Why the study?
The optimal revascularization strategy is not clearly defined for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease.
Does multivessel PCI compared to infarct-related artery-only PCI improve outcomes in patients with MV-STEMI when stratified by a simple angiographic risk score?
Does multivessel PCI compared to infarct-related artery-only PCI improve outcomes in patients with MV-STEMI when stratified by a simple angiographic risk score?
A simple angiographic risk score based on non-culprit lesion characteristics can help identify which MV-STEMI patients benefit from multivessel PCI versus infarct-related artery-only PCI.
May support angiographic risk stratification for PCI choice in MV-STEMI; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy is not clearly defined for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease (MV-STEMI). We aimed to develop a simple angiographic risk score for identifying patients with MV-STEMI that might benefit from a multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI), compared to a PCI for only the infarct-related artery (IRA-PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective study acquired data from a single-center STEMI registry on 841 consecutive patients with MV-STEMI (645 IRA-PCI and 196 MV-PCI). Patients were stratified according to high- and low-risk scores. We devised a score based on three characteristics of non-culprit lesions previously reported to predict overall mortality (proximal left anterior descending artery involvement, maximal % stenosis, and number of involved vessels). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs: a composite of death/MI/urgent repeat revascularization). After a median follow-up of 1909 days, MACE occurred in 205/841 (24.4%) patients. MACE risk was higher in the high-risk than in the low-risk group (HR 1.43, P < 0.001). In comparing the IRA-PCI and MV-PCI approaches within each risk group, we found that these revascularization strategies had differential effects on outcome. Compared to the MV-PCI, IRA-PCI was associated with less MACE in the low-risk group (HR 0.597, P = 0.033), and more MACE in the high-risk group (HR 3.14, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For patients with MV-STEMI that undergo primary PCI, a simple risk score based on three angiographic characteristics could identify patients at high risk of future adverse events. This score might facilitate choosing the optimal revascularization strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pravda et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: