Dataset Information

Complete Revascularization and Survival in STEMI.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Complete revascularization (CR) of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) has proven better regarding combined endpoints than incomplete revascularization (IR) in recent randomized control trials with no impact on survival.

Objective

To retrospectively evaluate the impact of complete CR during the index hospitalization on survival in STEMI patients with MVD.

Methods and results

We included all patients with MVD who underwent successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI during their index hospitalization at the University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia (from 1 January 2009 to 3 April 2011). Coronary angiograms were reviewed for non-culprit coronary arteries (>2 mm in diameter and ≥50% stenosis) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Rates of all-cause and cardiovascular death were compared between 235 patients who underwent CR (N = 70) or IR (N = 165). After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (interquartile range 6.0-8.2) the CR group had lower rates of all-cause death (15.7% vs 35.8%, log-rank p = 0.003) and cardiovascular death (12.9% vs 23.6%, log-rank p = 0.046). Multivariable analysis with adjustment for confounders showed no benefit of CR for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-1.18, p = 0.139) or cardiovascular death (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.37-1.72, p = 0.560). Age, elevated serum creatinine at inclusion, diabetes and cardiogenic shock at presentation were predictors of death.

Conclusions

Patients with STEMI and MVD who underwent CR showed lower all-cause and cardiovascular death during follow-up than those who underwent IR. However, after adjustment for confounders, the real determinates of survival were independent of the revascularization method.

SUBMITTER: Sustersic M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8485869 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal management of patients found to have multivessel disease while undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is uncertain.ObjectivesCvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI trial) is a U.K. open-label randomized study comparing complete revascularization at index admission with treatment of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only.MethodsAfter they provided verbal assent and underwent coronary angiography, 296 patients in 7 U.K. centers were randomized through an interactive voice-response program to either in-hospital complete revascularization (n = 150) or IRA-only revascularization (n = 146). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of P-PCI or before hospital discharge. Randomization was stratified by infarct location (anterior/nonanterior) and symptom onset (≤ 3 h or >3 h). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization within 12 months.ResultsPatient groups were well matched for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.0% of the complete revascularization group versus 21.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.24 to 0.84; p = 0.009). A trend toward benefit was seen early after complete revascularization (p = 0.055 at 30 days). Although there was no significant reduction in death or MI, a nonsignificant reduction in all primary endpoint components was seen. There was no reduction in ischemic burden on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or in the safety endpoints of major bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups.ConclusionsIn patients presenting for P-PCI with multivessel disease, index admission complete revascularization significantly lowered the rate of the composite primary endpoint at 12 months compared with treating only the IRA. In such patients, inpatient total revascularization may be considered, but larger clinical trials are required to confirm this result and specifically address whether this strategy is associated with improved survival.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to define the relationship between left ventricular diastolic function and survival after renal revascularization.Seventy-six adult patients (49 women, 27 men; mean age: 63 ± 13 years) with preoperative echocardiography who underwent renal revascularization for atherosclerotic disease were identified. Diastolic function was estimated from the early diastolic transmitral flow velocity (E), the atrial transmitral flow velocity (A), and the mitral annular tissue doppler velocity (e'). Patients were divided into two groups of diastolic dysfunction as either none/mild (E/A ? 0.75, E/e' <10) or moderate/severe (E/A >0.75, E/e' ? 10). Perioperative and follow-up mortality were determined from a prospective vascular database and the National Death Index. Descriptive statistics were calculated and postoperative survival was estimated by product-limit methods. Associations between preoperative factors, perioperative factors, and follow-up survival were examined using proportional hazards regression models. A forward stepwise variable selection procedure was used to select a "best" model to predict follow-up survival.Seventy-six patients were followed for an average of 41.9 months after renal revascularization. Within this group, 47 of 76 patients (61.8%) were identified as having moderate or severe diastolic dysfunction. Diastolic dysfunction had no apparent association with abnormal systolic function. The mean ejection fraction for those with moderate/severe diastolic dysfunction was 57.7% ± 11.5%. When comparing the moderate/severe and none/mild groupings of diastolic dysfunction, there was a significant difference in left ventricular mass index (151.9 ± 48.9 vs 125.3 ± 31.7; P = .0087). There were five deaths in the perioperative period and 20 deaths on follow-up. Among perioperative survivors, hypertension was cured or improved in 82% of the none/mild group and 53% of the moderate/severe group (P = .012). In multivariable analysis, none/mild diastolic dysfunction was significantly and independently associated with an improvement in blood pressure after revascularization (odds ratio [OR], 6.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-28.6; P = .018). Ejection fraction was not associated with survival. After forward variable selection, moderate/severe diastolic dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR], 5.8; 95% CI 1.4-25; P = .018) was the only variable to demonstrate a significant and independent association with follow-up survival.Diastolic dysfunction, but not systolic dysfunction, was frequent in patients with renovascular disease. Blood pressure response and follow-up survival after renal revascularization demonstrated significant and independent associations with diastolic function. Consideration of diastolic function should be included in the management of patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease.

Project description:ObjectiveWe sought to assess the relative merits of different revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or chronic total occlusion (CTO).BackgroundRecent randomized trials and meta-analysis have suggested that multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, however, patients complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were excluded.MethodsStudies that compared multivessel PCI (immediate or staged) with culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were included. Random odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were conducted.ResultsSixteen studies with 8695 patients complicated by cardiogenic shock and eight studies with 2259 patients complicated by CTO were included. In patients complicated by cardiogenic shock, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with lower risk for short-term renal failure (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.93; I2 = 0.0%), with no significant difference in MACE, all-cause mortality, re-infarction, revascularization, cardiac death, heart failure, major bleeding, or stroke compared with an immediate MV-PCI strategy. In patients complicated by CTO, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with higher risk for long-term MACE (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.39-3.06; I2 = 54.0%), all-cause mortality (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.09-4.00; I2 = 0.0%), cardiac death (OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.05-4.75; I2 = 16.8%), heart failure (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.22-3.24; I2 = 0.0%), and stroke (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.04-7.53; I2 = 0.0%) compared with a staged MV-PCI strategy, without any difference in re-infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding.ConclusionsFor patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock, an immediate multivessel PCI was not advocated due to a higher risk for short-term renal failure, whereas for patients complicated by CTO, a staged multivessel PCI was advocated due to reduced risks for long-term MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, heart failure, and stroke.