Coronary Revascularization Strategy for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease: Experience and Results at 1-Year Follow-Up

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of culprit lesions (CLs) is the standard of care in patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, optimal revascularization strategy for significant nonculprit lesions (non-CLs) in the setting of STEMI remains controversial. The importance of defining of such a strategy lies in the fact that approximately 50% of patients with STEMI have multivessel disease (MVD). The aim of this study was to describe characteristics, therapeutic strategies, and 1-year outcomes in a cohort of patients with STEMI and MVD. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 63 patients with STEMI and MVD obtained from a 5-year catheterization database. MVD was defined as ≥70% stenosis of ≥2 epicardial coronary arteries. This cohort was followed for a period of 1 year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE was defined as acute coronary syndrome, new onset heart failure, or death) and all-cause mortality. PCI with stent placement was the major therapeutic procedure (87.5%) performed for CLs. Non-CLs did not undergo interventions in a majority of individuals (47.6%), while the remaining patients underwent PCI (29%) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (22%) for non-CLs. At 1-year follow-up, prevalence of MACE events and death in the entire cohort were 30% and 15%, respectively. A trend for better outcomes (1-year cumulative MACE events but not mortality) was observed in CL-only intervention cohort compared with non-CL intervention. The PCI and Coronary artery bypass graft surgery cohorts did not show any significant difference in clinical outcomes. In this retrospective cohort of patients with MVD who presented with STEMI, no intervention of noncritical lesions was the prevalent approach, reflecting guideline recommendations. CL-only intervention strategy showed a better clinical outcome than non-CL intervention. Intervention of noncritical lesions therefore did not seem to improve MACEs or all-cause mortality at 1-year of follow-up and might in fact have had a detrimental effect on outcomes.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles