Dataset Information

Association of Culprit Lesion Location With Outcomes of Culprit-Lesion-Only vs Immediate Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Myocardial infarction with a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery compared with other coronary segments is associated with more myocardium at risk and worse clinical outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the association of culprit lesion location with outcomes of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease, myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock.

Design, setting, and participants

Post hoc analysis of the Culprit Lesion Only Coronary Intervention vs Multivessel Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock (CULPRIT-SHOCK), an investigator-initiated randomized, open-label clinical trial. Patients with multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were enrolled at 83 European centers from April 2013 through April 2017.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization or immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (1:1). For this analysis, patients were stratified by culprit lesion location in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and other-culprit-lesion location group.

Main outcomes and measures

End points included a composite of death or kidney replacement therapy at 30 days and death at 1 year.

Results

The median age of the study population was 70 (interquartile range, 60-78 years) and 524 of the study participants were men (76.4%). Of the 685 patients, 33.4% constituted the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and 66.6% the other-culprit-lesion location group. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group had worse outcomes compared with the other-culprit-lesion location group (56.8% vs 47.5%; P = .02 for the composite end point at 30 days and 59.8% vs 50.1%; P = .02 for death at 1 year). In both groups, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of the composite end point at 30 days (49.1% vs 64.3% and 44.1% vs 50.9%; P for interaction = .27). At 1 year, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery but not the other-culprit-lesion location group (50.0% vs 69.6%; P = .003 and 49.8% vs 50.4%; P = .89; P for interaction = 0.02).

Conclusions and relevance

In patients with multivessel disease with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery vs other coronary segments was associated with worse outcomes. These patients may especially benefit from culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization, although further investigation is needed to confirm this finding.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01927549.

SUBMITTER: Farhan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7450400 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEmergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.Methods and analysisThe economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients' characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country's national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors at www.twitter.com and www.researchgate.net.Trial registration numberNCT01927549; Pre-results.

Project description:Background and aimsThe optimal interventional strategy remains undetermined in hemodynamically stable patients with NSTEMI and MVD. This study aimed to examine clinical prognosis among culprit vessel, immediate multivessel, and staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with NSTEMI and MVD.MethodsThis retrospective, observational, single-center study included 943 hemodynamically stable patients with NSTEMI and MVD who had undergone successful drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation from January 2014 to December 2019. Patients were categorized into culprit lesion-only PCI (CL-PCI), immediate multivessel PCI (MV-PCI), and out-of-hospital staged MV-PCI according to PCI strategy. The primary outcome was the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or unplanned repeat revascularization. The secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, and unplanned repeat revascularization.ResultsOver a median follow-up of 59 months, immediate MV-PCI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death than CL-PCI (HR: 0.591, 95%CI: 0.364-0.960, P = 0.034). Out-of-hospital staged MV-PCI was associated with a reduced risk of MACE (HR: 0.448, 95%CI: 0.314-0.638, P < 0.001) and all-cause death (HR: 0.326, 95%CI: 0.183-0.584, P < 0.001) compared with CL-PCI. The above results were accordant after multivariate COX analysis and propensity score matching. MACE (HR: 0.560, 95%CI: 0.385-0.813, P = 0.002) and repeat revascularization (HR: 0.627, 95%CI: 0.400-0.982, P = 0.041) were significantly less likely to occur with out-of-hospital MV-PCI rather than immediate MV-PCI. However, the incidences of primary and secondary outcomes were comparable between immediate and staged PCI after confounder adjustment using multivariate regression and propensity score matching analysis. For subgroup analyses stratified by synergy between PCI with taxus and cardiac surgery score, staged MV-PCI was found to lower the risk of MACE compared with immediate MV-PCI in patients with more complex coronary disease.ConclusionHemodynamically stable patients with NSTEMI and MVD benefited from the strategy of MV-PCI. Patients with complex coronary anatomy treated with out-of-hospital staged MV-PCI rather than immediate MV-PCI had lower risks of MACE. These need to be confirmed in the future randomized study.

Project description:AimsThere are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI-CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).MethodsUsing the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI-CS admissions receiving pre-hospital/in-hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI-CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, development of non-cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do-not-resuscitate status.ResultsDuring 2009-2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non-White, with lower co-morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all-cause in-hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity-matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do-not-resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs.ConclusionsThe use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in-hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI-CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.