Culprit Vessel Versus Multivessel Versus In-Hospital Staged Intervention for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Stratified Analyses in High-Risk Patient Groups and Anatomic Subsets of Nonculprit Disease.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated revascularization strategies for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. BACKGROUND: In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, it is unclear whether multivessel intervention (MVI), culprit vessel intervention (CVI) only (CVI-O) or CVI with staged revascularization (CVI-S) is associated with improved outcomes. Whether MVI at primary percutaneous coronary intervention may benefit specific patient groups is unclear. METHODS: We compared revascularization strategies (MVI, CVI-O, and CVI-S) in 6,503 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease enrolled in the British Columbia Cardiac Registry (2008 to 2014). We evaluated all-cause mortality and repeat revascularization at 2 years. RESULTS: Compared with MVI, CVI-O (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64 to 0.97; p = 0.023) and CVI-S (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.82; p = 0.004) were associated with lower mortality. Comparing CVI-O with CVI-S, CVI-S was associated with lower mortality (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.91; p = 0.013). Compared with MVI, CVI-O was associated with increased repeat revascularization (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54; p = 0.036). Comparing CVI-O versus CVI-S, CVI-S was associated with lower repeat revascularization (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90; p = 0.012). CVI was associated with lower mortality in the presence of nonculprit left circumflex artery disease (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; p = 0.011) and right coronary artery disease (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99; p = 0.050), but not nonculprit left anterior descending artery disease (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.28; p = 0.399). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, a strategy of CVI-S seems to be associated with lower mortality and repeat revascularization rates. However, MVI may be considered in selected patients and in the setting of nonculprit left anterior descending artery disease. These findings warrant prospective evaluation in large adequately powered randomized controlled trials.