Multivessel Versus Culprit Vessel–Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the TRANSLATE‐ACS Observational Study

Background Among patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) who have multivessel disease, it is unclear if multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical and quality‐of‐life outcomes compared with culprit‐only intervention. We sought to compare clinical and quality‐of‐life outcomes between multivessel and culprit‐only PCI. Methods and Results Among 6061 patients with acute MI who have multivessel disease in the TRANSLATE‐ACS (Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome) study, we used inverse probability‐weighted propensity adjustment to study the associations between multivessel and culprit‐only intervention during the index PCI and major adverse cardiovascular events, unplanned all‐cause readmission, and angina frequency at 6 weeks and 1 year. Multivessel PCI was performed in 1208 (20%) of patients with MI who had multivessel disease. Relative to the culprit‐only intervention, patients receiving multivessel PCI were similarly aged and more likely to be seen with non–ST‐segment elevation MI or cardiogenic shock. At 6 weeks, the initial multivessel PCI strategy was associated with lower major adverse cardiovascular events and unplanned readmission risks, whereas angina frequency was not significantly different between multivessel and culprit‐only PCI. At 1 year, major adverse cardiovascular event risk was persistently lower in the multivessel PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–0.99), whereas long‐term readmission risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.84–1.04) and angina frequency were similar between groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.82–1.24). Similar associations were seen when patients with ST‐segment elevation MI and non–ST‐segment elevation MI were examined separately. Conclusions Among patients with acute MI who have multivessel disease, multivessel PCI was associated with lower risk of all‐cause readmission at 6 weeks and lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at 6 weeks and 1 year. However, similar short‐ and long‐term angina frequencies were noted.

[1]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Multivessel vs culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention among patients 65 years or older with acute myocardial infarction. , 2016, American heart journal.

[2]  K. Anstrom,et al.  In-hospital switching between adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights into contemporary practice from the TRANSLATE-ACS study , 2015, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[3]  L. Køber,et al.  Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[4]  G. Stone,et al.  Prognostic impact of multivessel versus culprit vessel only percutaneous intervention for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with acute coronary syndrome. , 2015, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[5]  H. Swanton,et al.  Randomized Trial of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for STEMI and Multivessel Disease , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  S. Mehta,et al.  Complete vs culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2014, American heart journal.

[7]  C. Berry,et al.  Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  Jane A. Linderbaum,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Circulation.

[10]  D. Atar,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation , 2013 .

[11]  K. Anstrom,et al.  Treatment with adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors-longitudinal assessment of treatment patterns and events after acute coronary syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) study design: expanding the paradigm of longitudinal observational research. , 2011, American heart journal.

[12]  D. Holmes,et al.  Clinical ResearchInterventional CardiologyCulprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel and Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Disease in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis , 2011 .

[13]  G. Dangas,et al.  Timing of staged percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[14]  P. Armstrong,et al.  Non-culprit coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the APEX-AMI trial. , 2010, European heart journal.

[15]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[16]  G. Sangiorgi,et al.  A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up , 2009, Heart.

[17]  J. Ottervanger,et al.  Predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction , 2009, Coronary artery disease.

[18]  Emir Veledar,et al.  Combined impact of age and estimated glomerular filtration rate on in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction (from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry). , 2009, The American journal of cardiology.

[19]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Culprit-only or multivessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Database Registry report. , 2008, American heart journal.

[20]  B. Gersh,et al.  Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. , 2007, European heart journal.

[21]  M. Hong,et al.  Safety of single versus multi-vessel angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multi-vessel coronary artery disease: report from the New York State Angioplasty Registry , 2006, Coronary artery disease.

[22]  Stephen Joel Coons,et al.  US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States: Development and Testing of the D1 Valuation Model , 2005, Medical care.

[23]  Mark J Sculpher,et al.  Health-related quality of life after interventional or conservative strategy in patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: one-year results of the third Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina (RITA-3). , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  J. House,et al.  Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction , 2005 .

[25]  H. Arendrup,et al.  Health related quality of life after conservative or invasive treatment of inducible postinfarction ischaemia , 2000 .

[26]  F. Ragmin Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study , 1999, The Lancet.

[27]  L. Wallentin,et al.  Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study , 1999 .

[28]  R A Deyo,et al.  Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.