Significant Non-culprit Lesions Research Articles

A Comparison Between Culprit Versus Complete Revascularization in Diabetic Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

The benefit of complete revascularization in diabetic patients with myocardial infarction remains unclear. this study aims to find the optimal strategy of total vascular repair for diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction. In an analysis of a cohort, we assigned diabetic patients with myocardial infarction who were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either staged complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or to receive no further revascularization in Madani Hospital (Tabriz, Iran). Functionally significant nonculprit lesions were identified either by angiography. The primary outcome was rates of readmission, cardiac deaths, nonfatal myocardial re-infarction, and overall mortality at 1 year. In our center, a total of 1186 patients underwent primary-PCI treatment, among which 521 were diagnosed with diabetes. Ultimately, 393 patients were selected for inclusion in the study. Within this cohort, 271 individuals (68.9%) underwent repair of only the culprit vessels (group 1), while 122 individuals (31.1%) received a comprehensive staged restoration of the vessels (group 2). During this time, group 1 in comparison with group 2 experienced 204 (75.3%) versus 97 (79.5%) cases of readmission, 48 (17.7%) versus 8 (6.5%) instances of cardiac death, 22 (8.1%) versus 18 (14.7%) occurrences of nonfatal myocardial re-infarction. Notably, the incidence of cardiac death in group 2 were significantly lower than that in group 1 (p ≤ 0.05). For individuals diagnosed with diabetes, staged complete revascularization demonstrated a lower frequency of readmission, cardiac deaths, nonfatal myocardial reinfarction, and overall mortality, in contrast to revascularization that targeted only the culprit lesion.

Comparison of high-risk characteristics of non-culprit plaques in relation to plaque severity in acute coronary syndrome

IntroductionPatients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have high event rates related to non-culprit (NC) lesions, therefore plaque composition of these lesions is of great interest. Although marginal atherosclerotic lesions were studied extensively, more significant lesions might have more high-risk characteristics. AimTo compare differences in high-risk lesion characteristics between significant versus non-stenotic NC plaques in ACS and the discrepancies with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients. MethodsNon-culprit vessels of 26 ACS patients with 26 angiographically significant lesions and 37 patients (17 ACS and 20 CCS) with 48 non-stenotic lesions were investigated with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Overall, 74 segments of 30 mm length were analyzed in 1 mm intervals. External elastic lamina (EEM), plaque burden (PB), minimal luminal area (MLA), percent atheroma volume (PAV) and lipid core burden index maximum 4 mm (maxLCBI4mm) were determined for each segment. ResultsCardiovascular risk factors were similar in all groups. PB was higher and MLA smaller in significant non-culprit ACS lesions vs non-stenotic lesions: PB 73.5% (IQR 68.7–78.5) vs 59.2 (IQR 49.6–71.5), p = 0.003, MLA 3.0 mm2 (IQR 2.3–3.9) vs 4.0 mm2 (IQR 2.8–4.7). MaxLCBI4mm was similar 308.1 (±155.4) vs 287.8 (±165.7), p = 0.67.Among non-stenotic plaques, MaxLCBI4mm was comparable between ACS and CCS patients, 275.7 (±151.5) in CCS patients vs 287.8 (±165.7) in ACS patients, p = 0.79. ConclusionAlthough visually significant non-culprit lesions had a higher plaque burden compared to non-stenotic lesions, a significant relation between MaxLCBI4mm and hemodynamic significance of the plaques couldn’t be established.

Invasive and Non-invasive Assessment of Non-culprit Coronary Lesions in Patients with ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

The angiographic evidence of coronary multivessel disease (MVD) increases significantly the risk of recurrent ischemic events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Recent evidence suggests that a complete revascularization strategy should be considered the standard of care in these patients and performed for significant non-culprit lesions (NCLs) after careful assessment of the individual risk-benefit ratio. However, the optimal timing and the modality for the assessment of NCLs is not fully standardized. This brief review aims to summarise the management of MVD in patients with STEMI and to provide an overview of the principal techniques used to guide revascularisation in this high-risk clinical setting.

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

BackgroundComplete revascularization of the culprit and all significant nonculprit lesions in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) reduces major adverse cardiac events, but optimal timing of revascularization remains unclear. ObjectivesThis study aims to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD. MethodsThis prespecified substudy of the BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease) trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD. Risk differences of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR), or cerebrovascular events and its individual components were compared between ICR and SCR at 1 year. ResultsThe BIOVASC trial enrolled 1,525 patients; 917 patients presented with NSTE-ACS, of whom 459 were allocated to ICR and 458 to SCR. Incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 10.1%; risk difference 2.2%; 95% CI: −1.5 to 6.0; P = 0.15). ICR was associated with a significant reduction of MIs (2.0% vs 5.3%; risk difference 3.3%; 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.7; P = 0.006), which was maintained after exclusion of procedure-related MIs occurring during the index or staged procedure (2.0% vs 4.4%; risk difference 2.4%; 95% CI: 0.1 to 4.7; P = 0.032). UIDRs were also reduced in the ICR group (4.2% vs 7.8%; risk difference 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 6.6; P = 0.018). ConclusionsICR is safe in patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD and was associated with a reduction in MIs and UIDRs at 1 year.

Benefits of immediate complete revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Acute coronary syndrome is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Up to 60% of patients present with additional significant non-culprit lesions. Complete revascularization (CR) of all (culprit and non-culprit) lesions is recommended and recent randomized trials showed the benefit of performing complete multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in a single setting. Immediate CR is associated with a reduced risk of repeat myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia driven revascularization. Furthermore, immediate CR resulted in less implanted stents, total contrast use and a shorter duration of hospitalization while maintaining a similar success rate of complete revascularization. Further studies need to evaluate the role of coronary physiology and intravascular imaging for enhanced understanding of the pathophysiology of early events in non-culprit lesions.

Complete Revascularization vs Culprit Lesion–Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Angina-Related Quality of Life in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown. To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021. Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization. Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end. Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02). In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.

Prognostic value of coronary flow capacity assessed by coronary sinus flow obtained by phase contrast cine-magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Abstract Background The concept of coronary flow capacity (CFC) originated from positron emission tomography has been reported to provide prognostic information. Phase contrast cine-magnetic resonance imaging (PC-CMR) of the coronary sinus (CS) is a promising approach for quantifying global coronary sinus flow (CSF) and global coronary flow reserve (g-CFR) without the need for ionizing radiation, radioactive tracers, or intravascular catheterization. Purpose We evaluated the prognostic value of postprocedural CFC by quantifying CSF using PC-CMR in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with primary or urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods This study prospectively but nonconsecutively enrolled 569 ACS patients who underwent uncomplicated primary (for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)) or urgent PCI within 48 hours of symptom onset (for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS)). Breath-hold PC-CMR images of CS were acquired to assess absolute CSF at rest and during maximum hyperemia within 30 days after culprit lesion PCI and revascularization of functionally significant non-culprit lesions. The entire cohort was stratified by the CFC according to the thresholds of hyperemic CSF and g-CFR. Impaired CFC was defined as a severely-reduced CFC in the present study. The association of CFC and baseline clinical characteristics with major adverse cardiac events (all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for congestive heart failure or stroke) was investigated. Results In the final analysis of 502 patients (Male 417 (83.1%), mean age was 67 [58, 73]) and 310 patients (82.3%) with STEMI and 192 patients (38.2%) with NSTE-ACS were studied. In a total cohort, rest and maximal hyperemic CSF and corrected G-CFR were 0.93 [0.68, 1.24] ml/min/g, 2.08 [1.44, 2.77] ml/min/g, and 2.21 [1.58, 3.05], respectively. During a median follow-up of 28 months, MACE occurred in 53 patients (all-cause death: 19, nonfatal myocardial infarction: 16, late revascularization: 59, hospitalization for congestive heart failure: 9, stroke: 9). Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that corrected G-CFR and impaired CFC were both independent predictors of MACE. (hazard ratio (HR), 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45–0.82, p=0.001; HR, 3.51, 95% CI: 1.79–6.86, p≤0.001, respectively). Cardiac event-free survival was significantly worse in patients with impaired CFC (log-rank χ2=22.9, P&amp;lt;0.001). Net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were both significantly improved when impaired CFC was added to the clinical risk model for predicting MACE. Conclusions In ACS patients successfully revascularized with primary or urgent PCI, CFC categorization stratified by noninvasive PC-CMR provided significant prognostic information independent of infarction size, conventional risk factors and g-CFR. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundIn patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P=0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P=0.62 and P=0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively).ConclusionsAmong patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.)

P3585Prognostic value of the assessment of coronary sinus flow by phase contrast cine-magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Abstract Background Phase contrast cine-magnetic resonance imaging (PC-CMR) of the coronary sinus (CS) is a promising approach for quantifying global coronary sinus flow (CSF) and global coronary flow reserve (G-CFR) without the need for ionizing radiation, radioactive tracers, or intravascular catheterization. Purpose We evaluated the prognostic value of G-CFR by quantifying CSF using PC-CMR in patients with ACS treated with primary or emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods The study prospectively enrolled 387 ACS patients who underwent uncomplicated primary or emergent PCI within 48 hours of symptom onset. Breath-hold PC-CMR images of CS were acquired to assess absolute CSF at rest and during maximum hyperemia within 30 days after primary PCI and revascularization of functionally significant non-culprit lesions of ACS. The association of G-CFR and baseline clinical characteristics with major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, late revascularization, or hospitalization for congestive heart failure) was investigated. Results In the final analysis of 366 patients (Male 294 (80.3%), mean age 65) including 233 patients (63.7%) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 133 patients (36.3%) with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), rest and maximal hyperemic CSF and corrected G-CFR were 1.24 [0.83, 1.71] ml/min/g, 2.56 [1.87, 3.66] ml/min/g, and 2.20 [1.53, 3.17], respectively. During a median follow-up of 16 months, MACE occurred in 84 patients (cardiac death: 9, nonfatal myocardial infarction: 11, late revascularization: 59, hospitalization for congestive heart failure: 5). Cardiac event-free survival was significantly worse in patients with a corrected G-CFR &lt;2.00 (log-rank χ2=20.2, P&lt;0.001). Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that corrected G-CFR were independent predictors of adverse cardiac events during follow-up in patients with STEMI (hazard ratio, 0.66, 95% confidence interval, 0.51–0.85, p=0.001) and NSTE-ACS (hazard ratio, 0.64, 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.95, p=0.026), respectively. Conclusions In ACS patients successfully revascularized within 48 hours of onset, G-CFR obtained by noninvasive PC-CMR provided significant prognostic information independent of infarction size and conventional risk scores.

Benefits of COMPLETE revascularization.

In patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, a strategy of revascularizing both the culprit lesion and any angiographically significant nonculprit lesions achieves better outcomes than a strategy of revascularizing only the culprit lesion.

Factors Associated with Development of in Coronary Stent Restenosis — the Results of a Multislice Computed Tomography 1-year Follow-up Study

Abstract Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention is the first therapeutic choice in the treatment of symptomatic coronary artery disease and Multi-Slice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography (MSCT-CA) is a new non-invasive diagnostic tool in the follow-up of these patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate the rate of in-stent restenosis (ISR), to identify the predictive factors for ISR at 1 year after PCI and to assess the progression of non-culprit lesions, using a MSCT-CA follow-up. Material and methods: The study included 30 patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with one BMS implantation. The patients were divided into Group A (9 patients) presenting ISR and Group B (21 patients) without ISR at 1 year MSCT-CA follow-up. Results: ISR lesions were mostly localized on the LAD (45%). No significant difference between the study groups was identified for risk factors, as male gender (77.7% vs. 85.71%, p = 0.62), hypertension (88.8% vs. 95.23%, p = 0.51), smoking status (33.3% vs. 72.22%, p = 0.23), history of CVD (55.5% vs. 47.61%, p &gt;0.99), diabetes (11.11% vs. 19.04%, p &gt;0.99), hyperlipidemia (22.22% vs. 52.38%, p = 0.22), CKD (44.44% vs. 14.28%, p = 0.15), age, triglycerides and SYNTAX Score. A significant difference was recorded in baseline cholesterol level (141.7 ± 8.788 vs. 182.8 ± 12; p = 0.029). Ca Score at 1 year was significantly higher in patients with ISR (603.1 ± 529.3 vs. 259.4 ± 354.6; p = 0.005). 66.67% of patients from Group A presented significant non-culprit lesions at baseline vs. 23.81% in Group B (p = 0.041). Conclusions: MSCT-CA is a useful non-invasive diagnostic tool for ISR in the follow-up of patients who underwent primary PCI for an acute coronary syndrome. The presence of significant non-culprit lesions at the time of the primary PCI could be a predictive factor for ISR. A Ca Score &gt;400 determined at 1-year follow-up is associated with a higher rate of ISR, and could be considered a significant cardiovascular risk factor for this group of patients. Further studies are required in order to elucidate the role of various imaging biomarkers in predicting the development of ISR.

CRT-118 Staged versus Multi-vessel Revascularization in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute ST- segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Based on Peri-procedural Success Rate: A Pilot Study

Revascularization of culprit vessel is the goal of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) without hemodynamic compromise. Although concurrent revascularization of significant non-culprit lesions

Preventive stenting in acutemyocardialinfarction.

Current practice guidelines advocate culprit vessel intervention alone in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) found to have multivessel coronary disease during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The debate on the timing of noninfarct artery intervention has recently been reinvigorated by the PRAMI (Preventive Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, in which patients undergoing preventive PCI of significant nonculprit lesions at the time primary PCI for STEMI had reduced rates of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and refractory angina. Given that previous literature has cautioned against multivessel PCI during STEMI, this raises the question of whether technical and pharmacological advances in PCI may have opened the door to safely revisit this issue with additional clinical rigor. The impact of STEMI pathophysiology on nonculprit vessel plaque, how treatment of nonculprit lesions alters the natural history of coronary disease after STEMI, and whether this results in a clinical benefit remain unclear, and much of the existing data are retrospective. Additionally, the PRAMI trial did not include a staged PCI, leaving questions as to how this approach might fare compared with simultaneous preventive PCI. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of nonculprit vessel plaque in STEMI, provide a summary of the existing literature on the topic, and discuss the PRAMI trial in the face of previous data and possible future directions for further study.

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.

How Should We Treat Multi-Vessel Disease in STEMI Patients?

Primary angioplasty of the culprit coronary artery lesion is the preferred reperfusion strategy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when timely access to a catheterization laboratory is available. The presence of multi-vessel disease (MVD) in patients undergoing primary PCI is common, occurring in about 40%-50% of patients. The presence of MVD in patients who have undergone successful primary PCI substantially increases the risks of mortality and major adverse cardiac events, such as reinfarction or need for urgent revascularization. The current evidence supporting revascularization of non-culprit lesions is sparse, with no large, adequately powered randomized trials to guide clinical practice. An analysis combining observational data and small randomized trials suggests that complete revascularization with PCI to significant non-culprit lesions may afford a benefit compared with medical management alone. However, this benefit appears to be confined to when revascularization is performed as a separate, staged procedure. By contrast, when non-culprit lesion PCI is performed during the initial primary PCI procedure, the risk of death or cardiovascular events is higher than medical management alone or to staged revascularization. A large, adequately powered randomized trial is urgently needed to determine whether routine staged PCI plus optimal medical therapy is superior to optimal medical therapy alone for significant non-culprit coronary artery lesions in patients who have undergone successful primary PCI for STEMI.

Coronary Revascularization Strategy for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease: Experience and Results at 1-Year Follow-Up

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of culprit lesions (CLs) is the standard of care in patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, optimal revascularization strategy for significant nonculprit lesions (non-CLs) in the setting of STEMI remains controversial. The importance of defining of such a strategy lies in the fact that approximately 50% of patients with STEMI have multivessel disease (MVD). The aim of this study was to describe characteristics, therapeutic strategies, and 1-year outcomes in a cohort of patients with STEMI and MVD. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 63 patients with STEMI and MVD obtained from a 5-year catheterization database. MVD was defined as ≥70% stenosis of ≥2 epicardial coronary arteries. This cohort was followed for a period of 1 year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE was defined as acute coronary syndrome, new onset heart failure, or death) and all-cause mortality. PCI with stent placement was the major therapeutic procedure (87.5%) performed for CLs. Non-CLs did not undergo interventions in a majority of individuals (47.6%), while the remaining patients underwent PCI (29%) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (22%) for non-CLs. At 1-year follow-up, prevalence of MACE events and death in the entire cohort were 30% and 15%, respectively. A trend for better outcomes (1-year cumulative MACE events but not mortality) was observed in CL-only intervention cohort compared with non-CL intervention. The PCI and Coronary artery bypass graft surgery cohorts did not show any significant difference in clinical outcomes. In this retrospective cohort of patients with MVD who presented with STEMI, no intervention of noncritical lesions was the prevalent approach, reflecting guideline recommendations. CL-only intervention strategy showed a better clinical outcome than non-CL intervention. Intervention of noncritical lesions therefore did not seem to improve MACEs or all-cause mortality at 1-year of follow-up and might in fact have had a detrimental effect on outcomes.

Culprit only versus multivessel coronary revascularization in patients presenting with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: Unending debate

The optimal percutaneous interventional strategy for dealing with significant non-culprit lesions in patients with multivessel disease with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at presentation remains to be controversial. For the time being, the current guidelines recommended that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions should be limited to the infarct-related artery. We believe that decisions about PCI of the non-infarct vessel(s) should be individualized and guided by objective evidence of significant residual ischemia except in patients with multivessel disease showing hemodynamic compromise. Further large, randomized trials will help us solve this dilemma.

Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction

Background The optimal percutaneous interventional strategy for dealing with significant non-culprit lesions in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at presentation remains controversial. Methods A total of 820 patients treated with primary angioplasty for AMI between 1998 and 2002 were classified in groups of patients with single vessel disease (SVD) or MVD (≥70% stenosis of ≥2 coronary arteries). Patients with MVD were subdivided in 3 groups on the basis of the revascularization strategy: 1) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only; 2) patients undergoing PCI of both the IRA and non-IRA(s) during the initial procedure; and 3) patients undergoing PCI of the IRA followed by staged, in-hospital PCI of the non-IRA(s). Procedural, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes are reported. Results At 1 year, compared with patients with SVD, patients with MVD had a higher incidence of re-infarction (5.9% vs 1.6%, P = .003), revascularization (18% vs 9.6%, P <.001), mortality (12% vs 3.2%, P <.001), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; 31% vs 13%, P <.001). In patients with MVD, compared with PCI restricted to the IRA only, multivessel PCI was associated with higher rates of re-infarction (13.0% vs 2.8%, P <.001), revascularization (25% vs 15%, P = .007), and MACEs (40% vs 28%, P = .006). Multivessel PCI was an independent predictor of MACEs at 1 year (odds ratio = 1.67, P = .01). Conclusions These data suggest that in patients with MVD, PCI should be directed at the IRA only, with decisions about PCI of non-culprit lesions guided by objective evidence of residual ischemia at late follow-up. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Exaggeration of nonculprit stenosis severity during acute myocardial infarction: implications for immediate multivessel revascularization

ObjectivesThis study was designed to assess the prevalence and clinical significance of exaggerated nonculprit lesion stenosis in the setting of acute (<12 h) myocardial infarction (AMI). BackgroundAlthough microvascular spasm may reduce nonculprit artery flow during AMI, it is unknown whether increased tone may exaggerate nonculprit lesion severity. MethodsIn patients with additional angiography within nine months of AMI, and significant nonculprit lesions imaged in matching views, stenosis severity was compared between studies in a random blinded fashion using validated quantitative coronary angiography software. Baseline demographics, medications, hemodynamics at each study, and clinical status at follow-up (infarct/unstable angina/stable angina) were used to determine the independent influence of the infarct presentation on stenosis exaggeration. ResultsFrom 548 patients with AMI (1/99 to 6/01, 321 with multivessel disease), 112 had additional angiography; of these 48 had 59 lesions suitable for analysis. Between infarct and noninfarct angiograms there was a significant change in minimal lumen diameter (1.53 ± 0.51 mm vs. 1.78 ± 0.65 mm, p < 0.001) and percentage stenosis (49.3 ± 14.5% vs. 40.4 ± 16.6%, p < 0.0001) of the nonculprit lesion without significant change in reference segment diameter, which was not predicted by changes in medication or hemodynamics. Twenty-one percent of patients had lesions >50% at AMI that were <50% at non-AMI angiography. Infarct versus noninfarct setting was the only significant independent predictor of change in nonculprit stenosis. ConclusionsSignificant exaggeration of nonculprit lesion stenosis severity occurs at infarct angiography, which may affect revascularization decision making in an appreciable number of patients.