P3127Optimal revascularization strategy in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary artery disease: staged vs. one-time vs. culprit-only revascularization

Abstract

Abstract Background/Introduction Although optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) was well established, there are few studies which investigated optimal revascularization strategy in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEM) with MVD. Purpose We investigated 2-year clinical outcomes according to strategy of revascularization in patients with NSTEMI and MVD. Methods Between November 2011 and October 2015, a total of 2474 patients with NSTEMI and MVD who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (staged 308, one-time 1043 and culprit-only 1123 patients). We did not include patients with left main disease and cardiogenic shock. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target-vessel revascularization [TVR]) during 2-year follow-up (median 737 days [interquartile range 705–764]). We also analyzed the of all-cause mortality, stroke and non-TVR. Results Baseline characteristics such as age, gender, and prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors between multivessel revascularization (MVR; staged or one-time revascularization) and CVR were similar. There was also no difference in symptom to balloon time in 2 groups. MACE occurred in 305 patients (12.3%) during 2-year follow-up. MVR could reduce incidence of MACE (10.2% vs. 14.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.50 for CVR, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20–1.88, p<0.001), all-cause death (8.4% vs. 12.1%; adjusted HR 1.45 for CVR, 95% CI 1.13–1.87, p=0.003) and non-TVR (1,9% vs. 7.0%; adjusted HR 3.99 for CVR, 95% CI 2.55–6.27, p<0.001). There was no difference in incidence of stroke between MVR and CVR. We also analyzed same analysis between staged and one-time revascularization. Complete revascularization was more achieved in one-time revascularization group compared to staged revascularization group (62.0% vs. 76.1%, p<0.001). In multivariate Cox-regression analysis, staged revascularization was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in terms of MACE (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.50–1.09, p=0.126), all-cause death (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.69–1.68, p=0.759), stroke (HR 1.75, 95% CI 0.68–4.52, p=0.245) and non-TVR (HR 2.56, 95% CI 0.75–8.68, p=0.132). Analysis by propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting did not significantly affect the results. Conclusions MVR reduced 2-year adverse cardiac events in patients with NSTEMI and MVD compared to CVR. However, staged revascularization was not superior to one-time revascularization for reducing MACE among NSTEMI patients with MVD who received MVR.