Abstract
Introduction: Recent trials have suggested potential benefits of performing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MVPCI) on non-infarct related artery (non-IRA) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease. Methods: National Readmissions Database (NRD) 2010-14 was utilized to select study cohort. Appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9-CM) diagnostic and procedural codes were utilized to identify STEMI patients undergoing multivessel PCI and infarct-related artery only PCI (IRA-PCI). Propensity score matched cohorts using greedy matching algorithm were generated for comparison of outcomes. Results: We identified 116592 IRA-PCI (83.97%) and 22257 MVPCI (16.03%) cases. With 1:3 propensity matched cohorts accounting for confounders such as age, gender, race and comorbidities, in comparison to IRA-PCI, MVPCI patients have higher 30-day readmission rate (10.40% vs 9.40%, p=0.001), in-hospital mortality (1.96% vs 1.57%,p<0.001), mechanical circulatory support utilization (4.27 vs 2.44%,p<0.001) as well as higher complication including vascular (0.51% vs 0.28%, p<0.001), cardiac (5.97% vs 3.97%, p<0.001), respiratory (4.89% vs 4.02%,p<0.001), neurologic complications (0.77% vs 0.58%,p=0.003), major bleeding (1.01% vs 0.79%, p=0.002) and cardiac arrest(3.48% vs 3.17%, p=0.027). We also noted higher cost of care ($27100 vs $20900, p<0.001) and length of stay (3.8 days vs 3.4 days, p<0.001) in MVPCI group compared to IRA-PCI group. Conclusions: We noted higher 30- day readmission rate, in-hospital mortality, complications and resource utilization with MVPCI compared to IRA-PCI approach among STEMI patients which further demands large-scale randomized control trials to determine the utility of MVPCI in the “real world”.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
