Abstract
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery is now considered the gold standard for patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. However, a sizable portion of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction have concomitant multivessel disease, which raises important therapeutic and prognostic issues. Indeed, it is still unclear whether percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit vessel alone is superior, equivalent, or inferior in terms of risk-benefit balance in comparison to a strategy of complete revascularization, with percutaneous coronary intervention of nonculprit vessels as well. The present systematic review provides an updated prospective on the rationale, background, and outcomes of culprit-only versus multivessel percutaneous revascularization in subjects undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Our findings clearly demonstrate that multivessel coronary disease significantly and adversely impacts on patient prognosis, yet a culprit-only revascularization strategy should be sought after in most cases, unless patient instability or symptoms/signs of residual myocardial ischemia support nonculprit vessel intervention.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
