Key result
Complete revascularization linked to ~60% fewer recurrent events vs culprit-only PCI in STEMI.
Why the study?
The benefit of complete revascularization on long-term total event reduction in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remained unclear.
Does complete revascularization (in-hospital or delayed) reduce long-term recurrent events compared to culprit-vessel-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease?
Cohort (n=414)
Does complete revascularization (in-hospital or delayed) reduce long-term recurrent events compared to culprit-vessel-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease?
Relative Risk: 0.4 (95% CI 0.25–0.64)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.8% vs 18%
p-value: p=<0.001
Complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions, whether performed during the index hospitalization or delayed, significantly reduces the risk of long-term recurrent events in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI.
Supports complete revascularization to lower recurrent events in multivessel STEMI; leaves open need for confirmatory RCTs.
The benefit of complete revascularization (CR) on long-term total event reduction in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), still remains unclear. We assessed the efficacy of three different revascularization strategies on long-term total recurrent events. We retrospectively analyzed 414 consecutive patients admitted with STEMI and MVD who were categorized according to the revascularization strategy used: culprit-vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=163); in-hospital CR (n=136); and delayed CR (n=115). The combined endpoint assessed was all-cause mortality, the total number of myocardial infarctions, ischemia-driven revascularizations or strokes. Negative binomial regression was used to assess the association between the revascularization strategy and total events; risk estimates were expressed as an incidence rates ratio (IRR). At a median follow-up of four years (1.2–6), rates of the combined endpoint per 10 patient-years were 18, 0.8, and 0.6 in culprit-vessel-only PCI, in-hospital CR, and delayed CR strategies, respectively (p<0.001). After multivariable adjustment and when compared with culprit-vessel-only PCI, both in-hospital and delayed CR strategies were significantly associated with a reduction in the combined endpoint (IRR=0.40: 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25–0.64; p<0.001; and IRR 0.40: 95% CI, 0.24–0.62; p<0.001, respectively). No differences were observed across in-hospital and delayed CR strategies. Complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions in patients with STEMI and MVD reduces the risk of total recurrent events during long-term follow-up. No differences between in-hospital and delayed CR strategies were found. O benefício de uma revascularização completa (RC) em termos de redução total de eventos a longo prazo em doentes com enfarte agudo do miocárdio com elevação do segmento ST (EAMCST) e doença coronária multivaso (DCM) ainda não está claro. Avaliamos a eficácia de três estratégias diferentes de revascularização em eventos recorrentes totais a longo prazo. Analisámos retrospetivamente 414 doentes consecutivos admitidos com EAMCST e DCM classificados de acordo com a estratégia de revascularização utilizada: intervenção coronária percutânea (ICP) só de vaso culpado (n=163); RC intra-hospitalar (n=136); e RC retardada (n=115). O parâmetro combinado avaliado foi a mortalidade por todas as causas, o número total de enfarte do miocárdio, revascularizações por isquemia ou acidentes vasculares cerebrais. A regressão binomial negativa foi utilizada para avaliar a associação entre a estratégia de revascularização e os eventos totais e as estimativas de risco foram expressas como taxa de incidência (TI). Com um seguimento mediano de quatro anos (1,2-6), as taxas do parâmetro combinado por 10 pacientes por ano foram de 18, 0,8, e 0,6 em ICP só para o vaso culpado, CR intra-hospitalar, e estratégia de CR retardada, respetivamente (p<0,001). Após ajustamento multivariável e quando comparadas com a ICP apenas em vasos culpados, tanto as estratégias de RC intra-hospitalar como a RC retardada foram significativamente associadas a uma redução do parâmetro combinado (TI=0,40: intervalo de confiança de 95% [IC], 0,25-0,64; p<0,001; e TI=0,40: 95% IC, 0,24-0,62; p<0,001, respetivamente). Não se observaram diferenças entre as estratégias de CR intra-hospitalar e de CR retardada. A RC de lesões não culpadas em doentes com EAMCST e MVD reduz o risco de eventos totais recorrentes durante o seguimento a longo prazo. Não foram observadas diferenças entre as estratégias de RC intra-hospitalar e de RC retardada.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rúmiz et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) (n=414). Complete revascularization (in-hospital or delayed) vs. Culprit-vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was evaluated on Combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, total number of myocardial infarctions, ischemia-driven revascularizations or strokes (IRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25-0.64, p=<0.001). Complete revascularization (in-hospital or delayed) significantly reduced total recurrent events compared to culprit-vessel-only PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease (IRR 0.40, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: