Cargando…

Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit‐Only Versus One‐Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated optimal revascularization strategies in non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. We investigated 3‐year clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategy in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Min Chul, Hyun, Ju Yong, Ahn, Youngkeun, Bae, SungA, Hyun, Dae Young, Cho, Kyung Hoon, Sim, Doo Sun, Hong, Young Joon, Kim, Ju Han, Jeong, Myung Ho, Kim, Hyo‐Soo, Gwon, Hyeon Cheol, Seong, In Whan, Hwang, Kyoung‐Kook, Chae, Shung Chull, Hur, Seung Ho, Cha, Kwang Soo, Oh, Seok Kyu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7792267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32750302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.016575
_version_ 1783633767877836800
author Kim, Min Chul
Hyun, Ju Yong
Ahn, Youngkeun
Bae, SungA
Hyun, Dae Young
Cho, Kyung Hoon
Sim, Doo Sun
Hong, Young Joon
Kim, Ju Han
Jeong, Myung Ho
Kim, Hyo‐Soo
Gwon, Hyeon Cheol
Seong, In Whan
Hwang, Kyoung‐Kook
Chae, Shung Chull
Hur, Seung Ho
Cha, Kwang Soo
Oh, Seok Kyu
author_facet Kim, Min Chul
Hyun, Ju Yong
Ahn, Youngkeun
Bae, SungA
Hyun, Dae Young
Cho, Kyung Hoon
Sim, Doo Sun
Hong, Young Joon
Kim, Ju Han
Jeong, Myung Ho
Kim, Hyo‐Soo
Gwon, Hyeon Cheol
Seong, In Whan
Hwang, Kyoung‐Kook
Chae, Shung Chull
Hur, Seung Ho
Cha, Kwang Soo
Oh, Seok Kyu
author_sort Kim, Min Chul
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated optimal revascularization strategies in non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. We investigated 3‐year clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategy in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease without cardiogenic shock. Data were analyzed at 3 years according to the percutaneous coronary intervention strategy: culprit‐only revascularization (COR), 1‐stage multivessel revascularization (MVR), and multistage MVR. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: a composite of all‐cause death, nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization). The COR group had a higher risk of MACE than those involving other strategies (COR versus 1‐stage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54–0.77; P<0.001; and COR versus multistage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57–0.97; P=0.027). There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between 1‐stage and multistage MVR (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86–1.51; P=0.355). The results were consistent after multivariate regression, propensity score matching, inverse probability weighting, and Bayesian proportional hazards modeling. In subgroup analyses stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, 1‐stage MVR lowered the risk of MACE compared with multistage MVR in low‐to‐intermediate risk patients but not in patients at high risk. CONCLUSIONS: MVR reduced 3‐year MACE in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease compared with COR. However, 1‐stage MVR was not superior to multistage MVR for reducing MACE except in low‐to‐intermediate risk patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7792267
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77922672021-01-15 Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit‐Only Versus One‐Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization Kim, Min Chul Hyun, Ju Yong Ahn, Youngkeun Bae, SungA Hyun, Dae Young Cho, Kyung Hoon Sim, Doo Sun Hong, Young Joon Kim, Ju Han Jeong, Myung Ho Kim, Hyo‐Soo Gwon, Hyeon Cheol Seong, In Whan Hwang, Kyoung‐Kook Chae, Shung Chull Hur, Seung Ho Cha, Kwang Soo Oh, Seok Kyu J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated optimal revascularization strategies in non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. We investigated 3‐year clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategy in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease without cardiogenic shock. Data were analyzed at 3 years according to the percutaneous coronary intervention strategy: culprit‐only revascularization (COR), 1‐stage multivessel revascularization (MVR), and multistage MVR. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: a composite of all‐cause death, nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization). The COR group had a higher risk of MACE than those involving other strategies (COR versus 1‐stage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54–0.77; P<0.001; and COR versus multistage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57–0.97; P=0.027). There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between 1‐stage and multistage MVR (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86–1.51; P=0.355). The results were consistent after multivariate regression, propensity score matching, inverse probability weighting, and Bayesian proportional hazards modeling. In subgroup analyses stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, 1‐stage MVR lowered the risk of MACE compared with multistage MVR in low‐to‐intermediate risk patients but not in patients at high risk. CONCLUSIONS: MVR reduced 3‐year MACE in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease compared with COR. However, 1‐stage MVR was not superior to multistage MVR for reducing MACE except in low‐to‐intermediate risk patients. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7792267/ /pubmed/32750302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.016575 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Kim, Min Chul
Hyun, Ju Yong
Ahn, Youngkeun
Bae, SungA
Hyun, Dae Young
Cho, Kyung Hoon
Sim, Doo Sun
Hong, Young Joon
Kim, Ju Han
Jeong, Myung Ho
Kim, Hyo‐Soo
Gwon, Hyeon Cheol
Seong, In Whan
Hwang, Kyoung‐Kook
Chae, Shung Chull
Hur, Seung Ho
Cha, Kwang Soo
Oh, Seok Kyu
Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit‐Only Versus One‐Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization
title Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit‐Only Versus One‐Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization
title_full Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit‐Only Versus One‐Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization
title_fullStr Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit‐Only Versus One‐Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization
title_full_unstemmed Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit‐Only Versus One‐Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization
title_short Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit‐Only Versus One‐Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization
title_sort optimal revascularization strategy in non–st‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary artery disease: culprit‐only versus one‐stage versus multistage revascularization
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7792267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32750302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.016575
work_keys_str_mv AT kimminchul optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT hyunjuyong optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT ahnyoungkeun optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT baesunga optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT hyundaeyoung optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT chokyunghoon optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT simdoosun optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT hongyoungjoon optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT kimjuhan optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT jeongmyungho optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT kimhyosoo optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT gwonhyeoncheol optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT seonginwhan optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT hwangkyoungkook optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT chaeshungchull optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT hurseungho optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT chakwangsoo optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization
AT ohseokkyu optimalrevascularizationstrategyinnonstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionwithmultivesselcoronaryarterydiseaseculpritonlyversusonestageversusmultistagerevascularization