Revascularization Practices and Outcomes in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Who Presented With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock in the US, 2009-2018.

Importance Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality, particularly among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Recent evidence suggests that use of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be associated with harm. However, little is known about recent patterns of care and outcomes for this patient population. Objective To evaluate patterns in the use of multivessel PCI vs culprit-vessel PCI in AMI and cardiogenic shock and outcomes in the US from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study identified all patients in the CathPCI Registry) with AMI and cardiogenic shock who had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent PCI between July 1, 2009, and March 31, 2018. Exposures Multivessel or culprit-vessel PCI for AMI and shock. Primary Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Temporal trends and hospital variation in PCI strategies were evaluated, while accounting for differences in case mix using hierarchical models. As a secondary outcome, the association of PCI strategy with postdischarge outcomes was evaluated in the subset of patients who were Medicare beneficiaries. Results Of 64 301 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.5] years; 20 366 [31.7%] female; 54 538 [84.8%] White) with AMI and shock at 1649 US hospitals, 34.9% had primary multivessel PCI. In the subgroup of 48 943 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 31.5% underwent multivessel PCI. Between 2009 and 2018, this percentage increased by 6.7% per year for AMI and 5.8% for STEMI. Overall, multivessel PCI was associated with a greater adjusted risk of in-hospital complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23) and with greater in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16). Among Medicare beneficiaries, multivessel PCI use was not associated with postdischarge 1-year mortality (51.5% vs 49.8%; risk-adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04; P = .37). Significant hospital variation was found in the use of multivessel PCI, with a higher multivessel PCI rate for similar patients across hospitals (median OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.41). Patients at hospitals with high rates of PCI in STEMI use had higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (highest vs lowest hospital multivessel PCI quartile: OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19). Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study found that multivessel PCI was increasingly used as the revascularization strategy in AMI and shock and that hospitals that used multivessel PCI more, especially among patients with STEMI, had worse outcomes. With recent evidence suggesting harm with this strategy, there appears to be an urgent need to change practice and improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

[1]  L. H. A. Salis,et al.  Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  J. Messenger,et al.  Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. , 2020, JAMA.

[3]  J. Spertus,et al.  The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support , 2019, Circulation.

[4]  Á. Avezum,et al.  Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  L. Køber,et al.  A More COMPLETE Picture of Revascularization in STEMI. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Relationship Between Operator Volume and Long-Term Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Report From the NCDR CathPCI Registry , 2019, Circulation.

[7]  H. Thiele,et al.  One‐Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  H. Thiele,et al.  PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  A. Pandey,et al.  Variation in Hospital Use and Outcomes Associated With Pulmonary Artery Catheterization in Heart Failure in the United States , 2016, Circulation. Heart failure.

[11]  J. Messenger,et al.  Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Cardiogenic Shock in the Setting of Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Report From the CathPCI Registry. , 2016, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[12]  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.

[13]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Trends in Coronary Angiography, Revascularization, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. , 2016, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  P. Cram,et al.  Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States. , 2016, The American journal of cardiology.

[15]  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.

[16]  Xin Lu,et al.  Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007 through 2012. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[17]  E. Ohman,et al.  Management of cardiogenic shock. , 2015, European heart journal.

[18]  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.

[19]  J. Abbott,et al.  Coronary Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock , 2015, Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine.

[20]  Michael E. Matheny,et al.  Validated Contemporary Risk Model of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Cath‐PCI Registry , 2014, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[21]  D. Kolte,et al.  Trends in Incidence, Management, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the United States , 2014, Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

[23]  Mandeep Singh,et al.  An updated bleeding model to predict the risk of post-procedure bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report using an expanded bleeding definition from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[24]  David Dai,et al.  Enhanced mortality risk prediction with a focus on high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 1,208,137 procedures in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry). , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[25]  Jane A. Linderbaum,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: 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.

[26]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Circulation.

[27]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  Elizabeth R DeLong,et al.  Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[29]  E. Keeley,et al.  Multiple culprit arteries in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2009, The American journal of cardiology.

[30]  G. Lamas,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction--executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients wi , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[31]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.