Long-term outcome in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease treated with culprit-only, immediate, or staged multivessel percutaneous revascularization strategies: Insights from the REAL registry

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

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

Culprit vessel only versus complete revascularization following thrombolysis in patients with ST elevation myocardial infraction and multivessel coronary artery disease - A prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The present study compares the treatment outcomes of only culprit vessel PCI and complete revascularization in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD) following thrombolysis.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective randomized study including a total of 108 patients presenting at a tertiary care center within 3-24 h post-thrombolysis and undergoing pharmacoinvasive PCI, and randomized into two groups: complete revascularization PCI group and culprit only PCI group. The primary outcomes were evaluated by cardiac mortality, repeat myocardial infarction (MI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and refractory angina. The secondary outcomes include repeat revascularization and safety outcomes namely contrast induced nephropathy (CIN), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and major bleeding were compared among both the groups at one year follow-up.

RESULTS

Complete revascularization PCI group and culprit only PCI group had 54 patients in each group. Left ventricular ejection fraction did not show significant difference at discharge (p = 1) but was significantly improved in complete revascularization PCI group (p = 0.001) at one year follow-up. Reduced number of outcomes with a significant difference in both the groups were seen for primary outcomes such as cardiac mortality (p = 0.01), repeat MI/ACS (p = 0.01) and refractory angina (p = 0.038) along with repeat revascularization (p = 0.001) at one year follow-up. Complete revascularization did not show any statistically significant difference for CIN (p = 0.567), CVA (p = 0.153) and major bleeding (p = 0.322) then culprit only revascularization group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with STEMI and MVD, complete revascularization was found more favourable in terms of primary and secondary outcomes compared to culprit only revascularization.

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.

Comprehensive Review of Complete Versus Culprit-only Revascularization for Multivessel Disease in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Collapse

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

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

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).

Complete or Incomplete Revascularization for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The PRAMI Trial to COMPLETE

Many patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Following successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of culprit lesion, whether to routinely revascularize nonculprit lesions or treat them medically has been debated. Recently, the large-scale, multinational COMPLETE trial definitively established benefit of routine, staged, angiographically guided nonculprit lesion PCI in reducing hard clinical outcomes, including the composite of death from cardiovascular causes or new myocardial infarction, with no major safety concerns. A strategy of complete revascularization with routine nonculprit lesion PCI in suitable lesions should be standard of care in STEMI with multivessel CAD.

Usefulness of 500-m walk electrocardiogram test on clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

The current Japanese guideline for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommends 500-m walk electrocardiogram (ECG) test for patients with STEMI during hospitalization. However, little is known regarding the association between acute phase 500-m walk ECG test and clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between 500-m walk ECG test and mid-term clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI. A total of 313 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary interventions were included, and were divided into the successful 500-m group (n = 263) and the unsuccessful 500-m group (n = 50). The primary endpoint was the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which were defined as the composite of all cause death, acute myocardial infarction, readmission for heart failure, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR). During the follow-up period (median 223 days), a total of 55 MACE were observed. The log-rank test revealed that MACE, all cause death, readmission for heart failure, and ischemia-driven TVR were more frequently observed in the unsuccessful 500-m group than the successful 500-m group. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, the unsuccessful 500-m walk ECG test was significantly associated with MACE (OR 5.62, 95% CI 3.08-10.08, P < 0.01) after controlling confounding factors such as age, and serum creatinine levels. In conclusion, the unsuccessful 500-m walk ECG test was significantly associated with poor mid-term outcomes in patients with STEMI. Our results suggest the usefulness of 500-m walk ECG test to stratify the high-risk group from patients with STEMI.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

The best strategy for the treatment of the non-infarct artery in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is not yet defined.

Methods

We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared complete revascularization (CR) with infarct-related coronary artery (IRA) only revascularization in hemodynamically stable patients with STEMI. Random effect risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for clinical outcomes.

Results

Nine RCTs with 2989 patients were included. No significant difference in all-cause mortality emerged between CR and IRA-only groups (relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 1.04; p = 0.08). Compared with IRA-only, CR was associated with significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.68; p < 0.001), cardiac death (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.79; p = 0.004) and repeat revascularization (RR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.47; p < 0.001). In subgroups analysis, immediate complete revascularization (ICR) reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.97; p = 0.04), whereas staged complete revascularization (SCR) did not show any significant benefit in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.86; p = 0.82). Stroke, contrast-induced nephropathy and major bleeding were not different between CR and IRA-only.

Conclusions

For patients with STEMI and multivessel disease undergoing primary PCI, complete revascularization did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality in current evidence from randomized trials. When feasible, immediate complete revascularization might be considered in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1073-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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.

Value of gated-SPECT MPI for ischemia-guided PCI of non-culprit vessels in STEMI patients with multivessel disease after primary PCI

There remains a clinical question of which patients benefit from revascularization of non-culprit coronary artery stenosis in the setting of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infraction (STEMI). This is a large population of patients with prior studies showing 40 to 70% of patients with STEMI having non-culprit stenosis. This article reviews the current state of the literature evaluating outcomes of those previously randomized to revascularization of non-culprit stenosis around the time of the STEMI. We propose a new study design to utilize gated-SPECT in the decision process by using an ischemic burden of > 5% as a cut-off for revascularization vs. complete revascularization without ischemia assessment.

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.

Multivessel disease in patients over 75years old with ST elevated myocardial infarction. Current management strategies and related clinical outcomes in the ESTROFA MI+75 nation-wide registry

BACKGROUND

In elderly patients with ST elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD the outcomes related with different revascularization strategies are not well known.

METHODS

Subgroup-analysis of a nation-wide registry of primary angioplasty in the elderly (ESTROFA MI+75) with 3576 patients over 75years old from 31 centers. Patients with MVD were analyzed to describe treatment approaches and 2years outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 1830 (51%) with MVD, 847 (46%) underwent multivessel revascularization either in acute (51%), staged (44%) or both procedures (5%). Patients with previous myocardial infarction and those receiving drug-eluting stents or IIb-IIIa inhibitors were more prone to be revascularized, whereas older patients, females and those with Killip III-IV, renal failure and higher ejection fraction were less likely. Survival free of cardiac death and infarction at 2years was better for those undergoing multivessel PCI (85.8% vs. 80.4%, p<0.0008), regardless of Killip class. Multivessel PCI was protective of cardiac death and infarction (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89; p=0.011). Complete revascularization made no difference in outcomes among those patients undergoing multivessel PCI. The best prognosis corresponded to those undergoing multivessel PCI in staged procedures (p<0.001). A propensity score matching analysis (514 patients in each group) yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients with STEMI and MVD, multivessel PCI was related with better outcomes especially after staged procedures. Among those undergoing multivessel PCI, anatomically defined completeness of revascularization had not prognostic influence.

SUMMARY

We sought to investigate the revascularization strategies applied and their prognostic implications in patients aged over 75years with ST elevated myocardial infarction showing multivessel disease. Of 1830 patients, 847 (46%) underwent multivessel PCI either in acute (51%), staged (44%) or both procedures (5%). Multivessel PCI was independent predictor of cardiac death and infarction with the best prognosis corresponding to those undergoing staged procedures.

Comparison of Outcomes of Staged Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit Lesion-Only Revascularization for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

The management of noninfarct-related arteries in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) is still debated. We evaluated the prognostic impact of staged complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in STEMI patients with MVD admitted to our hospital from 2005 to 2013. Patients undergoing staged complete revascularization (n = 300) were compared with 1:1 propensity score-matched patients with culprit lesion-only treatment (n = 300). We considered a composite primary end point of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and urgent PCI. Secondary end points included components of the primary, cardiovascular death, any PCI excluding staged PCI. We also performed an analysis including only patients surviving at least 5 days. The median follow-up was 553 days. The primary end point occurred in 10.3% of patients in the staged complete revascularization group and in 16.3% of patients in the culprit lesion-only group (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.95, p = 0.031). Although this difference was no longer significant when considering only the survivors at day 5, all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities were still reduced in the staged complete revascularization group. Complete revascularization was associated with a better outcome (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.63, p = 0.005) if performed within 30 days of STEMI. In conclusion, compared with culprit lesion-only revascularization, in STEMI patients with MVD undergoing primary PCI, an approach of staged complete revascularization was associated with a better outcome.

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.

Comparison of Statistical Approaches for Dealing With Immortal Time Bias in Drug Effectiveness Studies

In time-to-event analyses of observational studies of drug effectiveness, incorrect handling of the period between cohort entry and first treatment exposure during follow-up may result in immortal time bias. This bias can be eliminated by acknowledging a change in treatment exposure status with time-dependent analyses, such as fitting a time-dependent Cox model. The prescription time-distribution matching (PTDM) method has been proposed as a simpler approach for controlling immortal time bias. Using simulation studies and theoretical quantification of bias, we compared the performance of the PTDM approach with that of the time-dependent Cox model in the presence of immortal time. Both assessments revealed that the PTDM approach did not adequately address immortal time bias. Based on our simulation results, another recently proposed observational data analysis technique, the sequential Cox approach, was found to be more useful than the PTDM approach (Cox: bias = -0.002, mean squared error = 0.025; PTDM: bias = -1.411, mean squared error = 2.011). We applied these approaches to investigate the association of β-interferon treatment with delaying disability progression in a multiple sclerosis cohort in British Columbia, Canada (Long-Term Benefits and Adverse Effects of Beta-Interferon for Multiple Sclerosis (BeAMS) Study, 1995-2008).

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.

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.

Culprit vessel only versus "one-week" staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Objective

To explore the impact of a “one-week” staged multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus culprit-only PCI on deaths and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 447 patients with multivessel disease who experienced a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) within 12 h before undergoing PCI between July 26, 2008 and September 25, 2011. After completion of PCI in the infarct artery, 201 patients still in the hospital agreed to undergo PCI in non-infarct arteries with more than 70% stenosis for a “one-week” staged multivessel PCI. A total of 246 patients only received intervention for the culprit vessel. Follow-up ended on September 9, 2014. This study examined the differences in deaths from any cause (i.e., cardiac and noncardiac) and MACE between the two treatment groups.

Results

Compared to a culprit-only PCI treatment approach, the “one-week” staged multivessel PCI was strongly associated with greater benefits for 55-month all cause death [41 (16.7%) vs.13 (6.5%), P = 0.004] and MACE [82 (33.3%) vs. 40 (19.9%), P = 0.002] rates. In addition, there were significant differences in the number of myocardial infarctions [43 (17.5%) vs. 20 (10.0%), P = 0.023], coronary-artery bypass grafting [CABG; 20 (8.1%) vs. 6 (3.0%), P = 0.021], and PCI [31 (12.6%) vs. 12 (6.0%), P = 0.018]. Patients undergoing culprit-only PCI compared to “one-week” PCI had the same number of stent thrombosis events [7 (2.8%) vs. 3 (1.5%), P = 0.522].

Conclusions

Compared to a culprit-only PCI treatment approach, “one-week” staged multi-vessel PCI was a safe and effective selection for STEMI and multi-vessel PCI.

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.