Key result
Multivessel PCI did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to culprit-only PCI in STEMI with cardiogenic shock (adjusted HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.61-1.86; P=0.831).
Why the study?
Does multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention reduce all-cause mortality compared to culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease?
Observational (n=338)
Yes
Does multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention reduce all-cause mortality compared to culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease?
Hazard Ratio: 1.06 (95% CI 0.61–1.86)
Absolute Event Rate: 35% vs 30.6%
p-value: p=0.831
In patients with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease, performing multivessel PCI during the primary procedure did not reduce all-cause mortality compared to a culprit-only PCI strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Multivessel PCI was not associated with lower mortality versus culprit-only in STEMI shock; hypothesis-generating and does not support practice change.
Yang et al. (2013) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with multivessel disease (n=338). Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated on All-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.61-1.86, p=0.831). Multivessel PCI did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to culprit-only PCI in STEMI with cardiogenic shock (adjusted HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.61-1.86; P=0.831).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: