Key result
Staged revascularisation in STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease was associated with a 2.1% MACE rate during the waiting period, compared to 10.2% at 30 days for in-hospital revascularisation.
Why the study?
Does staged revascularisation compared to in-hospital complete revascularisation improve outcomes in haemodynamically stable STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease?
Cohort (n=191)
No
Does staged revascularisation compared to in-hospital complete revascularisation improve outcomes in haemodynamically stable STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.1% vs 10.2%
Staged revascularisation during a second admission appears safe with very few adverse events during the waiting period and excellent long-term outcomes compared to in-hospital complete revascularisation in stable STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease.
Low MACE rate during staged waiting supports safety in selected STEMI MVD patients; leaves open optimal CR timing pending randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: The optimal therapeutic strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients found to have multi-vessel disease (MVD) is controversial but recent data support complete revascularisation (CR). Whether CR should be completed during the index admission or during a second staged admission remains unclear. Our main objective was to measure rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) during the waiting period in STEMI patients selected for staged revascularisation (SR), in order to determine the safety of delaying CR. For completeness, we also describe 30-day and long-term outcomes in STEMI patients with MVD who underwent in-hospital CR. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective analysis of 931 STEMI patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) identified 397 patients with MVD who were haemodynamically stable and presented within 12 hours of chest pain onset. Of these, 191 underwent multi-vessel PCI: 49 during the index admission and 142 patients undergoing a strategy of SR. RESULTS: Our main finding was that waiting period MACE were 2% (three of 142) in patients allocated to SR (at a median of 31 days). In patients allocated to in-hospital CR, 30-day MACE rates were 10% (five of 49). During a median follow up of 39 months, all-cause mortality was 7.0% vs. 28.6%, and cardiac mortality was 2% vs. 8%, in patients allocated to SR or CR, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with STEMI and MVD who, based on clinical judgement, were allocated to a second admission SR strategy had very few adverse events during the waiting period and excellent long-term outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCutcheon et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multi-vessel disease (MVD) (n=191). Staged revascularisation (SR) vs. In-hospital complete revascularisation (CR) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) during the waiting period (SR) or at 30 days (CR). Staged revascularisation in STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease was associated with a 2.1% MACE rate during the waiting period, compared to 10.2% at 30 days for in-hospital revascularisation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: