Revascularization Trial Research Articles

Expanding revascularization trials to women and underserved minorities and shifting to patient-centered outcomes: RECHARGE trials program.

We review the limited available evidence informing coronary revascularization decisions in women and minorities, and introduce the RECHARGE trial program, which consists of two separate but integrated parallel multicenter, randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one exclusively enrolling women (RECHARGE:Women) and one exclusively enrolling Black or Hispanic patients (RECHARGE:Minorities). The extensive evidence base supporting coronary revascularization suffers from under-representation of women, minorities and minoritized populations, and the use of heterogeneous primary composite outcomes whose components have varying strengths of association with prognosis and quality-of-life (QOL). In RECHARGE, participants will be followed for up to 10 years, with QOL assessments at baseline, 30 days, 3 months, every 6 months for 3 years, and annually thereafter. The primary endpoint is the hierarchical composite of time to all-cause mortality, time-averaged change from baseline in the physical component of the SF-12v2 physical summary score, and time-averaged change from baseline in the mental component of the SF12v2 summary score, evaluated using a win ratio. Independently adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events and disease-specific QoL will be secondary endpoints. The RECHARGE trials are the first revascularization trials to enroll exclusively women and minority patients and to use patient-centered outcomes as their primary outcome.

Minimal clinically important differences in patient-reported outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery in the arterial revascularization trial.

This article identifies minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in quality of life (QoL) measures among patients who had coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and were enrolled in the arterial revascularization trial (ART). The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form Health Survey 36-Item (SF-36) physical component (PC) and mental component (MC) scores were recorded at baseline, 5 years and 10 years in ART. The MCIDs were calculated as changes in QoL scores anchored to 1-class improvement in the New York Heart Association functional class and Canadian Cardiovascular Society scale at 5 years. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate associations between MCIDs and mortality. Patient cohorts were examined for the SF-36 PC (N = 2671), SF-36 MC (N = 2815) and EQ-5D (N = 2943) measures, respectively. All QoL scores significantly improved after CABG compared to baseline. When anchored to the New York Heart Association, the MCID at 5 years was 17 (95% confidence interval: 17-20) for SF-36 PC, 14 (14-17) for the SF-36 MC and 0.12 (0.12-0.15) for EQ-5D. Using the Canadian Cardiovascular Society scale as an anchor, the MCID at 5 years was 15 (15-17) for the SF-36 PC, 12 (13-15) for the SF-36 MC and 0.12 (0.11-0.14) for the EQ-5D. The MCIDs for SF-36 PC and EQ-5D at 5 years were associated with a lower risk of mortality at the 10-year follow-up point after surgery. MCIDs for CABG patients have been identified. These thresholds may have direct clinical applications in monitoring patients during follow-up and in designing new trials that include QoL as a primary study outcome. ISRCTN46552265.

Underrepresentation of Women in Revascularization Trials

This Viewpoint discusses the unequal representation of women in coronary revascularization trials in the US, its negative effects on the cardiovascular health of both sexes, and potential mechanisms to ensure appropriate representation of women moving forward.

TCT-292 Regional Disparity of the Bypass Strategy and Graft Patent Rate in the First-in-Man Trial of Coronary Surgical Revascularization Solely Guided on Multislice Computed Tomography

TCT-292 Regional Disparity of the Bypass Strategy and Graft Patent Rate in the First-in-Man Trial of Coronary Surgical Revascularization Solely Guided on Multislice Computed Tomography

Bilateral versus single internal thoracic coronary artery bypass grafting: the ART RCT

Background There is debate whether the use of more arterial grafts during coronary artery bypass graft surgery provides advantages to the standard operation using the left internal thoracic artery plus vein grafts. We review data from the Arterial Revascularisation Trial to determine whether there is support for the multiple arterial graft hypothesis. Methods Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft for clinical reasons and who provided written informed consent were randomised to standard coronary artery bypass graft using the single internal thoracic artery or use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries. Additional vein grafts could be used. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 10 years and exploratory analyses were carried out to test the multiple arterial graft hypothesis. Results A total of 3102 patients were enrolled (1548 bilateral internal thoracic artery and 1554 single internal thoracic artery). Follow-up to 10 years for vital status was 98% complete. In the bilateral group, 14% of patients received a single internal thoracic artery only and use of radial artery grafts occurred in about 20% of patients in both groups. Aspirin was used in 81% of the patients, beta-blockers in 74%, statins in 90% and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in 73%. At 10 years, death rates were 20.3% and 21.2% in the bilateral internal thoracic artery and single internal thoracic artery groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence intervals 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.62) and composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke 24.9% and 27.3%, respectively (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.03; p = 0.12). Exploratory analyses using the ‘as-treated’ approach indicate that outcomes were better in patients who received multiple arterial grafts (adding the right internal thoracic and/or radial arteries) compared with a single arterial graft. This effect appeared to be greater in patients with diabetes and those aged 70 years or less. Use of total arterial grafting without vein grafts may provide the best outcomes. Limitations The elevated cross-over rate between bilateral internal thoracic artery and single internal thoracic artery and the non-randomised use of radial artery grafts may have contributed to a loss of power to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups. Moreover, secondary analyses are prone to bias as they compare non-randomised groups. Conclusions The Arterial Revascularisation Trial is one of the largest long-term studies in cardiac surgery. The primary analysis did not show a mortality benefit for bilateral internal thoracic artery at 10 years, perhaps due to high crossover rates in the bilateral internal thoracic artery group and concomitant use of the radial artery. Secondary analyses suggest a mortality benefit for patients receiving multiple arterial grafts compared with single arterial graft with possible greater effects in patients with diabetes and separately in patients aged 70 years or above. The trial will follow patients to 15 years and the continuing Randomized Comparison of the Clinical Outcome of Single versus Multiple Arterial Grafts trial will further test the multiple arterial graft hypothesis. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN46552265. Funding This project was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the UK. Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Influence of diabetes and obesity on ten-year outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting in the arterial revascularisation trial.

Diabetes and obesity are common conditions which can influence outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of diabetes and obesity, and their interactions, on ten-year outcomes following CABG. Patients enrolled in the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART) were stratified by diabetes and obesity at baseline. Diabetes was further stratified into insulin and non-insulin dependent. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 10years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke at 10years, and sternal wound complications at 6months follow-up. A total of 3096 patients were included in the analysis (24% with diabetes, 30% with obesity). Patients in the "diabetes/no obesity" group had a higher risk of all-cause mortality following CABG (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.64, p = 0.01) compared to the reference group of "no diabetes/no obesity". No excess risk was observed in the "no diabetes/obesity" or "diabetes/obesity" groups. Patients with insulin dependent diabetes had a significantly higher ten-year mortality risk compared to no diabetes (aHR 1.85, 95% CI 1.41-2.44, p = 0.00). Patients in the "diabetes/no obesity" and "diabetes/obesity groups" had a higher risk of sternal wound complications (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.39-3.79, p < 0.001 and HR 3.21, 95% CI 1.89-5.45, p < 0.001 respectively). The composite outcome results were consistent with the mortality results. Diabetes, especially insulin dependent diabetes, is associated with a higher ten-year mortality risk after CABG, in contrast to obesity which does not appear to increase long term mortality compared to non-obese. The interaction between diabetes and obesity shows an apparent "protective" effect of obesity irrespective of diabetes on mortality. Both conditions are associated with a higher risk of post-operative sternal wound infections.

Comparing results of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease by surgical revascularization pump strategy

ObjectiveWe performed a post hoc analysis of the Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial to determine the effect an on-versus off-pump strategy had on outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention. MethodsAll randomized patients in EXCEL (n = 1905) were included. The outcomes of interest were the primary end point composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; the composite study end point or ischemia-driven revascularization; and the rate of death from any cause at 5 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan–Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. ResultsPropensity matching resulted in groups of 1142 patients (571 each) for on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention and 472 patients (236 each) for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention. In the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point was similar (18.0% vs 22.1%, P = .19) and the composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (23.3% vs 31.0%, P = .01) was lower, and mortality (7.6% vs 11.8%, P = .025) was lower in the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting group at 5 years. In the off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point (19.4% vs 22.2%, P = .47), composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (25.9% vs 34.2%, P = .07), and mortality (12.5% vs 14.2%, P = .59) were similar at 5 years. ConclusionsIn the EXCEL trial, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a decreased 5-year rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization, and decreased mortality when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were similar to percutaneous coronary intervention.

Is there a woman paradox? Commentary on the Gender differences in percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions from the ERCTO study.

Key Points Women are underrepresented in CTO revascularisation registries and trials. Women undergoing CTO PCI have lower J‐CTO scores, higher procedural success with no difference in MACC, but more complications such as perforations, vascular complications and major bleeding. There is a need for more large‐scale sex‐based analyses enrolling more women, with complex CTO lesion subsets and the adoption of contemporary best practices for CTO PCI.

Correlation Between Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction, Mortality, and Quality of Life in Coronary Revascularization Trials: A Meta-analysis.

The prognostic importance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (pMI) and its inclusion in the composite outcomes of coronary revascularization trials are controversial. We assessed whether pMI is a surrogate for all-cause or cardiac mortality and quality of life (QoL) outcomes in coronary revascularization trials. All randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were identified. Trials were included if they reported data for pMI and mortality. Trial-level associations between pMI and all-cause or cardiac mortality and QoL were assessed using the coefficient of determination (R 2 ). The criterion for surrogacy was set at 0.7. Subgroup analyses based on pMI definition and on key clinical/procedural variables were performed. Twelve trials were included (11,549 patients; weighted mean follow-up: 5.6 years). There was a positive correlation between pMI and all-cause mortality (slope, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.00-2.63; R 2 = 0.72). In the trials that defined pMI as a rise in cardiac biomarkers >5 times the upper reference limit, pMI positively correlated with both all-cause (slope, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.00-3.14; R 2 = 0.93) and cardiac mortality (slope, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.20-1.19; R 2 = 0.87); no such relationships were present in trials that used a lower biomarker threshold. An inverse correlation was found between pMI and long-term changes in the Short Form Health Survey Physical Component score (slope, -4.66; 95% CI, -5.75 to -3.57; R 2 =0.99). In the published coronary revascularization trials, pMI defined by larger biomarker elevations was associated with subsequent mortality and reduced QoL. These findings suggest that large pMI should be included as an outcome measure in coronary revascularization trials.

Reconsidering the Direction of Coronary Revascularization Trials

Reconsidering the Direction of Coronary Revascularization Trials

Discordance between Invasive and Non-Invasive Coronary Angiography: An In-Depth Functional and Anatomical Analysis

A 79-year-old male with chronic coronary syndrome with complex coronary artery disease was included in the first-in-man trial of surgical revascularization guided solely by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and fractional flow reserve derived from CCTA (FFRCT). In CCTA analysis, the patient had calcified three-vessel disease, with a global anatomical SYNTAX score of 27. In contrast, in the initial FFRCT, only the ramus intermediate stenosis was physiologically significant, with no other vessels having an FFRCT ≤ 0.80 (functional SYNTAX score of 2). Discordance between the results of the CCTA and FFRCT necessitated an in-depth analysis by using both invasive and non-invasive coronary angiography. Angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) confirmed that the stenosis in the proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) was physiologically significant, while it remained functionally negative in the second assessment of FFRCT. Extensive calcification is the most plausible explanation for the underestimation of the stenosis of proximal LAD in CCTA-derived FFR technology.

Applicability of the EXCEL Trial Criteria to an All-Comers Real-World Cohort of Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The Evaluation of XIENCE versus EXCEL (Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial is the largest randomized study comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stents and bypass surgery in unprotected left main disease (ULMD). Our aim was to assess which proportion of patients from a contemporary all-comer population of ULMD PCI would be eligible for the EXCEL trial and whether these patients show different long-term outcomes than the rest of the ULMD population. A total of 246 consecutive patients underwent ULMD PCI between January 2018 and December 2021 and were retrospectively analyzed. After application of the EXCEL trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 98 patients (39%) were allocated to the "EXCEL-like" cohort and 148 to the "non-EXCEL-like." Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were substantially comparable. The mean baseline SYNTAX score was lower in the EXCEL-like patients than the non-EXCEL-like group (20.1 ± 7.1 vs 23.0 ± 11.2, p=0.025), with the latter also showing a higher degree of incomplete revascularization (residual SYNTAX score >8:11% vs 26%, p=0.005). At 1year, the cumulative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events rate was 7% for the EXCEL-like and 17% for the non-EXCEL-like patients, respectively (p=0.03). At the last follow-up available, the significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events rate persisted (19% vs 37%, p=0.02) and a significant difference in any unplanned revascularization was also shown (1.5% vs 13%, p=0.04). In conclusion, in a contemporary real-world cohort of ULMD PCI, only a minority of patients could be enrolled in the EXCEL trial; the EXCEL-like patients, in our population, showed less clinical events at long-term follow-up than the cohort of patients who were ineligible for EXCEL, despite comparable baseline cardiovascular profiles; these findings may challenge a broad external applicability of the results of the EXCEL trial in routine clinical activity.

Therapeutic Neovascularization for Refractory Angina-Are We Any Closer?

Therapeutic Neovascularization for Refractory Angina-Are We Any Closer?

1127 APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCEL TRIAL CRITERIA IN AN ALL-COMERS REAL-WORLD POPULATION OF UNPROTECTED LEFT MAIN PCI

Abstract Background The Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial is the largest randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with 2nd generation drug eluting stents (DES) and bypass surgery in unprotected left main disease (ULMD). Our aim was to assess which proportion of patients from a contemporary all-comers population of ULMD-PCI would be eligible for the EXCEL trial and whether these patients showed different short- and long-term outcomes than the rest of the population. Methods and results A total of 246 consecutive patients that underwent ULMD-PCI between January 2018 and December 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. After application of the EXCEL trial inclusion ed exclusion criteria, 98 patients (38.9%) were allocated in the "Excel-like" cohort and 148 in the "Non-Excel-like". Baseline characteristics of the two groups were substantially comparable. Mean baseline Syntax Score (SS) was significantly lower in the "Excel-like" patients (Excel 20.1 ± 7.1 VS Non-Excel 23.0 ± 11.2; p-value = 0.025) than the "Non-Excel-like" group with the latter showing also a higher degree of incomplete revascularization (rSS &amp;gt;8: Excel 11.2%.VS Non-Excel 25.7%; p-value 0.005). At 1 year the cumulative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCEs) rates were 7.2% and 17.2% for the "Excel-like" and "Non-Excel-like" patients respectively (Log-rank p-value = 0.03). At last follow-up available the significant difference in MACCEs rate persisted (Excel 19.3%, VS Non-Excel 37%, Log-rank p-value 0.02) and a significant difference in any unplanned revascularization was also shown (Excel 1.5% VS Non-Excel 12.6%; p-value 0.04). Conclusions in a contemporary real-world cohort of ULMD-PCI only a minority of the patients could be enrolled in the EXCEL trial. This cohort of patients showed a more extensive revascularization and less clinical events at long-term follow-up despite comparable burden of cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerotic coronary disease. These findings "challenge" the external applicability of the results of the Excel trial in the routine clinical activity.

Myocardial Viability Testing in the Management of Ischemic Heart Failure.

Although major advances have occurred lately in medical therapy, ischemic heart failure remains an important cause of death and disability. Viable myocardium represents a cause of reversible ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Coronary revascularization may improve left ventricular function and prognosis in patients with viable myocardium. Although patients with impaired left ventricular function and multi-vessel coronary artery disease benefit the most from revascularization, they are at high risk of complications related to revascularization procedure. An important element in selecting the patients for myocardial revascularization is the presence of the viable myocardium. Multiple imaging modalities can assess myocardial viability and predict functional improvement after revascularization, with dobutamine stress echocardiography, nuclear imaging tests and magnetic resonance imaging being the most frequently used. However, the role of myocardial viability testing in the management of patients with ischemic heart failure is still controversial due to the failure of randomized controlled trials of revascularization to reveal clear benefits of viability testing. This review summarizes the current knowledge regarding the concept of viable myocardium, depicts the role and tools for viability testing, discusses the research involving this topic and the controversies related to the utility of myocardial viability testing and provides a patient-centered approach for clinical practice.

Is the world ready for the STICH 3.0 trial?

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is responsible for >50% of heart failures cases. Patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) are known to have poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared to patients with a normal ejection fraction. Nevertheless, <1% of patients in coronary revascularization trials to date had iLVSD. The purpose of this review is to describe coronary revascularization modalities in patients with iLVSD and highlight the need for randomized controlled trial evidence comparing these treatments in this patient population. Network meta-analytic findings of observational studies suggest that PCI is associated with higher rates of mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization but not stroke compared to CABG in iLVSD. In recent years, outcomes for patients undergoing PCI have improved as a result of advances in technologies and techniques. The optimal coronary revascularization modality in patients with iLVSD remains unknown. In observational studies, CABG appears superior to PCI; however, direct randomized evidence is absent and developments in PCI techniques have improved post-PCI outcomes in recent years. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure 3.0 consortium of trials will seek to address the clinical equipoise in coronary revascularization in patients with iLVSD.

Association between sternal wound complications and 10-year mortality following coronary artery bypass grafting

ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between sternal wound complications (SWC) and long-term mortality in the Arterial Revascularization Trial. MethodsParticipants in the Arterial Revascularization Trial were stratified according to the occurrence of postoperative SWC. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at long-term follow-up. The secondary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. ResultsThree thousand one hundred two patients were included in the analysis; the median follow-up was 10 years. 115 patients (3.7%) had postoperative SWC: 85 (73.9%) deep sternal wound infections and 30 (26.1%) sterile SWC that required sternal reconstruction. Independent predictors of SWC included diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 2.77; 95% CI, 1.79-4.30; P < .001), female sex (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.71-4.38; P < .001), prior stroke (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.12-5.98; P = .03), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.60-3.71; P < .001), and use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.12-2.59; P = .01). Postoperative SWC was significantly associated with long-term mortality. The Kaplan-Meier survival estimate was 91.3% at 5 years and 79.4% at 10 years in patients without SWC, and 86.1% and 64.3% in patients with SWC (log rank P < .001). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was also higher among patients who had SWC (n = 51 [44.3%] vs 758 [25.4%]; P < .001). Using multivariable analysis, the occurrence of SWC was independently associated with long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.30-2.54; P < .001). ConclusionsIn the Arterial Revascularization Trial, postoperative SWC although uncommon were significantly associated with long-term mortality.

The prospective randomized trial of the optimal evaluation of cardiac symptoms and revascularization: Rationale and design of the PRECISE trial

Clinicians vary widely in their preferred diagnostic approach to patients with non-acute chest pain. Such variation exposes patients to potentially avoidable risks, as well as inefficient care with increased costs and unresolved patient concerns. The Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization (PRECISE) trial (NCT03702244) compares an investigational "precision" diagnostic strategy to a usual care diagnostic strategy in participants with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). PRECISE randomized 2103 participants with stable chest pain and a clinical recommendation for testing for suspected CAD at 68 outpatient international sites. The investigational precision evaluation strategy started with a pre-test risk assessment using the PROMISE Minimal Risk Tool. Those at lowest risk were assigned to deferred testing (no immediate testing), and the remainder received coronary computed tomographic angiography (cCTA) with selective fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) for any stenosis meeting a threshold of ≥30% and <90%. For participants randomized to usual care, the clinical care team selected the initial noninvasive or invasive test (diagnostic angiography) according to customary practice. The use of cCTA as the initial diagnostic strategy was proscribed by protocol for the usual care strategy. The primary endpoint is time to a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause death or non-fatal myocardial infarction) or invasive cardiac catheterization without obstructive CAD at 1 year. Secondary endpoints include health care costs and quality of life. PRECISE will determine whether a precision approach comprising a strategically deployed combination of risk-based deferred testing and cCTA with selective FFRCT improves the clinical outcomes and efficiency of the diagnostic evaluation of stable chest pain over usual care.

Science, Medicine, and the Anesthesiologist

Science, Medicine, and the Anesthesiologist

Abstract 12825: Immediate versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Acute ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Multi-Vessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Complete versus Culprit Lesion Revascularization in Acute ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Everolimus Eluting Stent (cocua Trial)

Background: In the present study, we aimed to compare the 12-month clinical outcomes of immediate versus staged complete revascularization in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Method: A total of 248 patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter registry. Immediate complete revascularization was defined as simultaneous PCI of the culprit and non-culprit lesions during the index procedure (Immediate group). Staged complete revascularization was defined as PCI of non-culprit lesion as a separate staged procedure after the culprit lesion PCI (mean 4.4 days, interquartile range; 1 to 11.4, Staged group). The study end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; the composite of total death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and revascularization), and individual hard endpoints including cardiac death, stent thrombosis and stroke at 12 months clinical follow up. Results: Although the incidence of MACE was not significantly different between the two groups (11.6% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.313), the incidence of total death was higher in the immediate group than the staged group (9.7% vs. 2.8%, P=0.040). Despite the incidence of target lesion and vessel revascularization were similar, there was a trend toward higher incidence of TLR- MACE in the immediate group than the staged group (9.7% vs. 3.7%, p =0.086). There was no significant difference in the risk of in-hospital complications including transfusion, bleeding, acute renal failure or acute heart failure between the groups. Conclusion: For STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease undergoing primary PCI with drug-eluting stents, routine immediate complete revascularization should not be justified possibly due to higher event risks.