Korean Circ J.  2020 Mar;50(3):220-233. 10.4070/kcj.2019.0176.

One-Year Clinical Outcomes between Single- versus Multi-Staged PCI for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multi-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH)

Affiliations
  • 1Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea. jojeong@cnu.ac.kr
  • 2Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea.
  • 3Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea.
  • 4Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University Hospital, Daegu, Korea.
  • 5Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kyunghee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 6Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
  • 7Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Korea.
  • 8Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Although complete revascularization is known superior to incomplete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCD), there are no definite instructions on the optimal timing of non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared 1-year clinical outcomes between 2 different complete multi-vessel revascularization strategies.
METHODS
From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, 606 patients with STEMI and MVCD who underwent complete revascularization were enrolled from November 2011 to December 2015. The patients were assigned to multi-vessel single-staged PCI (SS PCI) group (n=254) or multi-vessel multi-staged PCI (MS PCI) group (n=352). Propensity score matched 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.
RESULTS
At one year, MS PCI showed a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.19-0.92; p=0.030) compared with SS PCI. In subgroup analysis, all-cause mortality increased in SS PCI with cardiogenic shock (HR, 4.60; 95% CI, 1.54-13.77; p=0.006), age ≥65 years (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.67-9.58, p=0.002), Killip class III/IV (HR, 7.32; 95% CI, 1.68-31.87; p=0.008), and creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.10-7.18; p=0.031). After propensity score-matching, MS PCI showed a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular event than SS PCI.
CONCLUSIONS
SS PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with MS PCI. MS PCI for non-infarct-related artery could be a better option for patients with STEMI and MVCD, especially high-risk patients.

Keyword

Myocardial infarction; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Myocardial revascularization; Coronary artery disease

MeSH Terms

Arteries
Coronary Artery Disease*
Coronary Vessels*
Creatinine
Humans
Korea*
Mortality
Myocardial Infarction*
Myocardial Revascularization
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Propensity Score
Shock, Cardiogenic
Creatinine

Figure

  • Figure 1 Study population flow chart. The patients with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary artery disease were enrolled. Among them, 254 patients underwent multi-vessel SS PCI and 352 patients underwent multi-vessel MS PCI. KAMlR–NIH = Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health; MS PCI = multi-staged percutaneous coronary intervention; P-PCI = primary percutaneous coronary intervention; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; STEMI = ST elevation myocardial infarction; SS PCI = single-staged percutaneous coronary intervention.

  • Figure 2 Event rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac death and MACE for the entire patients at 1-year of follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier curves for cumulative event rates of all-cause mortality (A), cardiac death (B) and MACE (C) were shown according to the type of revascularization. Multi-vessel SS PCI group showed a higher rate of all-cause mortality (27% vs. 12%), cardiac death (19% vs. 8%), and MACE (16.9% vs. 10.2%) at 1-year of follow-up. MACE = major adverse cardiovascular event; MS PCI = multi-staged percutaneous coronary intervention; SS PCI = single-staged percutaneous coronary intervention.

  • Figure 3 Subgroups analysis for all-cause mortality. The Cox regression analyses revealed that the multi-vessel SS PCI group had a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to multi-vessel MS PCI group in all subgroups. Especially, high-risk patients such as cardiogenic shock, Killip class III/IV, creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the multi-vessel SS PCI group had lower mortality rates in the multi-vessel MS PCI group. CI = confidence interval; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; HR = hazard ratio; MS PCI = multi-staged percutaneous coronary intervention; SS PCI = single-staged percutaneous coronary intervention.


Cited by  1 articles

Optimal Timing of Coronary Intervention in Non-Culprit Lesion in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multi-Vessel Disease
Jongkwon Seo, Jung-Sun Kim
Korean Circ J. 2020;50(3):234-235.    doi: 10.4070/kcj.2020.0041.


Reference

1. Muller DW, Topol EJ, Ellis SG, et al. Multivessel coronary artery disease: a key predictor of short-term prognosis after reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 1991; 121:1042–1049.
Article
2. Toma M, Buller CE, Westerhout CM, et al. Non-culprit coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the APEX-AMI trial. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31:1701–1707.
Article
3. Corpus RA, House JA, Marso SP, et al. Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2004; 148:493–500.
Article
4. Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes DR Jr, et al. 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-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58:692–703.
5. Cavender MA, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Weintraub WS, Rao SV. Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2009; 104:507–513.
Article
6. Varani E, Balducelli M, Aquilina M, et al. Single or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008; 72:927–933.
Article
7. Kalarus Z, Lenarczyk R, Kowalczyk J, et al. Importance of complete revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2007; 153:304–312.
Article
8. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67:1235–1250.
9. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018; 39:119–177.
10. Kornowski R, Mehran R, Dangas G, et al. Prognostic impact of staged versus “one-time” multivessel percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58:704–711.
11. Politi L, Sgura F, Rossi R, et al. A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart. 2010; 96:662–667.
Article
12. Di Mario C, Mara S, Flavio A, et al. Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomised HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) Study. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent. 2004; 6:128–133.
13. Kim JH, Chae SC, Oh DJ, et al. Multicenter cohort study of acute myocardial infarction in Korea: interim analysis of the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health registry. Circ J. 2016; 80:1427–1436.
14. Claessen BE, Henriques JP, Jaffer FA, Mehran R, Piek JJ, Dangas GD. Stent thrombosis: a clinical perspective. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7:1081–1092.
15. Kolte D, Sardar P, Khera S, et al. Culprit vessel-only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a collaborative meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10:e005582.
Article
16. de Waha S, Jobs A, Eitel I, et al. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018; 7:28–37.
Article
17. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. One-year outcomes after PCI strategies in cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:1699–1710.
Article
18. Lee JM, Rhee TM, Hahn JY, et al. Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71:844–856.
19. Galvão Braga C, Cid-Álvarez AB, Redondo Diéguez A, et al. Multivessel versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: analysis of an 8-year registry. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2017; 70:425–432.
Article
20. Bangalore S, Toklu B, Wetterslev J. Complete versus culprit-only revascularization for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8:e002142.
Article
21. Smits PC, Abdel-Wahab M, Neumann FJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve–guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:1234–1244.
Article
22. Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, Helqvist S, et al. 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 trial. Lancet. 2015; 386:665–671.
Article
23. Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65:963–972.
24. Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ, et al. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369:1115–1123.
Article
25. Heusch G, Kleinbongard P, Böse D, et al. Coronary microembolization: from bedside to bench and back to bedside. Circulation. 2009; 120:1822–1836.
26. Sianos G, Papafaklis MI, Daemen J, et al. Angiographic stent thrombosis after routine use of drug-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the importance of thrombus burden. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50:573–583.
27. Peterson ED, Dai D, DeLong ER, et al. Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55:1923–1932.
28. Hanratty CG, Koyama Y, Rasmussen HH, Nelson GI, Hansen PS, Ward MR. Exaggeration of nonculprit stenosis severity during acute myocardial infarction: implications for immediate multivessel revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40:911–916.
Article
29. Assali AR, Brosh D, Ben-Dor I, et al. The impact of renal insufficiency on patients’ outcomes in emergent angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007; 69:395–400.
Article
Full Text Links
  • KCJ
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr