Comparison of infarct-related artery vs multivessel revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: analysis from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Selected patients with obstructive coronary artery disease benefit from revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Many (but not all) studies have demonstrated increased survival and greater freedom from adverse cardiovascular events after complete revascularization (CR) than after incomplete revascularization (ICR) in patients with multivessel disease. However, achieving CR after PCI or CABG surgery might not be feasible owing to patient comorbidities, anatomical factors, and technical or procedural considerations. These factors also mean that comparisons between CR and ICR are subject to multiple confounders and are difficult to understand or apply to real-world clinical practice. In this Review, we summarize and critically appraise the evidence linking various types of ICR to adverse outcomes in patients with multivessel disease and stable ischaemic heart disease, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with or without cardiogenic shock. In addition, we provide practical recommendations for revascularization in patients with high-risk multivessel disease to optimize their long-term clinical outcomes and identify areas requiring future clinical investigation.

Metaanalysis of Multivessel vs Culprit Artery Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most frequently used treatment modality for patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Current professional society guidelines recommend culprit artery only PCI. Recent evidence suggests the potential benefit of multivessel PCI among patients with STEMI that is not complicated by cardiogenic shock. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical studies of patients with STEMI, not complicated by cardiogenic shock, who underwent primary PCI between January 1966 and January 2018. We evaluated all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization among patients randomized to a multivessel PCI strategy compared to a culprit artery only PCI strategy. Results: Four randomized clinical trials with a total of 1,044 patients met the inclusion criteria. Five hundred and sixty-six patients underwent multivessel PCI, and 478 patients underwent culprit artery only PCI. Multivessel PCI reduced all the studied endpoints: total death, cardiac death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization (all P values <0.05). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials studying multivessel PCI vs culprit artery only PCI in STEMI patients without shock, among whom lesion severity was graded by angiography alone. We found that compared to culprit artery only PCI, the multivessel PCI strategy was beneficial in reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction, and the need for repeat revascularization.

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.

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.

Culprit-only versus staged complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and Multivessel disease: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Multivessel disease (MVD) is common in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but optimal treatment management remains undetermined.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, 602 consecutive STEMI patients with MVD were enrolled between January 1, 2010 and October 1, 2014. Three hundred and eighty-two patients underwent culprit-only revascularization and 220 underwent staged complete revascularization. Primary end points were a composite of cardiac mortality or nonfatal reinfarction.

Results

The mean duration of follow-up was 35 months (12–71 months). Following multivariate analysis, staged complete revascularization was associated with a lower rate of the composite of cardiac mortality or nonfatal reinfarction [HR: 0.430, 95 % CI: 0.197–0.940, P = 0.034] and unplanned repeat revascularization [HR: 0.343, 95 % CI: 0.166–0.708, P = 0.004] compared with culprit-only revascularization.

Conclusions

Compared with culprit-only revascularization, staged complete revascularization significantly reduced the rate of the composite of cardiac mortality or nonfatal reinfarction, and the need for unplanned repeat revascularization.

Management of Multivessel Coronary Disease in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Primary PCI of infarct-related arteries is the preferred reperfusion strategy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Up to 40 % of such patients demonstrate evidence of multivessel, non-infarct-related artery coronary disease. Previous non-randomised observational studies and their associated meta-analyses have suggested that in such cases only the culprit infarct-related artery (IRA) lesion should be treated. However, recent randomised controlled trials have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes with lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rates when complete revascularisation is undertaken either at index primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) or during index admission. These trials suggest that current guidelines pertaining to treatment of non-infarct-related artery (N-IRA) lesions in STEMI patients with multivessel disease may need to be reconsidered depending on future trials. However, issues remain around timing of N-IRA intervention, the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular imaging to guide intervention in N-IRA lesions and the need to demonstrate reductions in hard clinical endpoints (death and MI) after complete revascularisation; these issues will need to be addressed through future trials. Clinicians must judge on the currently available data, whether it is still safer to leave important stenosis in N-IRA untreated.

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

In 30-60 % of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), significant stenoses are present in one or more non-infarct-related arteries (IRA). This correlates with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Current guidelines, do not recommend revascularization of non-culprit lesions unless complicated by cardiogenic shock or persistent ischemia after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Prior observational and small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Recently, randomized studies (PRAMI, CvLPRIT, and DANAMI 3-PRIMULTI) provide encouraging data that suggest potential benefit with complete revascularization in STEMI patients with obstructive non-culprit lesions. Differently, in the PRAGUE-13 trial there were no differences in MACE between complete revascularization and culprit-only PCI. Several meta-analyses were recently published including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, showing different results depending on the included trials. In conclusion, the current available evidence from the randomized clinical trials, with a total sample size of only 2000 patients, is not robust enough to firmly recommend complete revascularization in STEMI patients. This uncertainty lends support to the continuation of the COMPLETE trial. This ongoing trial is anticipated to enroll 3900 patients with STEMI from across the world, and will be powered for the hard outcomes of death and myocardial infarction. Until the results of the COMPLETE trial are reported, physicians need to individualize care regarding the opportunity and the timing of the non-IRA PCI.

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.

Impact of multivessel revascularization on health status outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Up to 65% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). Long-term health status of STEMI patients after multivessel revascularization is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the relationship between multivessel revascularization and health status outcomes (symptoms and quality of life [QoL]) in STEMI patients with MVCAD.

METHODS

Using a U.S. myocardial infarction registry and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), we determined the health status of patients with STEMI and MVCAD at the time of STEMI and 1 year later. We assessed the association of multivessel revascularization during index hospitalization with 1-year health status using multivariable linear regression analysis, and also examined demographic, clinical, and angiographic factors associated with multivessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Among 664 STEMI patients with MVCAD, 251 (38%) underwent multivessel revascularization. Most revascularizations were staged during the index hospitalization (64.1%), and 8.0% were staged after discharge, with 27.9% performed during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Multivessel revascularization was associated with age and more diseased vessels. At 1 year, multivessel revascularization was independently associated with improved symptoms (4.5 points higher SAQ angina frequency score; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0 to 7.9) and QoL (6.6 points higher SAQ QoL score; 95% CI: 2.7 to 10.6). One-year mortality was not different between those who did and did not undergo multivessel revascularization (3.6% vs. 3.4%; log-rank test p = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel revascularization improved angina and QoL in STEMI patients with MVCAD. Patient-centered outcomes should be considered in future trials of multivessel revascularization.

Early occlusion of the non-infarct-related coronary artery following successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction

We present a clinical case of early occlusion of the non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA) in a patient with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Several hours after successful percutaneous treatment of the occluded right coronary artery the patient developed a second myocardial infarction, which was caused by acute occlusion of the left anterior descending artery, which had a significant lesion in the proximal segment. The lesion was diagnosed during the first catheterization, but was left untreated. We discuss the potential advantages and risks associated with the ad-hoc multivessel PCI strategy in STEMI.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Current guidelines recommend against revascularization of the noninfarct artery during the index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This was based largely on observational studies with few data coming from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Recently, several small-to-moderate sized RCTs have provided data, suggesting that a multivessel revascularization approach may be appropriate. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV PCI) versus culprit vessel-only revascularization (COR) during primary PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVCD). We searched Medline, PubMed, and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing MV PCI versus COR in patients with STEMI and MVCD. The incidence of all-cause death, cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and revascularization during follow-up were extracted. Four RCTs fit our primary selection criteria. Among these, 566 patients underwent MV PCI (either at the time of the primary PCI or as a staged procedure) and 478 patients underwent COR. During long-term follow-up (range 1 to 2.5 years), combined data indicated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36 to 0.92, p = 0.02) and in cardiac death (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.73, p = 0.004) with MV PCI. In addition, there was a significantly lower risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75; p = 0.004) and future revascularization (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52; p <0.00001). In conclusion, from the RCT data, MV PCI appears to improve outcomes in patients with STEMI and MVCD.

The scientific achievements of the decades in Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

The Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) was the first nationwide registry data collection designed to track outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). These studies reflect the current therapeutic approaches and management for AMI in Korea. The results of KAMIR could help clinicians to predict the prognosis of their patients and identify better diagnostic and treatment tools to improve the quality of care. The KAMIR score was proposed to be a predictor of the prognosis of AMI patients. Triple antiplatelet therapy, consisting of aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol, was effective at preventing major adverse clinical outcomes. Drug-eluting stents were effective and safe in AMI patients with no increased risk of stent thrombosis. Statin therapy was effective in Korean AMI patients, including those with very low levels of low density cholesterol. The present review summarizes the 10-year scientific achievements of KAMIR from admission to outpatient care during long-term clinical follow-up.

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.