Key result
Physiology-guided complete revascularization resulted in a lower risk of death from cardiovascular or other causes than PCI alone in older patients with MI and multivessel disease.
Why the study?
Does physiology-guided complete revascularization reduce mortality compared to culprit-only PCI in older patients with MI and multivessel disease?
Does physiology-guided complete revascularization reduce mortality compared to culprit-only PCI in older patients with MI and multivessel disease?
This letter to the editor discusses and questions the unexpected mortality benefit of complete revascularization in older MI patients reported in the FIRE trial.
To the Editor: In their article on the FIRE trial, Biscaglia et al. (Sept. 7 issue)(1) state that the use of physiology-guided complete revascularization resulted in a lower risk of death from cardiovascular or other causes than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone in older patients (age, >= 75 years) with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. This reduction in overall mortality was unexpected because such a benefit has not been reported in previous randomized, controlled trials comparing invasive strategies with conservative strategies among older patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or comparing complete versus culprit-only revascularization among patients with ST-segment elevation . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2023 study conducted a letter in Myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Physiology-guided complete revascularization vs. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone (culprit-only) was evaluated on Death from cardiovascular or other causes. Physiology-guided complete revascularization resulted in a lower risk of death from cardiovascular or other causes than PCI alone in older patients with MI and multivessel disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: