Thirty-day outcomes of in-hospital multi-vessel versus culprit-only revascularization strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND

Many studies have demonstrated the benefit of complete multivessel revascularization versus culprit-only intervention in patients of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. However, only a few single-center retrospective studies were performed on small Chinese cohorts. Our study aims to demonstrate the advantage of multivessel percutaneous intervention (PCI) strategy on 30-day in-hospital outcomes to patients with STEMI and multivessel disease in larger Chinese population.

METHODS

From the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome (CCC-ACS) project, 5935 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease undergoing PCI and hospitalized for fewer than 30 days were analyzed. After 5: 1 propensity score matching, 3577 patients with culprit-only PCI and 877 with in-hospital multivessel PCI were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, all-cause death, stent thrombosis, heart failure, and stroke.

RESULTS

Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that in-hospital multivessel PCI was associated with lower risk of 30-day MACCE (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.98, P = 0.032) than culprit-only PCI and conferred no increased risk of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or bleeding. Subgroup analysis showed that MACCE reduction was observed more often from patients with trans-femoral access (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15-0.74) than with trans-radial access (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66-1.16, P for interaction = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

The in-hospital multivessel PCI strategy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day MACCE than culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.