Culprit-only Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Research Articles

Complete revascularization in STEMI with multivessel disease: how late is too late?

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Recent research has shown that in patients (pts) with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease, revascularization of non-culprit lesions soon after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces the risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI. However, in real-world practice, centres often cannot perform PCI of non-culprit lesions as early after hospital discharge as reported in these studies. Purpose To analyse current treatment of STEMI with multivessel disease in a district hospital and determine if there is still benefit in doing complete revascularization (CR) even when non-culprit lesion PCI is done late after hospital discharge. Methods We conducted a retrospective pilot study including all consecutive pts with STEMI submitted to primary PCI in a district hospital in 2018 who presented angiographically significant multivessel disease amenable to PCI. We compared outcomes between pts who underwent CR after hospital discharge (study group), those who did it during hospitalization and the group who only underwent culprit-lesion PCI. Exclusion criteria included history of coronary bypass graft, cardiogenic shock at admission, a chronic total occlusion as single non-culprit lesion and death before treatment strategy was defined. Results Of the 302 pts treated for STEMI in 2018, 125 had multivessel disease. Of these, 27 met exclusion criteria, resulting in a sample of 98 pts with a mean age of 66 years. Median time from symptom onset to PCI was 5 hours, with 8% of pts presenting in Killip class II-III. Most pts (61%) underwent CR during index hospital stay. 15% underwent PCI of non-culprit lesions after hospital discharge, with a median time from primary to non-culprit PCI of 86 days. Finally, 18% underwent no further revascularization. An additional 5 pts had non-culprit lesions treated surgically after a median of 364 days. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, death had occurred in none of the pts of the study group, which did not significantly differ from the 7 pts (12%) in the group revascularized at index hospitalization (log-rank test: p = 0.185) but was significantly inferior to the 5 (29%) in the culprit-only PCI group (p = 0.037). There was no significant difference in a composite outcome of death, MI and stroke. The secondary outcome of ischaemia-driven revascularization occurred more often in the study group compared with those revascularized during hospitalization (HR 6.68; 95% CI 1.09-41.01; p = 0.040). Conclusions This study suggests that complete revascularization in STEMI with multivessel disease even late after hospital discharge is still superior to culprit-lesion only PCI in reducing risk of death. On the other hand, this late revascularization seems to be associated with higher rates of ischaemia-induced revascularization. Further research with a larger sample will be required to confirm the results of this pilot study.

A complete versus inducible ischemia-guided revascularization after a culprit-only primary percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease: A pilot study

Introduction/Objective. Revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a matter of debate. We sought to compare outcomes between revascularization strategies based on angiographic lesion severity or inducible ischemia. Methods. In prospective study, first ever STEMI patients with MVD, defined as > 70% stenosis in non-culprit vessel, treated with culprit only primary PCI were randomized to: A. Complete revascularization of all nonculprit significant lesions during initial hospitalization; B. Complete revascularization after 30 days, or C. Revascularization based on non-invasive testing for inducible ischemia. The study explored occurrence of major adverse cardio-cerebral events (MACCE) (cardiac death, repeated MI, cerebrovascular event). Results. The study enrolled 120 patients with door to balloon time within appropriate limits (A 51 ? 26 vs. B 47 ? 33 vs. C 44 ? 29 min, p = 0.604) The patients in group A underwent complete revascularization at 6 [4?7] days after primary PCI, while in the group B it was 35 [32?39] days. In group C, 16/43 (37.2%) patients underwent PCI at 82 [66?147] days after infarction (p < 0.001). The patients were followed for 2.7 ? 0.8 years. The events occurred less frequently in patients that underwent planned complete revascularization compared to those who underwent ischemia testing (7.8 vs. 20.9%, p = 0.040). Kaplan?Meier analysis favored complete delayed revascularization (MACCE A 8.8 vs. B 6.9 vs. C 20.9%, log rank p = 0.041). Conclusions. Planned, angiography guided, complete revascularization after initial event may be favorable strategy compared to single stress test for MVD in STEMI.

Complete versus culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract Background Approximately half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) present with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Purpose To compare the risks of major cardiovascular outcomes and procedural complications in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD randomized to complete revascularization versus culprit-only PCI. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete to culprit-only PCI, identified via a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Libraries. Count data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to obtain relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 8 RCTs (n=6,632) were included, with mean/median follow-up times ranging from 6 to 36 months. Compared to culprit-only PCI, complete PCI was associated with a substantial reduction in MACE (12.6% vs. 22.0%), repeat myocardial infarction (4.5% vs. 6.9%), and repeat revascularization (3.3% vs. 12.1%) (Table 1). Complete PCI may also improve all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but estimates were accompanied by wide 95% CIs. Findings for stroke, major bleeding, and contrast-induced AKI were inconclusive. Conclusion Complete revascularization appears to confer benefit over culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, and should be considered a first-line strategy in these patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Mr. Levett is supported by a Dr. Clarke K. McLeod Memorial Scholarship, funded through the McGill University Faculty of Medicine Research Bursary Program. Dr. Filion is supported by a Junior 2 Research Scholar award from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and a William Dawson Scholar award from McGill University.

Meta-Analysis of Complete versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Disease

Approximately half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) present with noninfarct related multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, questions remain concerning whether patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD should routinely undergo complete revascularization. Our objective was to compare the risks of major cardiovascular outcomes and procedural complications in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD randomized to complete revascularization versus culprit-only PCI. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete revascularization to culprit-only PCI. RCTs were identified via a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Count data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to obtain relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 9 RCTs (n = 6,751) were included, with mean/median follow-up times ranging from 6 to 36 months. Compared with culprit-only PCI, complete revascularization was associated with a substantial reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (13.1% vs 22.1%; RR: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.43 to 0.66), repeat myocardial infarction (4.9% vs 6.8%; RR: 0.64; 95%CI: 0.48 to 0.84), and repeat revascularization (3.7% vs 12.3%; RR: 0.33; 95%CI: 0.25 to 0.44). Complete revascularization may have beneficial effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but 95%CIs were wide. Findings for stroke, major bleeding, and contrast-induced acute kidney injury were inconclusive. In conclusion, complete coronary artery revascularization appears to confer benefit over culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, and should be considered a first-line strategy in these patients.

The effect of complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with Killip class ≥ III

Background:The effect of complete revascularization (CR) on high-risk patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has remains a controversial issue, especially on patients in a critical condition. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of CR on patients with STEMI with Killip class ≥ III.Methods:From January 2008 to December 2014, 185 patients diagnosed with STEMI with Killip class ≥ III and multiple vessel coronary artery disease received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Eighty-nine patients underwent culprit-only PCI, and the remaining 96 patients underwent immediate or staged PCI for CR. Out of the 96 patients in the CR group, 51 patients underwent immediate CR, and 45 patients underwent CR during the same hospitalization. Thirty-day and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the culprit-only PCI group and the CR group as well as between the immediate CR group and staged CR group.Results:There was a trend toward a lower incidence of post-PCI acute kidney injury in the culprit-only PCI group when compared with the CR group (14.8% vs. 26.0%; P = 0.069). Thirty-day and 1-year cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were similar between the culprit-only PCI group and CR group. Decreased 1-year cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were noted in the staged CR group compared with the immediate CR group.Conclusionwas associated a higher possibility of post-PCI acute kidney injury and did not seem to improve 30-day or 1-year clinical outcomes. Patients undergoing staged CR during the same hospitalization had better clinical outcomes.

One-year clinical outcomes between biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent and durable-polymer-coated drug-eluting stents in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing culprit-only or multivessel PCI

Background and aimsThere are limited data comparing clinical outcomes among new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with culprit-only or multivessel PCI. We investigated 1-year clinical outcomes between biodegradable-polymer (BP)-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES) and durable-polymer (DP)-coated DES in STEMI patients with MVD who underwent two different reperfusion strategies. MethodsA total of 4255 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups, a culprit-only (n = 2571, BP- [n = 264] or DP-DES [n = 2307]) or a multivessel PCI group (n = 1684, BP- [n = 145] or DP-DES [n = 1539]). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (re-MI), and total repeat revascularization. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). ResultsBP-BES and DP-DES showed a similar 1-year adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (culprit-only, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.114; p = 0.740; multivessel, HR, 0.564; p = 0.167) and ST (culprit-only, HR, 1.110, p = 0.891; multivessel, HR, 0.375; p = 0.402). The adjusted HR for all-cause death, re-MI, and repeat revascularization were similar between the two groups. In the total population, the culprit-only PCI group showed a higher incidence of total repeat revascularization than the multivessel PCI group. ConclusionsBP-BES and DP-DES showed comparable safety and efficacy in STEMI patients with MVD who underwent primary PCI with two different reperfusion strategies during a 1-year follow-up period.

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease in the 2nd Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Era: Data from the INTERSTELLAR Registry.

Background and ObjectivesWe aimed to compare outcomes of complete revascularization (CR) versus culprit-only revascularization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) in the 2nd generation drug-eluting stent (DES) era.MethodsFrom 2009 to 2014, patients with STEMI and MVD, who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a 2nd generation DES for culprit lesions were enrolled. CR was defined as PCI for a non-infarct-related artery during the index admission. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as cardiovascular (CV) death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or heart failure during the follow-up year.ResultsIn total, 705 MVD patients were suitable for the analysis, of whom 286 (41%) underwent culprit-only PCI and 419 (59%) underwent CR during the index admission. The incidence of MACE was 11.5% in the CR group versus 18.5% in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–0.86; p<0.01; adjusted HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40–0.99; p=0.04). The CR group revealed a significantly lower incidence of CV death (7.2% vs. 12.9%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31–0.86; p=0.01 and adjusted HR, 0.57; 95% CI; 0.32–0.97; p=0.03, respectively).ConclusionsCR was associated with better outcomes including reductions in MACE and CV death at 1 year of follow-up compared with culprit-only PCI in the 2nd generation DES era.

Infarct size and left ventricular remodelling after preventive percutaneous coronary intervention

ObjectiveWe hypothesised that, compared with culprit-only primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), additional preventive PCI in selected patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease would not be associated with iatrogenic...

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.

In 30-60% of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), significant stenoses are present in one or more non-infarct-related arteries (IRA). This correlates with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Current guidelines, do not recommend revascularization of non-culprit lesions unless complicated by cardiogenic shock or persistent ischemia after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Prior observational and small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Recently, randomized studies (PRAMI, CvLPRIT, and DANAMI 3-PRIMULTI) provide encouraging data that suggest potential benefit with complete revascularization in STEMI patients with obstructive non-culprit lesions. Differently, in the PRAGUE-13 trial there were no differences in MACE between complete revascularization and culprit-only PCI. Several meta-analyses were recently published including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, showing different results depending on the included trials. In conclusion, the current available evidence from the randomized clinical trials, with a total sample size of only 2000 patients, is not robust enough to firmly recommend complete revascularization in STEMI patients. This uncertainty lends support to the continuation of the COMPLETE trial. This ongoing trial is anticipated to enroll 3900 patients with STEMI from across the world, and will be powered for the hard outcomes of death and myocardial infarction. Until the results of the COMPLETE trial are reported, physicians need to individualize care regarding the opportunity and the timing of the non-IRA PCI.

Abstract 15079: Complete Revascularization for Multivessel Disease ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights From an Updated Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Multivessel Disease is commonly seen in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). Current guidelines recommend primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on only the culprit vessel , unless the patient is hemodynamically unstable. Recent trials have reported significant benefit on cardiovascular endpoints with complete revascularization of vessels during STEMI. The purpose of this meta analysis was to assess the benefit of complete revascularization (either single setting or staged PCI) compared to culprit only PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Methods: We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science ,CINAHL databases and presentations at major cardiovascular scientific sessions from inception through June 5th, 2015. Randomized Trials comparing complete revascularization strategies (single-setting PCI or staged PCI) and culprit-only PCI were included. The primary outcome of interest was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, new myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat revascularization. Results: Seven trials enrolling a total of 2006 patients were included in the final analysis. Complete revascularization (single-setting PCI + staged PCI) was associated with a significant reduction in MACE, when compared to culprit only PCI [OR 0.52; 95 % CI 0.32 to 0.85; P = 0.009]. However, there was no significant difference in all cause mortality [OR 0.75; 95 % CI 0.51 to 1.12] or recurrent MI [OR 0.74;95 % CI 0.4 to 1.39] with complete revascularization. Conclusion: In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularization is associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, driven primarily by a reduction in repeat revascularization, with no evidence of significant difference in all cause mortality or recurrent MI when compared to culprit only PCI.

Long‐term outcome in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease treated with culprit‐only, immediate, or staged multivessel percutaneous revascularization strategies: Insights from the REAL registry

To examine the differences in cardiac outcomes for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) as a function of whether they underwent culprit-only primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) or multivessel PCI, either during PPCI or as a staged procedure. MVD occurs in about 40% of patients presenting with STEMI, and it has been associated with a worse outcome compared to single-vessel disease. The most favorable PCI strategy for dealing with significant nonculprit lesions has to be established. A total of 2061 STEMI patients with MVD undergoing PPCI, prospectively enrolled in the REAL Registry between July 2002 and December 2010, were considered: 706 underwent culprit-only PPCI; 367 multivessel PCI during the index procedure; 988 had a staged PCI within 60 days. Mortality and outcomes were calculated at 30 days and 2 years. At multivariate analysis, culprit-only PPCI was associated with higher rates of cardiac outcomes as compared to staged multivessel PCI, taken as reference [Hazard Ratio (HR): 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34-5.89, P = 0.006 for 30-day mortality, and HR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.35-2.74, P = 0.0002 for 2-year mortality, respectively]. Short-term mortality rates were higher in multivessel PCI group as compared to staged PCI group (HR: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.06-6.26, P = 0.03); no differences were observed at 2-year follow-up (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.64-1.82, P = 0.76). Our findings support the current guidelines recommendation to perform culprit-only PPCI in STEMI patients with MVD without hemodynamic compromise, followed by a staged PCI of noninfarct-related significant lesions.

Initial culprit-only versus initial multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Ibaraki Cardiovascular Assessment Study registry

We investigated clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) treated for initial culprit-only or by initial simultaneous treatment of nonculprit lesion with culprit lesion. Optimal management of multivessel disease in STEMI patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still unclear in the drug-eluting stent era. We compared clinical outcomes of 274 STEMI patients (69.3 ± 11.8 years, 77 % men) in the Ibaraki Cardiovascular Assessment Study registry who underwent initial culprit-only (OCL, n=220) or initial multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesion with culprit lesion (NCL, n=54) from April 2007 to August 2010. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Patients in the NCL group were older and had higher Killip class and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate than those in the OCL group. MI, TVR, CVA, and stent thrombosis were not significantly different between the two groups. Incidences of all-cause death and MACCE were lower in the OCL than in the NCL group (all-cause death: 10.9 % vs 31.5 %, P < 0.05; MACCE: 27.7 % vs 46.2 %, P < 0.05). After adjusting for patient characteristics, NCL remained at significantly higher risk compared with OCL for in-hospital and all-cause death (P=0.001, respectively), and MACCE were not significantly different (odds ratio 1.95, 95 % confidence interval 0.94-4.08; P=0.07) between groups. Initial multivessel PCI was associated with significantly increased risk of in-hospital death, all-cause death, and MACCE, which was somewhat attenuated in a multivariable model, but the numerically excessive risk with NCL still persisted.

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction, Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest, and Cardiogenic Shock: The Role of Primary Multivessel Revascularization

This study sought to assess the impact of multivessel (MV) primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS) and resuscitated cardiac arrest (CA). The safety and efficacy of MV primary PCI in patients with STEMI and refractory CS is unknown. We conducted a multicenter prospective observational study of consecutive STEMI patients presenting to 5 French centers. Patients were classified as having single-vessel (SVD) or multivessel (MVD) coronary disease, and underwent culprit-only or MV primary PCI. Baseline characteristics and 6-month survival were compared. Among 11,530 STEMI patients, 266 had resuscitated CA and CS. Patients with SVD (36.5%) had increased 6-month survival compared to those with MVD (29.6% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.032). Baseline characteristics were similar in those with MVD undergoing culprit-only (60.9%) or MV (39.1%) primary PCI. However, 6-month survival was significantly greater in patients who underwent MV PCI (43.9% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.0017). This survival advantage was mediated by a reduction in the composite of recurrent CA and death due to shock (p = 0.024) in MV PCI patients. In those with MVD, culprit artery PCI success (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41 to 0.96, p = 0.030) and MV primary PCI (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.84, p = 0.005) were associated with increased 6-month survival. The results of this study suggest that in STEMI patients with MVD presenting with CS and CA, MV primary PCI may improve clinical outcome. Randomized trials are required to verify these results.

Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction

Recanalization of the culprit lesion is the main goal of primary angioplasty for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease are, therefore, usually subjected to staged procedures, with the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) confined to recanalization of the infarct-related artery (IRA). Theoretically at least, early relief of stenoses of non-infarct-related arteries could promote collateral circulation, which could help to limit the infarct size. However, the safety and feasibility of such an approach has not been adequately established. In this single-center prospective study we examined 73 consecutive patients who had an acute STEMI and at least one or more lesions > or = 70% in a major epicardial vessel other than the infarct-related artery. In the first 28 patients, forming the multi-vessel (MV) PCI group, all lesions were treated during the primary procedure. In the following 45 patients, forming the culprit-only (CO) PCI group, only the culprit lesion was treated during the initial procedure, followed by either planned-staged or ischemia-driven revascularization of the non-culprit lesions. Fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were compared between both groups, and patients were followed up for one year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and other significant clinical events. The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical characteristics, number of diseased vessels and angiographic characteristics of the culprit lesion. In the MV-PCI group, 2.51 lesions per patient were treated using 2.96 +/- 1.34 stents (1.00 lesions and 1.76 +/- 1.17 stents in the CO-PCI group, both p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time increased from 10.3 (7.2-16.9) min in the CO-PCI group to 12.5 (8.5-19.3) min in the MV-PCI group (p = 0.22), and the amount of contrast used from 200 (180-250) ml to 250 (200-300) ml, respectively (p = 0.16). Peak CK and CK-MB were significantly lower in patients of the MV-PCI group (843 +/- 845 and 135 +/- 125 vs 1652 +/- 1550 and 207 +/- 155 U/l, p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Similar rates of major adverse cardiac events at one year were observed in the two groups (24% and 28% in multi-vessel and culprit treatment groups, p = 0.73). The incidence of new revascularization in both infarct- and non-infarct-related arteries was also similar (24% and 28%, respectively, p = 0.73). We may state from this limited experience that a multi-vessel stenting approach for patients with acute STEMI and multi-vessel disease is feasible and probably safe during routine clinical practice. Our data suggest that this approach may help to limit the infarct size. However, larger studies, perhaps using drug-eluting stents, are still needed to further evaluate the safety and efficiency of this procedure, and whether it is associated with a lower need of subsequent revascularization and lower costs.