Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit-Only Versus One-Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization
Open Access
- 4 August 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Journal of the American Heart Association
- Vol. 9 (15)
- https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.016575
Abstract
Background Few studies have investigated optimal revascularization strategies in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. We investigated 3-year clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Methods and Results This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease without cardiogenic shock. Data were analyzed at 3 years according to the percutaneous coronary intervention strategy: culprit-only revascularization (COR), 1-stage multivessel revascularization (MVR), and multistage MVR. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization). The COR group had a higher risk of MACE than those involving other strategies (COR versus 1-stage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.77; P<0.001; and COR versus multistage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P=0.027). There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between 1-stage and multistage MVR (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.51; P=0.355). The results were consistent after multivariate regression, propensity score matching, inverse probability weighting, and Bayesian proportional hazards modeling. In subgroup analyses stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, 1-stage MVR lowered the risk of MACE compared with multistage MVR in low-to-intermediate risk patients but not in patients at high risk. Conclusions MVR reduced 3-year MACE in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease compared with COR. However, 1-stage MVR was not superior to multistage MVR for reducing MACE except in low-to-intermediate risk patients.This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevationEuropean Heart Journal, 2015
- Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trialThe Lancet, 2015
- Randomized Trial of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for STEMI and Multivessel DiseaseJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2015
- Randomized Trial of Preventive Angioplasty in Myocardial InfarctionThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2013
- Staged Versus One-time Complete Revascularization With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Patients Without ST-Elevation Myocardial InfarctionCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2013
- Twenty-Year Evolution of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Its Impact on Clinical OutcomesCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2009
- In Unstable Angina or Non–ST-Segment Acute Coronary Syndrome, Should Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergo Multivessel or Culprit-Only Stenting?Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2007
- Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE)BMJ, 2006
- Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in observational studiesStatistics in Medicine, 2006
- Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarctionAmerican Heart Journal, 2004