Treatment of non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: long-term follow-up of a randomised clinical trial
- 24 May 2012
- journal article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Netherlands Heart Journal
- Vol. 20 (9), 347-353
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-012-0281-y
Abstract
There are conflicting data regarding optimal treatment of non-culprit lesions detected during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD). We aimed to investigate whether ischaemia-driven early invasive treatment improves the long-term outcome and prevents major adverse cardiac events (MACE). 121 patients with at least one non-culprit lesion were randomised in a 2:1 manner, 80 were randomised to early fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI (invasive group), and 41 to medical treatment (conservative group). The primary endpoint was MACE at 3 years. Three-year follow-up was available in 119 patients (98.3 %). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the invasive and conservative strategy, 4 patients (3.4 %) died, all in the invasive group (P = 0.29). Re-infarction occurred in 14 patients (11.8 %) in the invasive group versus none in the conservative group (p = 0.002). Re-PCI was performed in 7 patients (8.9 %) in the invasive group and in 13 patients (32.5 %) in the conservative group (P = 0.001). There was no difference in MACE between these two strategies (35.4 vs 35.0 %, p = 0.96). In STEMI patients with MVD, early FFR-guided additional revascularisation of the non-culprit lesion did not reduce MACE at three-year follow-up compared with a more conservative strategy. The rate of MACE in the invasive group was predominantly driven by death and re-infarction, whereas in the conservative group the rate of MACE was only driven by repeat interventions.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel and Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Disease in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pairwise and Network Meta-AnalysisJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2011
- Management of multivessel coronary disease after ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary coronary angioplastyAmerican Heart Journal, 2010
- How to treat patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease?European Heart Journal, 2010
- Culprit Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Multivessel and Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Multivessel DiseaseJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2010
- A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-upHeart, 2009
- Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarctionEuropean Heart Journal, 2007
- Impact of Multivessel Coronary Disease on Long-Term Mortality in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Is Due to the Presence of a Chronic Total OcclusionThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2006
- Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary InterventionsEuropean Heart Journal, 2005
- Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomised HEpacoat™ for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) StudyInternational Journal of Cardiovascular Interventions, 2004
- Multiple Complex Coronary Plaques in Patients with Acute Myocardial InfarctionThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2000