Key result
Multivessel revascularization during primary PCI for STEMI did not significantly reduce the 1-year MACE rate compared with culprit-vessel-only PCI (14.2% vs 15.2%, p=0.330).
Why the study?
Does multivessel revascularization reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to culprit-vessel-only revascularization in STEMI patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary PCI?
Cohort (n=1,094)
Yes
Does multivessel revascularization reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to culprit-vessel-only revascularization in STEMI patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 14.2% vs 15.2%
p-value: p=0.330
In STEMI patients with multivessel disease, multivessel revascularization did not significantly reduce overall MACE compared to culprit-only PCI, but complete revascularization was associated with a lower rate of repeat revascularization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Multivessel PCI should not yet change practice in STEMI; this observational analysis leaves open whether complete revascularization reduces repeat procedures in selected patients.
Jo et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (n=1,094). Multivessel revascularization (MVR) vs. Culprit-vessel-only revascularization (COR) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including death, myocardial infarction, or target or nontarget lesion revascularization at one year (p=0.330). Multivessel revascularization during primary PCI for STEMI did not significantly reduce the 1-year MACE rate compared with culprit-vessel-only PCI (14.2% vs 15.2%, p=0.330).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: