PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 8, 2026Circulation Reports0 citationsOpen Access

Temporal Trends in Culprit- and Non-Culprit Lesion-Attributed Revascularization After Acute Myocardial Infarction ― Insights From the Mie ACS Registry ―

ATAkihiro TakasakiInterventional / Structural CardiologyHOHiroki OIZUMIInterventional / Structural CardiologyEMEisuke MaekawaSunagawa City Medical Center

Key Result

Late-era enrollment (2018-2022) was associated with a significantly lower risk of culprit lesion-attributed revascularization compared to 2013-2017 (sHR 0.56), while non-culprit events remained unchanged.

Key Points

  • To assess temporal trends and predictors of culprit- and non-culprit lesion-attributed revascularization over a 2-year follow-up in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction.
  • Analyzed 6,363 patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention from the multicenter Mie ACS Registry, excluding individuals with prior coronary artery bypass grafting.
  • Categorized patients into two treatment eras: 2013–2017 (N=2,860) and 2018–2022 (N=3,503).
  • Assessed coprimary endpoints of time to first culprit- and non-culprit lesion revascularization over 2 years using competing-risk regression, with all-cause death treated as a competing event.
  • The 2-year cumulative incidence of culprit-lesion revascularization decreased significantly from 6.2% in 2013–2017 to 3.5% in 2018–2022 (P<0.001), with late-era enrollment independently reducing risk (sHR 0.56; 95% CI 0.44–0.71; P<0.001).
  • Non-culprit lesion revascularization showed only modest, non-significant improvement between 2013–2017 and 2018–2022 (6.6% vs. 5.5%; P=0.091).
  • Multivessel disease was identified as the strongest multivariable predictor of non-culprit lesion revascularization (sHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.84–2.91; P<0.001).

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=6,363)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does contemporary treatment (2018-2022) compared to earlier treatment (2013-2017) reduce the incidence of culprit- and non-culprit lesion-attributed revascularization in patients with AMI undergoing primary PCI?

P
Population
6,363 patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, free of prior coronary artery bypass grafting, followed for 2 years.
E
Exposure
Treatment in the later era (2018–2022)
C
Comparator
Treatment in the earlier era (2013–2017)
O
Outcome
Times to the first culprit lesion (CL)- and non-culprit lesion (NCL)-attributed revascularization over a 2-year follow-up periodhard clinical

While culprit lesion-attributed revascularization after AMI has decreased in recent years, non-culprit lesion-attributed events remain relatively unchanged, highlighting residual coronary risk.

Main Result

Hazard Ratio: 0.56 (95% CI 0.44–0.71)

Absolute Event Rate: 3.5% vs 6.2%

p-value: p=<0.001

Limitations

  • Observational registry study with potential residual confounding
  • Lesion attribution was based on clinical and angiographic assessment rather than a standardized imaging protocol
  • Follow-up strategies, ischemia assessment, and decisions regarding repeat revascularization were not standardized across participating centers
  • Detailed lesion-level information was not systematically collected
  • Modest number of severe ischemic events potentially limiting statistical power for secondary analyses
  • Findings may not be fully generalizable to healthcare systems outside Japan

Abstract

Background: Recurrent ischemic events after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may arise from treated culprit lesions (CLs) or untreated non-CLs (NCLs). However, temporal trends in CL- and NCL-attributed revascularization in contemporary clinical practice remain unclear. Methods and Results: We analyzed data from the Mie ACS Registry, a multicenter registry enrolling patients with AMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting were excluded. The coprimary endpoints were the times to the first CL- and NCL-attributed revascularization over a 2-year follow-up period. Death was treated as a competing event. Temporal trends and predictors were evaluated using competing-risk analyses. Among 6,363 patients, 2,860 were enrolled in 2013–2017 and 3,503 were enrolled in 2018–2022. The cumulative incidence of CL-attributed revascularization was significantly lower in the later era (6.2% vs. 3.5%; P<0.001), whereas NCL-attributed revascularization showed only modest temporal improvement from 2013–2017 to 2018–2022 (6.6% vs. 5.5%, respectively; P=0.091). In multivariable analyses, late-era (2018–2022) enrollment was independently associated with a lower risk of CL-attributed revascularization (subdistribution hazard ratio sHR 0.56; 95% confidence interval CI 0.44–0.71; P<0.001), whereas multivessel disease was the strongest predictor of NCL-attributed revascularization (sHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.84–2.91; P<0.001). Conclusions: Despite temporal reductions in CL-attributed revascularization, NCL-attributed events remained relatively unchanged. NCLs continue to represent an important source of residual coronary risk after AMI.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Takasaki et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=6,363). Late-era enrollment (2018-2022) vs. Early-era enrollment (2013-2017) was evaluated on Time to first culprit lesion-attributed revascularization over a 2-year follow-up period (sHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.71, p=<0.001). Late-era enrollment (2018-2022) was associated with a significantly lower risk of culprit lesion-attributed revascularization compared to 2013-2017 (sHR 0.56), while non-culprit events remained unchanged.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa00a6258e84d0ff5b47cc2https://doi.org/10.1253/circrep.cr-26-0214
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper