Multivessel vs. culprit-only revascularization in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary disease

Introduction There have been no prospective randomized trials that enable the best strategy and timing to be determined for revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Objectives To compare short- and long-term adverse events following multivessel vs. culprit-only revascularization in patients with NSTE-ACS and multivessel CAD. Methods This was a retrospective observational study that included all patients diagnosed with NSTE-ACS and multivessel CAD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between January 2010 and June 2013 (n=232). After exclusion of patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (n=30), a multivessel revascularization strategy was adopted in 35.1% of patients (n=71); in the others (n=131, 64.9%), only the culprit artery was revascularized. After propensity score matching (PSM), two groups of 66 patients were obtained, matched according to revascularization strategy. Results During follow-up (1543±545 days), after PSM, patients undergoing multivessel revascularization had lower rates of reinfarction (4.5% vs. 16.7%; log-rank p=0.018), unplanned revascularization (6.1% vs. 16.7%; log-rank p=0.048), unplanned PCI (3.0% vs. 13.6%; log-rank p=0.023) and the combined endpoint of death, reinfarction and unplanned revascularization (16.7 vs. 31.8%; log-rank p=0.046). Conclusions In real-world patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and multivessel CAD, a multivessel revascularization strategy was associated with lower rates of reinfarction, unplanned revascularization and unplanned PCI, as well as a reduction in the combined endpoint of death, reinfarction and unplanned revascularization.