Culprit-lesion-only versus multivessel revascularization using drug-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-based analysis

  • Hyun Su Jo
  • , Jong Seon Park*
  • , Jang Won Sohn
  • , Joon Cheol Yoon
  • , Chang Woo Sohn
  • , Sang Hee Lee
  • , Geu Ru Hong
  • , Dong Gu Shin
  • , Young Jo Kim
  • , Myung Ho Jeong
  • , Shung Chull Chae
  • , Seung Ho Hur
  • , Taek Jong Hong
  • , In Whan Seong
  • , Jei Keon Chae
  • , Jay Young Rhew
  • , In Ho Chae
  • , Myeong Chan Cho
  • , Jang Ho Bae
  • , Seung Woon Rha
  • Chong Jin Kim, Dong Hoon Choi, Yang Soo Jang, Jung Han Yoon, Wook Sung Chung, Ki Bae Seung, Seung Jung Park
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Abstract

Background and Objectives: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease, complete revascularization (CR) for non-culprit lesions is not routinely recommended. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of multivessel compared with infarct-related artery (IRA)-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI. Subjects and Methods: From the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) database, 1,094 STEMI patients with multivessel disease who underwent primary PCI with drug-eluting stents were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: culprit-vesselonly revascularization (COR, n=827) group; multivessel revascularization, including non-IRA (MVR, n=267) group. The primary endpoint of this study included major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), such as death, myocardial infarction, or target or nontarget lesion revascularization at one year. Results: There was no difference in clinical characteristics between the two groups. During the one-year follow-up, 102 (15.2%) patients in the COR group and 32 (14.2%) in the MVR group experienced at least one MACE (p=0.330). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of rates of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization (2.1% vs. 2.0%, 0.7% vs. 0.8%, and 11.7% vs. 10.1%, respectively; p=0.822,0.910, and 0.301, respectively). The MACE rate was higher in the incompletely revascularized patients than in the completely revascularized patients (15% vs. 9.5%, p=0.039), and the difference was attributable to a higher rate of nontarget vessel revascularization (8.6% vs. 1.8%, p=0.002). Conclusion: Although multivessel angioplasty during primary PCI for STEMI did not reduce the MACE rate compared with culprit-vessel-only PCI, CR was associated with a lower rate of repeat revascularization after multivessel PCI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)718-725
Number of pages8
JournalKorean Circulation Journal
Volume41
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011.12

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Angioplasty
  • Coronary artery disease
  • Myocardial infarction

Quacquarelli Symonds(QS) Subject Topics

  • Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Culprit-lesion-only versus multivessel revascularization using drug-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-based analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this