Post-Infectious Myocardial Infarction: Does Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Improve Outcomes? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis †

Acute infection is a frequent trigger of myocardial infarction (MI). However, whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves post-infectious MI prognosis is a major but unsolved issue. In this prospective multicenter study from coronary care units, we performed propensity score-matched analysis to compare outcomes in patients with and without PCI for post-infectious MI with angiography-proven significant coronary stenosis (>50%). Among 4573 consecutive MI patients, 476 patients (10%) had a concurrent diagnosis of acute infection at admission, of whom 375 underwent coronary angiography and 321 patients had significant stenosis. Among the 321 patients, 195 underwent PCI. Before the matching procedure, patients without PCI had a similar age and sex ratio but a higher rate of risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, chronic renal failure, and prior coronary artery disease), pneumonia, and SYNTAX score than patients without PCI. After propensity score matching, neither in-hospital mortality (13% with PCI vs. 8% without PCI; p = 0.4) nor one-year mortality (24% with PCI vs. 19% without PCI, p = 0.5) significantly differed between the two groups. In this first prospective cohort of post-infectious MI in coronary care units, PCI might not improve short- and long-term prognosis in patients with angiography-proven significant coronary stenosis. If confirmed, these results do not argue for systematic invasive procedures after post-infectious MI.