Effect of Complete Revascularization vs. Staged PCI of Secondary Lesion on LV Systolic Function in Patient with STEMI

After a myocardial infarction, early restoration of normal coronary perfusion reduces infract size, preserves left ventricular function, and lowers mortality. Reperfusion therapy's major goal is to not only restore the culprit epicardial vessel's patency, but also to reperfuse tissue to preserve myocyte viability and hence LV function. The pathophysiology of myocardial infarction, on the other hand, is not limited to the culprit vessel. The treatment of non-culprit lesions in STEMI is a contentious issue. Previously published guidelines (the 2011 PCI and 2013 STEMI guidelines) recommended treating the culprit lesion only if the patient was in cardiogenic shock. These guidelines are based on expert opinions rather than randomized controlled trials, which take into account safety concerns such as complications from repeated intervention, a low technical success rate, a high incidence of coronary restenosis, and renal insufficiency after contrast agent use. The aim of this work is to Long-term outcomes Lt ventricular ejection fraction (6 months) between complete revascularization and culprit-only revascularization (followed by staged percutaneous coronary intervention of secondary lesions) in STEMI patients with multi vessel coronary disease undergoing primary angioplasty. This prospective analysis included 50 patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction who were amenable to primary coronary intervention and were admitted to the critical care unit. And was blindly randomized alternatively into 2 groups: Group A: Complete coronary revascularisation during primary percutaneous intervention. Group B: Culprit-only revascularization during primary PCI. This study enrolled 50 patients, 35 males (70%) and 15 females (30%); in G I, there were 18 males (72%) and 7 females (18%) while in G II there were 17 males (68%) and 8 females (32%). The age ranged from 34 yrs. to 82 yrs. with mean age: In G I was 61.6 (±8.9) In G II was 62.2 (±12.9) were enrolled in this study, pre-procedural EF% (Mean±St) there was no significant difference between both groups. In G I, patients had a mean EF% 49.9±10.1 Versus 48.0±11.3 seen in G II. (P=0.54) In G I, there was no a significant difference between pre- procedural versus post-procedural mean EF%. (P=0.53) In G II, there was no a significant difference between pre-procedural versus post-procedural mean EF%. (P=0.14) We concluded that There were no significant differences between infarct-related artery revascularization and multivessel revascularization in the rates of 6-month MACE, Also, there were no differences as regard in-hospital mortality, stroke, cardiogenic shock and reinfarction, ejection fraction.