Multivessel vs. culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy in older adults with acute myocardial infarction

Abstract

BackgroundThe optima revascularization strategy for senior patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the context of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains unclear. We aimed to compare a strategy of culprit-vessel (CV) vs. multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in older adults (≥75 years) with AMI. MethodsWe analyzed four randomized controlled trials designed to include older adults with AMI. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and major bleeding (Net Adverse Clinical Events, NACE). A non-parsimonious propensity score and nearest-neighbor matching was performed to account for bias. ResultsA total of 1,334 trial participants were included; of them, 770 (57.7%) underwent CV-PCI and 564 (42.3%) a MV-PCI strategy. After a median follow-up of 365 days, patients treated with MV-PCI experienced a lower rate of death (6.0% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.01) and of NACE (11.2% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.016). After multivariable analysis, MV-PCI was independently associated with a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42–0.96; p = 0.03) and NACE (NACE 0.72[0.53–0.98]; p = 0.04). These results were confirmed in a matched propensity analysis, were consistent throughout the spectrum of older age and when analyzed by subgroups and when immortal-time bias was considered. ConclusionsIn the setting of older adults with MVCAD who were managed invasively for AMI, a MV-PCI strategy to pursue complete revascularization was associated with better survival and lower risk of NACE compared to a CV-PCI. Adequately sized RCTs are required to confirm these findings.