Why the study?
Data comparing immediate versus staged complete revascularisation and physiology-guided versus angiographic assessment remain limited, with conflicting evidence and limited guideline recommendations for NSTEMI patients with multivessel disease.
Does complete revascularisation improve outcomes compared to culprit-vessel-only therapy in patients with acute MI?
Does complete revascularisation improve outcomes compared to culprit-vessel-only therapy in patients with acute MI?
While complete revascularisation is strongly supported in STEMI, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding the optimal timing, guidance methods, and strategies for NSTEMI patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Endorses complete revascularisation in STEMI; leaves optimal NSTEMI strategy unresolved pending dedicated trials.
Acute MI (AMI) is a leading cause of mortality globally. Swift diagnosis is imperative, with timely reperfusion crucial to minimise adverse outcomes. Revascularisation strategies include culprit-vessel-only therapy, staged complete revascularisation or immediate complete revascularisation. Evidence from randomised trials strongly favours complete revascularisation in ST-elevation MI (STEMI). Data regarding immediate complete revascularisation compared to a staged approach are limited, with uncertainties regarding the advantages of physiology-guided treatment compared to angiographic assessment alone. Non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients with multivessel disease are often complex and current guidelines offer limited recommendations for this patient group, emphasising the need for individualised treatment. Observational studies have sought to find the optimal approach, yet conflicting data prevails. Dedicated trials for this issue in NSTEMI patients are currently unavailable. To enhance the decision-making processes for patients with AMI, future trials should consider the inclusion of functional health status and health-related quality of life outcomes. The existing gaps in knowledge underscore the intricacies of managing AMI and the ongoing necessity for comprehensive research to refine treatment strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gonnah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: