001) and shorter symptom onset to balloon time (221.5±169.8 vs 289.7±337.3min, P=.042). Using a multiple linear regression model, we found that patients with reciprocal change had a larger area at risk (P=.002) and a greater myocardial salvage index (P=.04) than patients without reciprocal change. Consequently, myocardial infarct size was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P=.14). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events, including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and repeat coronary revascularization, was similar between the 2 groups after 2 years of follow-up (P=.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Reciprocal ST-segment change was associated with larger extent of ischemic myocardium at risk and more myocardial salvage but not with final infarct size or adverse clinical outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.

Reverse Left Ventricular Remodelling in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Incidence, Predictors, and Impact on Outcome

BACKGROUD

We investigated reverse left ventricular remodelling (r-LVR), defined as a reduction of >10% in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) during follow-up, in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

METHODS

STEMI patients (n=1,237) undergoing PPCI with echocardiography at baseline and 6-month follow-up were classified into r-LVR (n=466) and no r-LVR groups (n=771). The primary outcome was composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, any revascularisation).

RESULTS

r-LVR occurred in 466 patients (37.7%) and was associated with maximum troponin, door-to-balloon time, direct arrival to PPCI-capable hospital, coronary disease extent, initial left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and LVESV. After propensity score (PS)-matching, initial LVEF and LVESV remained significant. During a median 403-day follow-up, 2-year MACE occurred in 166 patients (13.4%); its frequency was similar between groups (entire cohort: 13.5% vs. 13.4%, p=0.247; PS-matched: 11.8% vs. 11.8%, p=0.987). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that MACE-free survival was comparable between groups (entire cohort: 86.5% vs. 86.6%, log rank p=0.939; PS-matched: 88.2% vs. 88.2%, log rank p=0.867). In Cox proportional hazard analysis, r-LVR was not associated with MACE (entire cohort: hazard ratio [HR] 1.018, 95% confidential interval [CI] 0.675-1.534, p=0.934; PS-matched: HR 1.001, 95% CI 0.578-1.731, p=0.999).

CONCLUSION

We identified independent predictors of r-LVR and showed that while r-LVR occurred in 38% of our patients, it was not associated with clinical outcomes.

MH, Zarich SW, Osho AA, Gluud C, Kelbæk H, Engstrøm T, Høfsten DE, Brennan JM. Complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi-vessel disease

BACKGROUND

Multi-vessel coronary disease in people with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is common and is associated with worse prognosis after STEMI. Based on limited evidence, international guidelines recommend intervention on only the culprit vessel during STEMI. This, in turn, leaves other significantly stenosed coronary arteries for medical therapy or revascularisation based on inducible ischaemia on provocative testing. Newer data suggest that intervention on both the culprit and non-culprit stenotic coronary arteries (complete intervention) may yield better results compared with culprit-only intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of early complete revascularisation compared with culprit vessel only intervention strategy in people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 4 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched conference proceedings to December 2016, and contacted authors and companies related to the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), wherein complete revascularisation strategy was compared with a culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the methodological quality of each trial using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We resolved the disagreements by discussion among review authors. We followed standard methodological approaches recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were long-term (one year or greater after the index intervention) all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were short-term (within the first 30 days after the index intervention) all-cause mortality, short-term cardiovascular mortality, short-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularisation, health-related quality of life, and cost. We analysed data using fixed-effect models, and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence and we conducted Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control risks of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs, that involved 2633 people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease randomly assigned to either a complete (n = 1381) versus culprit-only (n = 1252) revascularisation strategy. The complete and the culprit-only revascularisation strategies did not differ for long-term all-cause mortality (65/1274 (5.1%) in complete group versus 72/1143 (6.3%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; participants = 2417; studies = 8; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). Compared with culprit-only intervention, the complete revascularisation strategy was associated with a lower proportion of long-term cardiovascular mortality (28/1143 (2.4%) in complete group versus 51/1086 (4.7%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; participants = 2229; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence) and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (47/1095 (4.3%) in complete group versus 70/1004 (7.0%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.89; participants = 2099; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). The complete and the culprit-only revascularisation strategies did not differ in combined adverse events (51/2096 (2.4%) in complete group versus 57/1990 (2.9%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; participants = 4086; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). Complete revascularisation was associated with lower proportion of long-term revascularisation (145/1374 (10.6%) in complete group versus 258/1242 (20.8%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; participants = 2616; studies = 9; I2 = 31%; very low quality evidence). TSA of long-term all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction showed that more RCTs are needed to reach more conclusive results on these outcomes. Regarding long-term repeat revascularisation more RCTs may not change our present result. The quality of the evidence was judged to be very low for all primary and the majority of the secondary outcomes mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with culprit-only intervention, the complete revascularisation strategy may be superior due to lower proportions of long-term cardiovascular mortality, long-term revascularisation, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, but these findings are based on evidence of very low quality. TSA also supports the need for more RCTs in order to draw stronger conclusions regarding the effects of complete revascularisation on long-term all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction.

Immediate multivessel revascularization may increase cardiac death and myocardial infarction in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: data analysis from real world practice

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The best revascularization strategy for patients with both acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) is still debatable. We aimed to compare the outcomes of multivessel revascularization (MVR) with those of culprit-only revascularization (COR).

METHODS

A cohort of 215 consecutive patients who had received primary angioplasty for STEMI and MVD were divided into two groups according to whether angioplasty had been also performed for a stenotic nonculprit artery. The primary endpoint was one-year major adverse cardiac events defined as a composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

One-year major adverse cardiac events were not significantly different between MVR (n = 107) and COR (n = 108) groups. However, the one-year composite hard endpoint of cardiac death or recurrent myocardial infarction was notably increased in the MVR group compared to the COR group (20.0% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.024). In subgroup analysis, the hard endpoint was significantly more frequent in the immediate than in the staged MVR subgroup (26.6% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.036). The propensity score-matched cohorts confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI and MVD, MVR, especially immediate MVR with primary percutaneous intervention, was not beneficial and led to worse outcomes. Therefore, we conclude that COR or staged MVR would be better strategies for patients with STEMI and MVD.

Managing Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Comprehensive Review

Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is found in up to 60% of the patients presenting with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and worsens the prognosis proportional to the extent of CAD severity. However, the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association STEMI guidelines, based on mostly observational data, had recommended against a routine noninfarct-related artery percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). After these guidelines were published, a handful of randomized trials became available, and they suggested that PCI of significant lesions in a noninfarct-related artery at the time of primary PCI might result in improved patient outcomes. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events was significantly reduced by 55% at 1 year and 65% at 2 years in patients undergoing angiographically guided PCI of nonculprit vessels at the time of primary PCI, in 2 different randomized trials. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI of nonculprit vessels in this setting has also been shown to reduce cardiac events by 44% at 1 year. Meta-analyses of both nonrandomized and randomized trials have also suggested that complete revascularization at the time of STEMI significantly improves outcomes, including long-term all-cause mortality. In view of the emerging data, a focused update on primary PCI was published in 2015 and suggested that PCI of noninfarct-related arteries might be considered in selected patients. This article is a comprehensive review of the literature on the treatment of multivessel CAD in patients with STEMI, which provides the reader a critical analysis of the available information to determine the best therapeutic approach.

Prognostic Significance of Presenting Blood Pressure in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the impact of normal vs. high presenting blood pressure (BP) on clinical outcomes and cardiac function in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI).

METHODS

In 11,292 patients, in-hospital mortality and major adverse clinical events (MACE; all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or any revascularization) during follow-up were compared between patients with normal (≥ 100 mm Hg and ≤ 139 mm Hg) and high (≥ 140 mm Hg) systolic BP at presentation.

RESULTS

Compared to patients with high BP, patients with normal BP had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs. 3.7%; P < 0.001), especially in those with prior hypertension, and higher rates of all-cause death (3.3% vs. 5.3%; P < 0.001) and MACE (9.8% vs. 11.8%; P = 0.04) during follow-up (median: 330 days). After multivariate adjustment, normal BP was associated with higher risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.268; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.144-4.498; P = 0.019), but not all-cause death (adjusted HR = 0.956; 95% CI = 0.602-1.517) or MACE (adjusted HR = 0.935; 95% CI = 0.755-1.158). Left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline and follow-up was significantly lower in patients with normal BP (52% vs. 51%; P < 0.001 and 55% vs. 54%; P = 0.018, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that patients with normal presenting BP, especially those with prior hypertension, exhibit higher in-hospital mortality and poorer cardiac function compared to patients with high BP. Although outcomes during follow-up did not differ, cardiac function was persistently poorer in patients who presented with normal BP.

Association of beta-blocker therapy at discharge with clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the association of beta-blocker therapy at discharge with clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the efficacy of beta-blocker therapy for secondary prevention in STEMI patients.

METHODS

Between November 1, 2005 and September 30, 2010, 20,344 patients were enrolled in nationwide, prospective, multicenter registries. Among these, we studied STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI who were discharged alive (n = 8,510). We classified patients into the beta-blocker group (n = 6,873) and no-beta-blocker group (n = 1,637) according to the use of beta-blockers at discharge. Propensity-score matching analysis was also performed in 1,325 patient triplets. The primary outcome was all-cause death.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration was 367 days (interquartile range: 157 to 440 days). All-cause death occurred in 146 patients (2.1%) of the beta-blocker group versus 59 patients (3.6%) of the no-beta-blocker group (p < 0.001). After 2:1 propensity-score matching, beta-blocker therapy was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause death (2.8% vs. 4.1%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 0.78, p = 0.004). The association with better outcome of beta-blocker therapy in terms of all-cause death was consistent across various subgroups, including patients with relatively low-risk profiles such as ejection fraction >40% or single-vessel disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker therapy at discharge was associated with improved survival in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. Our results support the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which recommend long-term beta-blocker therapy in all patients with STEMI regardless of reperfusion therapy or risk profile.

Effect of revascularization strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and renal insufficiency with multivessel disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the risk of complications and outcome between infarct-related artery (IRA)-only revascularization and multivessel (MV) revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) with renal insufficiency and MV disease.

METHODS

A total of 1,031 acute MI patients with renal insufficiency and MV disease who were registered in the Korea Working Group on Myocardial Infarction were enrolled. They were divided into two groups (IRA-only revascularization group, n = 404; MV revascularization group, n = 627), and investigated the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and the incidence of complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

RESULTS

Complications after PCI occurred in 19.9% of all patients (206/1,031). Complications after PCI occurred more frequently in the MV revascularization group compared with the IRA-only revascularization group (20.1% [126/627] vs. 15.3% [62/404], respectively; p = 0.029]. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 6.3%, and there was no significant difference between the groups (5.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group vs. 7.0% in the MV revascularization group; p = 0.241). The total incidence of MACE was 11.1%, and there was no significant difference between the groups (11.6% in the IRA-only revascularization group vs. 10.7% in the MV revascularization group; p = 0.636).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of complications after PCI was significantly lower in the IRA-only revascularization group compared with the MV revascularization group. However, there were no significant difference in the 12-month outcomes between groups in patients with acute MI and renal insufficiency with MV disease.

Current Status of Coronary Intervention in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a standard interventional treatment modality for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Diagnostic coronary angiogram during PCI reveals multivessel coronary artery disease in about half of patients with STEMI, and it is difficult to make decision on the extent of intervention in these patients. Although revascularization for the infarct-related artery only is still effective for STEMI patients, several studies have reported the efficacy of multivessel revascularization during primary PCI, as well as in a staged PCI procedure. Clinicians should consider clinical aspects such as initial cardiogenic shock and myocardial viability when performing primary multivessel intervention, including the risks and benefits of multivessel revascularization in patients undergoing primary PCI. This review describes the current status of performing multivessel PCI in patients with STEMI and proposes an optimal revascularization strategy based on the previous literature.

Impact of completeness of revascularization by coronary intervention on exercise capacity early after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Background

The importance of achieving complete revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) on exercise capacity remains unclear.

Objective

To compare exercise capacity early after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), in patients receiving PCI with stenting, between those completely revascularized (CR) and those incompletely revascularized (IR).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 326 patients [single-vessel disease (SVD) group, 118 patients; multivessel disease (MVD) with CR group, 112 patients; MVD with IR group, 96 patients] who underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing 7–30 days after STEMI to measure peak oxygen uptake (VO_2peak), oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold (VO_2AT), and peak oxygen pulse. Demographic data, presence of concomitant diseases, STEMI characteristics, and echocardiography and angiography findings were evaluated.

Results

Most patients were male (89.0%) and mean age was 55.6 ± 11.2 years. Ischemic ST deviation occurred in 7.1%, with no significant difference between groups. VO_2peak and VO_2AT did not differ significantly between groups, despite a trend to be lower in the CR and IR groups compared with the SVD group. Peak oxygen pulse was significantly higher in the SVD group than in the IR group (p = 0.005). After adjustment for age, gender, body mass index, cardiovascular risk factors, MI characteristics and echocardiography parameters, CR was not an independent predictor of VO_2peak (OR = −0.123, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.986 to 0.232, p = 0.093), VO_2AT (OR = 0.002, 95% CI 1.735 to 1.773, p = 0.983), or peak oxygen pulse (OR = −0.102, 95% CI −1.435 to 0.105, p = 0.090).

Conclusion

CR in patients with STEMI treated with PCI for multivessel disease might show no benefit on short-term exercise tolerance over IR.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for nonculprit vessels in cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the clinical impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with multivessel disease.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicenter, observational study.

SETTING

Cardiac ICU of a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Between November 2005 and September 2010, 338 patients were selected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and 2) multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the infarct-related artery. Patients were divided into multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention and culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Median follow-up duration was 224 days (interquartile range, 46-383 d). Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was performed during the primary percutaneous coronary intervention in 60 patients (17.8%). In-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention vs culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention, 31.7% vs 24.5%; p = 0.247). All-cause mortality during follow-up was not significantly different between the two groups after adjusting for patient, angiographic, and procedural characteristics as well as propensity scores for receiving multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (35.0% vs 30.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.61-1.86; p = 0.831). There were no significant differences between the groups in rates of major adverse cardiac events (41.7% vs 37.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.62-1.71; p = 0.908) and any revascularization (6.7% vs 4.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.51-6.89; p = 0.344).

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention could not reduce the prevalence of mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Impact of white blood cell count on myocardial salvage, infarct size, and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a magnetic resonance imaging study

We sought to determine the relationship between white blood cell count (WBCc) and infarct size assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In 198 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, WBCc was measured upon arrival and CMR was performed a median of 7 days after the index event. Infarct size was measured on delayed enhancement imaging and the area at risk (AAR) was quantified on T2-weighted images. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the high WBCc group (>11,000/mm(3), n = 91) and low WBCc group (≤11,000/mm(3), n = 107). The median infarct size was larger in the high WBCc group than in the low WBCc group [22.0% (16.7-33.9) vs. 14.7% (8.5-24.7), p < 0.01]. Compared with the low WBCc group, the high WBCc group had a greater extent of AAR and a smaller myocardial salvage index [MSI = (AAR-infarct size)/AAR × 100]. The major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including cardiac death, nonfatal reinfarction, and rehospitalization for congestive heart failure at 12-month occurred more frequently in the high WBCc group (12.1 vs. 0.9%, p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, high WBCc significantly increased the risk of a large infarct (OR 3.04 95% CI 1.65-5.61, p < 0.01), a low MSI (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.13-3.86, p = 0.02), and 1-year MACE (OR 16.0, 95% CI 1.89-134.5, p = 0.01). In patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, an elevated baseline WBCc is associated with less salvaged myocardium, larger infarct size and poorer clinical outcomes.

Effects of trimetazidine in patients with acute myocardial infarction: data from the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

BACKGROUND

Excess myocardial fatty acid oxidation can cause a range of deleterious myocardial effects. Trimetazidine (TMZ) is a clinically effective antianginal agent that selectively inhibits long-chain 3-ketoacyl CoA thiolase, reducing fatty acid oxidation and stimulating glucose oxidation. The role of TMZ in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), however, remains unclear. Our retrospective analysis explores the effect on clinical outcomes of adding TMZ to standard treatment in patients with AMI.

METHODS

All 13,733 AMI patients registered in the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry from 2005 to 2008 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups: those treated with TMZ during their in-hospital management period and those who were not. Primary endpoints were all-cause death combined in-hospital and 12-month death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which included all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), repeated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for target lesion revascularization (TLR), and coronary artery bypass graft. Propensity-matched patients were analyzed using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics in the TMZ and no-TMZ groups were generally similar, with the exceptions of pre-PCI thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade, stent type, and stent length. Over 12 months, the relative risk of all-cause death fell by 59 % (event rate 2.3 vs. 6.4 %; hazard ratio 0.41, 95 % CI 0.18-0.97, P = 0.042) and the relative risk of MACE fell by 76 % (event rate 2.3 vs. 9.5 %; hazard ratio 0.24, 95 % CI 0.10-0.56, P = 0.001) in the TMZ group compared with those in the no-TMZ group.

CONCLUSIONS

Trimetazidine appeared to improve clinical outcomes in AMI patients by significantly reducing all-cause mortality and MACE over 12 months.

How Should We Treat Multi-Vessel Disease in STEMI Patients?

OPINION STATEMENT

Primary angioplasty of the culprit coronary artery lesion is the preferred reperfusion strategy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when timely access to a catheterization laboratory is available. The presence of multi-vessel disease (MVD) in patients undergoing primary PCI is common, occurring in about 40 %-50 % of patients. The presence of MVD in patients who have undergone successful primary PCI substantially increases the risks of mortality and major adverse cardiac events, such as reinfarction or need for urgent revascularization. The current evidence supporting revascularization of non-culprit lesions is sparse, with no large, adequately powered randomized trials to guide clinical practice. An analysis combining observational data and small randomized trials suggests that complete revascularization with PCI to significant non-culprit lesions may afford a benefit compared with medical management alone. However, this benefit appears to be confined to when revascularization is performed as a separate, staged procedure. By contrast, when non-culprit lesion PCI is performed during the initial primary PCI procedure, the risk of death or cardiovascular events is higher than medical management alone or to staged revascularization. A large, adequately powered randomized trial is urgently needed to determine whether routine staged PCI plus optimal medical therapy is superior to optimal medical therapy alone for significant non-culprit coronary artery lesions in patients who have undergone successful primary PCI for STEMI.