Culprit vessel vs. immediate multivessel vs. out-of-hospital staged intervention for patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

Background and aims

The optimal interventional strategy remains undetermined in hemodynamically stable patients with NSTEMI and MVD. This study aimed to examine clinical prognosis among culprit vessel, immediate multivessel, and staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with NSTEMI and MVD.

Methods

This retrospective, observational, single-center study included 943 hemodynamically stable patients with NSTEMI and MVD who had undergone successful drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation from January 2014 to December 2019. Patients were categorized into culprit lesion-only PCI (CL-PCI), immediate multivessel PCI (MV-PCI), and out-of-hospital staged MV-PCI according to PCI strategy. The primary outcome was the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or unplanned repeat revascularization. The secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, and unplanned repeat revascularization.

Results

Over a median follow-up of 59 months, immediate MV-PCI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death than CL-PCI (HR: 0.591, 95%CI: 0.364-0.960, P = 0.034). Out-of-hospital staged MV-PCI was associated with a reduced risk of MACE (HR: 0.448, 95%CI: 0.314-0.638, P < 0.001) and all-cause death (HR: 0.326, 95%CI: 0.183-0.584, P < 0.001) compared with CL-PCI. The above results were accordant after multivariate COX analysis and propensity score matching. MACE (HR: 0.560, 95%CI: 0.385-0.813, P = 0.002) and repeat revascularization (HR: 0.627, 95%CI: 0.400-0.982, P = 0.041) were significantly less likely to occur with out-of-hospital MV-PCI rather than immediate MV-PCI. However, the incidences of primary and secondary outcomes were comparable between immediate and staged PCI after confounder adjustment using multivariate regression and propensity score matching analysis. For subgroup analyses stratified by synergy between PCI with taxus and cardiac surgery score, staged MV-PCI was found to lower the risk of MACE compared with immediate MV-PCI in patients with more complex coronary disease.

Conclusion

Hemodynamically stable patients with NSTEMI and MVD benefited from the strategy of MV-PCI. Patients with complex coronary anatomy treated with out-of-hospital staged MV-PCI rather than immediate MV-PCI had lower risks of MACE. These need to be confirmed in the future randomized study.

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.

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.

Complete Revascularization Versus Treatment of the Culprit Artery Only in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter Registry

Fundamento

São restritos os dados sobre o manejo e o prognóstico dos pacientes com infarto agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST (IAMCSST) com acometimento multiarterial no Brasil, o que mostra a necessidade de investigar as estratégias de revascularização disponíveis.

Objetivo

Avaliar os desfechos relacionados à revascularização completa em comparação com o tratamento da artéria culpada em pacientes multiarteriais com IAMCSST.

Métodos

Foi realizada um estudo de coorte prospectiva em dois centros de hemodinâmica do Sul do Brasil, com seguimento de 1 ano após a intervenção índice. O desfecho primário foi composto de óbito cardiovascular, reinfarto ou angina recorrente e secundários acidente vascular encefálico, parada cardiorrespiratória não fatal, sangramento maior ou necessidade de reintervenção. A probabilidade de ocorrência de desfechos foi comparada entre os grupos através de regressão logística binária. Considerou-se como estatisticamente significativo o valor de probabilidade < 0,05.

Resultados

Participaram 85 pacientes, com média de idade de 62±12 anos, sendo 61 (71,8%) do sexo masculino. Cinquenta e oito (68,2%) pacientes receberam a estratégia de revascularização completa e 27 (31,8%), a de revascularização incompleta. A chance de ocorrência tanto do desfecho primário quanto do secundário foi significativamente maior entre os indivíduos tratados com revascularização incompleta quando comparados com os tratados com estratégia completa [razão de chances (OR) 5,1, intervalo de confiança de 95% (IC95%) 1,6-16,1 vs. OR 5,2, IC95% 1,2-22,9, respectivamente], assim como os óbitos cardiovasculares (OR 6,4, IC95% 1,2-35,3).

Conclusão

Dados deste registro regional, de dois centros do Sul do Brasil, demonstram que a estratégia de revascularização completa esteve associada à redução significativa dos desfechos primário e secundário no seguimento de 1 ano quando comparada à estratégia de revascularização incompleta. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(2):229-237)

Percutaneous complete revascularization strategies using sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stents in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease: Rationale and design of the BIOVASC trial

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization in patients with an acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease is superior compared to culprit-only treatment. However, it is unknown whether direct complete or staged complete revascularization should be pursued.

METHODS

The BIOVASC study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized, 2-arm, international, open-label, noninferiority trial. We will randomize 1,525 patients 1:1 to immediate complete revascularization (experimental arm) or culprit-only plus staged complete revascularization (control arm). Patients will be enrolled in approximately 30 sites in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (excluding staged procedures in the control arm at the predetermined time), and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year post index procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The BIOVASC study aims to further refine the treatment algorithm for acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease in terms of optimal timing for complete revascularization (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03621501).

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.

Culprit-only versus multivessel or complete versus incomplete revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention using newer-generation drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The long-term comparative results between culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI) and multivessel PCI (M-PCI) or those between complete revascularization (CR) and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) after successful newer-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are limited. Therefore, we compared the 2-year clinical outcomes in such patients.

METHODS

A total of 4588 patients with NSTEMI and MVD (C-PCI, n = 2055; M-PCI, n = 2533; CR, n = 2029; IR, n = 504) were evaluated. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction MI, and any repeat coronary revascularization. The secondary outcome was stent thrombosis (ST).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidences of the primary and secondary outcomes were similar in the three comparison groups (C-PCI vs. M-PCI, CR vs. IR, or CR vs. C-PCI). However, the cumulative incidence of non-target vessel revascularization (non-TVR) was higher in the C-PCI group than in the M-PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.011; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.942-3.985; p = 0.012), higher in the IR group than in the CR group (aHR: 2.051; 95% CI: 1.216-4.183; p = 0.043), and higher in the C-PCI group than in the CR group (aHR: 2.099; 95% CI: 1.237-3.564; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding the higher cumulative incidence of non-TVR, M-PCI and CR were preferred compared to C-PCI or IR in patients with NSTEMI and MVD. However, further randomized studies are required to confirm these findings.

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.

A score for decision making during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) is uncertain. This study was designed to develop a novel and simple tool for assessing an individualized and optimized PCI strategy in AMI patients with MVD.

METHODS

In total, 5,025 patients with AMI from nine centers at two universities were enrolled in the prospective Convergent Registry of Catholic and Chonnam University for Acute Myocardial Infarction (COREA-AMI) registry from January 2004 through December 2009. From among them, we selected 2,630 patients with MVD who were treated by culprit-only or multivessel (MV) PCI. We investigated major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during a 1-year clinical follow-up. Using a subgroup analysis, we extracted variables for use in the culprit only versus multivessel revascularization (CONVERSE) score, which showed a preference for MV PCI rather than culprit-only PCI for treating MVD.

RESULTS

The CONVERSE score was constructed using eight independent variables (1 point for each variable): age > 65 years, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, high Killip class (III or IV), low left ventricular ejection fraction (≤ 50%), low creatinine clearance (≤ 60 mL/min), high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (≥ 2.0 mg/L), and left anterior descending artery or left main as the nonculprit vessel. The incidence of MACEs increased linearly with the CONVERSE score. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the cutoff value was 3 points.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that patients with a CONVERSE score of 3 or more should undergo MV PCI.

Stenosis and revascularization of the coronary artery are associated with outcomes in presumed cardiogenic arrest survivors: A multi-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The emergent coronary angiography (CAG) is associated with better outcomes in CA survivors. However, the impact of severity and revascularization of coronary artery stenosis on outcomes in cardiac arrest (CA) survivors remains unclear.

METHODS

A total of 273 non-traumatic adult CA survivors who underwent emergent CAG from January 2011 to July 2017 were retrospectively recruited. The stenosis and non-revascularization of an individual coronary artery ≥70% were defined as significant in any of the major coronary arteries based on an operator visual estimate.

RESULTS

There were 201 patients (73.63%) had ≧1 significant coronary artery stenosis and 58 patients (21.25%) with ≧1 non-revascularized coronary artery. The increased number of stenosed coronary artery was associated with an increased risk for in-hospital mortality [1-vessel: adjusted hazard ration (HR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.43-4.04, p = 0.021; 2-vessel: adjusted HR 5.49, 95% CI=2.17-13.89, p < 0.001; 3-vessel: adjusted HR 11.05, 95% CI=4.20-29.04, p < 0.001)] and poor neurological recovery (cerebral performance category = 3-5) [(1-vessel: adjusted odds ration (OR) 1.66, 95% CI 0.67-4.15, =0.275; 2-vessel: adjusted OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.05-3.97, p = 0.045; 3-vessel: adjusted OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.25-8.15, p = 0.001)], which was positively correlated with the number of vessels. The incomplete revascularization were also associated with increased in-hospital mortality and poor neurological function in patients with ≧1vessel stenosis.

CONCLUSION

The severity and incomplete revascularization of coronary artery stenosis were associated with increased in-hospital mortality and poor neurological recovery in patients with presumed cardiogenic arrest.

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 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Nonculprit Vessel in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), the optimal timing of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of 753 STEMI patients with MVD who were treated by multivessel PCI in the Convergent Registry of Catholic and Chonnam University for Acute myocardial infarction (MI). Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the time from initial to staged PCI: group 1 (n=316, multivessel PCI performed during the index procedure), group 2 (n=360, staged PCI within 1 week), and group 3 (n=77, staged PCI after 1 week). The endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI, and repeat PCI during 3.4 years follow-up.

RESULTS

The incidence of composite MACEs was higher in group 3 than in group 1 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 3.18, p=0.031). However, the risk of MACEs in groups 1 and 2 was comparable (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.46, p=0.950). In multivariate logistic regression, independent predictors of 3-year MACEs were high Killip class (OR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.38 to 5.37, p=0.004), left ventricular ejection fraction <45% (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.06 to 2.32, p=0.024), and group 3 (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.06 to 3.18, p=0.009).

CONCLUSION

Deferred staged PCI after one week index PCI was associated with the highest MACE, as compared to both simultaneous multivessel PCI and early staged PCI <1 week.

Long-Term Outcome of Incomplete Revascularization After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe current practice regarding completeness of revascularization in patients with multivessel disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to investigate the association of incomplete revascularization (IR) with death, repeat revascularization, and myocardial infarction (MI) in a large nationwide registry.

BACKGROUND

The benefits of multivessel PCI are controversial.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2010 we identified 23,342 patients with multivessel disease in the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry) and merged data with official Swedish health data registries. IR was defined as any nontreated significant (60%) stenosis in a coronary artery supplying >10% of the myocardium.

RESULTS

Patients with IR (n = 15,165) were older, had more extensive coronary disease, and more often had ST-segment elevation MI at presentation than those with complete revascularization (CR) (n = 8,177). All-cause 1-year mortality, MI, and repeat revascularization were higher in IR than CR: 7.1% versus 3.8%, 10.4% versus 6.0%, and 20.5% versus 8.5%, respectively. Propensity score methodology was used in the adjusted analyses. Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the composite of death, MI, or repeat revascularization at 1 year was higher in IR than CR: 2.12 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.98 to 2.28; p < 0.0001). Adjusted HR for death and the combination of death/MI were 1.29 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.49; p = 0.0005) and 1.42 (95% CI: 1.30 to 1.56; p < 0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Incomplete revascularization at the time of hospital discharge in patients with multivessel disease undergoing PCI is associated with a high risk of recurrent 1-year adverse cardiac events.

Staged re-evaluation of non-culprit lesions in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: a retrospective study

Objective

It remains unknown whether complete revascularisation is optimally performed in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the index or at staged procedures. The aims of this study were to quantify the number of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in which non-culprit lesions needed further evaluation, to determine the consequence of the re-evaluation and to quantify adverse cardiac events during the waiting time for re-evaluation and intervention.

Methods

The study was observational and retrospective and included all patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI during 1 year at our centre.

Results

Among the 507 patients with STEMI, 374 were considered sufficiently treated with culprit lesion PCI only. Complete primary multivessel revascularisation was performed in 11 patients. Non-culprit lesion re-evaluation was planned for 122 patients (24%). Of these 122 patients, 3 patients died during their index admission. Follow-up data were not available for 3 patients. Among the 116 patients, 187 non-culprit lesions were re-evaluated and 77 patients (66.4%) underwent revascularisation with treatment of 119 lesions (63.3%). Re-evaluation was performed after a median of 30 days (25th centile: 9 days, 75th centile: 35 days). During the waiting time for re-evaluation, two patients underwent a new primary PCI due to stent thrombosis of the index culprit lesion.

Conclusions

Staged re-evaluation of non-culprit lesions observed in patients with STEMI was required in 24% of a primary PCI cohort. Intervention was performed in 66.4% of patients scheduled for re-evaluation. We observed no adverse events related to the non-culprit lesions during the waiting time for a staged re-evaluation or intervention.

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.

Clinical impact of non-culprit lesions on 1-year mortality in very elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome

Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions after primary PCI remains controversial in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We analyzed whether PCI for non-culprit lesions would be associated with a better long-term prognosis in very elderly (≥85 years) patients. This study included 91 consecutive patients with ACS (mean age, 88.2 ± 3.0, 52 % male). We investigated the association of residual lesions with 1-year mortality. Culprit lesions affected the left anterior descending artery (LAD) in 50 patients, the left circumflex artery (LCx) in 29, and the right coronary artery (RCA) in 31. Residual lesions affected LAD in 20 cases, LCx in 22, and RCA in 21 patients. Residual lesions in LAD were associated with a higher 1-year mortality (p = 0.013), whereas residual lesions in LCx or RCA were not (p = 0.547 and 0.473, respectively). A Cox regression model demonstrated that patients with residual lesions in LAD had an increased risk of 1-year mortality compared with those without residual lesions (hazard ratio, 2.39; 95 % confidence interval, 1.16-4.96; p = 0.019). Therefore, the option to not treat residual lesions in LAD of patients with PCI may be associated with a higher 1-year mortality. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Influence of multivessel disease with or without additional revascularization on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred treatment. In primary PCI patients with multivessel disease, it is unclear whether culprit vessel PCI only is the preferred treatment. We compared mortality among (1) STEMI patients with single-vessel disease and those with multivessel disease and (2) multivessel disease patients with and without additional revascularization of nonculprit lesions within 2 months after the index PCI.

METHODS

From January 2002 to June 2009, all patients presenting with STEMI and treated with primary PCI were identified from the Western Denmark Heart Registry, which covers a population of 3.0 million. The hazard ratio (HR) for death was estimated using a Cox regression model, controlling for potential confounding.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 8,822 patients: 4,770 (54.1%) had single-vessel disease and 4,052 (45.9%) had multivessel disease. Overall, 1-year cumulative mortality was 7.6%, and 7-year cumulative mortality was 24.0%. Multivessel disease was associated with higher 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.30-1.62], P < .001). Among patients with multivessel disease, lack of additional revascularization beyond the culprit lesion was associated with higher 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.50 [95% CI 1.25-1.80], P < .001). In patients with multivessel disease who underwent additional revascularization, 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.84-1.22], P = .89) was similar compared to patients with single-vessel disease.

CONCLUSION

In STEMI patients, multivessel disease was associated with a higher mortality compared to single-vessel disease. In multivessel disease patients, additional revascularization was associated with a higher survival compared with culprit vessel PCI only.

Management of multivessel coronary disease after primary angioplasty: staged reintervention versus optimized clinical treatment and two-year follow-up

Objective

In the clinical scenario of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction, several patients with multivessel coronary atherosclerotic disease are discharged without a defined strategy to monitor the residual atherosclerotic lesions. The clinical endpoints evaluated were cardiovascular death, symptoms of angina pectoris, rehospitalization for a new acute coronary syndrome, and the necessity of reintervention during the two-year follow-up.

Methods

This observational, prospective, and historical study included multivessel coronary atherosclerotic disease patients who were admitted to a tertiary care university hospital with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction and underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation only at the culprit lesion site; these patients were monitored in the outpatient clinic according to two treatments: the Clinical Group - CG (optimized pharmacological therapy associated with counseling for a healthy diet and cardiac rehabilitation) or the Intervention Group - IG (new staged percutaneous coronary intervention or surgical coronary artery bypass graft surgery combined with the previously prescribed treatment).

Results

Of 143 patients consecutively admitted with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction, 57 were eligible for the study (CG=44 and IG=13). Regarding the clinical endpoints, the cardiovascular death rate did not differ between the CG and IG. The symptom of angina pectoris and the rehospitalization rate for a new episode of acute coronary syndrome were accentuated in the CG (P=0.020 and P=0.049, respectively) mainly in individuals with evidence of ischemia evidenced by myocardial scintigraphy (P<0.001 and P=0.001, respectively) which culminated in an even greater need for reintervention (P=0.001) in this subgroup of patients.

Conclusion

The staged intervention was demonstrated to be safe and able to reduce angina pectoris and rehospitalization for a new episode of acute coronary syndrome. In addition, it decreases the likelihood of unplanned reinterventions of patients without ischemia evidenced by myocardial scintigraphy.

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.

Culprit vessel only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

Background

The best strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD), who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the acute phase, is not well established.

Objectives

Our goal was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (culprit PCI) with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) for treatment of patients with STEMI and MVD.

Methods

Pubmed, Elsevier, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing culprit PCI and MV-PCI strategies during the index procedure. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1 (Cochrane Center, Denmark).

Results

Four randomized and fourteen nonrandomized studies involving 39,390 patients were included. MV-PCI strategy is associated with an increased short-term mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77, p = 0.002), long-term mortality (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.74, p<0.001), and risk of renal dysfunction (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97, p = 0.03) compared with culprit PCI strategy, while it reduced the incidence of revascularization (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.80 to 3.90, p<0.001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis supports current guidelines which indicate that the non-culprit vessel should not be treated during the index procedure.