JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Culprit vessel versus multivessel intervention at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: real-world analysis of 3984 patients in London

M Bilal Iqbal, Charles Ilsley, Tito Kabir, Robert Smith, Rebecca Lane, Mark Mason, Piers Clifford, Tom Crake, Sam Firoozi, Sundeep Kalra, Charles Knight, Pitt Lim, Iqbal S Malik, Anthony Mathur, Pascal Meier, Roby D Rakhit, Simon Redwood, Mark Whitbread, Dan Bromage, Krishna Rathod, Philip MacCarthy, Miles Dalby
Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 2014, 7 (6): 936-43
25371542

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that up to two thirds of patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction have multivessel disease. The optimal strategy for treating nonculprit disease is currently under debate. This study provides a real-world analysis comparing a strategy of culprit-vessel intervention (CVI) versus multivessel intervention at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared CVI versus multivessel intervention in 3984 patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2004 and 2011 at all 8 tertiary cardiac centers in London. Multivariable-adjusted models were built to determine independent predictors for in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality at 1 year. To reduce confounding and bias, propensity score methods were used. CVI was associated with reduced in-hospital MACE (4.6% versus 7.2%; P=0.010) and mortality at 1 year (7.4% versus 10.1%; P=0.031). CVI was an independent predictor for reduced in-hospital MACE (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.75; P<0.001) and survival at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.91; P=0.011) in the complete cohort; and in 2821 patients in propensity-matched cohort (in-hospital MACE: odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.76; P=0.002; and 1-year survival: hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.90; P=0.010). Inverse probability treatment weighted analyses also confirmed CVI as an independent predictor for reduced in-hospital MACE (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.96; P=0.040) and survival at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.93; P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, CVI was associated with increased survival at 1 year. Acknowledging the limitations with observational analyses, our findings support current recommended practice guidelines.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
25371542
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"