Key result
Between 40 and 50% of patients presenting with acute STEMI have multivessel disease, prompting ongoing debate over complete versus culprit-only revascularization strategies.
Why the study?
Does complete revascularization improve outcomes compared to culprit-vessel-only treatment in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease?
Does complete revascularization improve outcomes compared to culprit-vessel-only treatment in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease?
This editorial discusses the ongoing debate and evidence regarding complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.
Between 40 and 50% of patients who present with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease.1,2 Joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommend treatment of the culprit vessel only, but data from a few trials of intermediate size favor complete revascularization, mainly on the basis of reductions in the need for repeat revascularizations.37 The severity of nonculprit vessel lesions has generally been assessed by means of angiography; in one trial, fractional flow reserve (FFR) was used.7 Important questions therefore remain: among patients presenting . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lars Køber (2017) conducted an editorial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease. Complete revascularization vs. Culprit vessel only treatment was evaluated. Between 40 and 50% of patients presenting with acute STEMI have multivessel disease, prompting ongoing debate over complete versus culprit-only revascularization strategies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: