Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

  • IM - REVIEW
  • Published:
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 30–60 % of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), significant stenoses are present in one or more non-infarct-related arteries (IRA). This correlates with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Current guidelines, do not recommend revascularization of non-culprit lesions unless complicated by cardiogenic shock or persistent ischemia after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Prior observational and small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Recently, randomized studies (PRAMI, CvLPRIT, and DANAMI 3-PRIMULTI) provide encouraging data that suggest potential benefit with complete revascularization in STEMI patients with obstructive non-culprit lesions. Differently, in the PRAGUE-13 trial there were no differences in MACE between complete revascularization and culprit-only PCI. Several meta-analyses were recently published including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, showing different results depending on the included trials. In conclusion, the current available evidence from the randomized clinical trials, with a total sample size of only 2000 patients, is not robust enough to firmly recommend complete revascularization in STEMI patients. This uncertainty lends support to the continuation of the COMPLETE trial. This ongoing trial is anticipated to enroll 3900 patients with STEMI from across the world, and will be powered for the hard outcomes of death and myocardial infarction. Until the results of the COMPLETE trial are reported, physicians need to individualize care regarding the opportunity and the timing of the non-IRA PCI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lettino M (2009) Why and when PCI, why and when thrombolysis? PCI Intern Emerg Med. 4(1):7–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kahn JK, Rutherford BD, McConahay DR et al (1990) Results of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 16:1089–1096

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Muller DW, Topol EJ, Ellis SG et al (1991) Determinants of the need for early acute intervention in patients treated conservatively after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Tami-5 study group. J Am Coll Cardiol 18:1594–1601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Demetriou D, Grines CL et al (2000) Multiple complex coronary plaques in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med 343:915–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Park DW, Clare RM, Schulte PJ et al (2014) Extent, location, and clinical significance of non-infarct-related coronary artery disease among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 312:2019–2027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Varani E, Balducelli M, Aquilina M et al (2008) Single or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent 72:927–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cavender MA, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT et al (2009) Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the national cardiovascular data registry). Am J Cardiol 104:507–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G et al (2010) Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. JACC Cardiovasc Intervent. 3:22–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Toma M, Buller CE, Westerhout CM et al (2010) Non-culprit coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the apex-ami trial. Eur Heart J 31:1701–1707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Manari A, Varani E, Guastaroba P et al (2014) Long-term outcome in patients with st segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease treated with culprit-only, immediate, or staged multivessel percutaneous revascularization strategies: Insights from the real registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent 84:912–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pt O’Gara, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD et al (2013) ACCF/AHA guidelines for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 2013(127):6362–6425

    Google Scholar 

  12. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F et al (2014) ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. EuroIntervention 2015(10):1024–1094

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ et al (2013) Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 369:1115–1123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ et al (2015) Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: The CvLPRIT trial. J Am Col Cardiol. 65:963–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, Helqvist S et al (2015) 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. Lancet 386:665–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hlinomaz O (2015) Multivessel coronary disease diagnosed at the time of primary PCI for STEMI: complete revascularization versus conservative strategy: the PRAGUE 13 trial. Presented at EuroPCR, 19 May 2015

  17. Politi L, Sgura F, Rossi R et al (2010) A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart 96:662–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Di Mario C, Mara S, Flavio A et al (2004) Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomized HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for acute myocardial infarction (HELP AMI) study. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 6(3–4):128–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dambrink JH, Debrauwere JP, van’t Hof AW et al (2010) Non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: treat invasively or follow the guidelines? EuroIntervention 5(8):968–975

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sethi A, Bahekan A, Bhuriya R et al (2011) Complete versus culprit only revascularization in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent 77:163–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes JDR et al (2011) Culprit 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:692–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bangalore S, Toklu B, Wetterslev J et al (2015) Complete versus culprit-only revascularization for st-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. Circ Cardiovasc Intervent 8:e002142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. El-Hayek GE, Gershlick AH, Hong MK et al (2015) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel versus culprit-only revascularization for patients with st-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 115:1481–1486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bainey KR, Mehta SR, Lai T et al (2014) Complete versus 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. Am Heart J 167:1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Russo JJ, Wells GA, Chong SY et al (2015) Safety and efficacy of staged percutaneous coronary intervention during index admission for ST-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary disease (insights from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute STEMI Registry). Am J Cardiol 116:1157–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kowalewski M, Schulze V, Berti S et al (2015) Complete revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart 101:1309–1317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kornowski R, Mehran R, Dangas G et al (2011) Prognostic impact of staged versus “one-time” multivessel percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:704–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abe D, Sato A, Hoshi T et al (2014) Initial culprit-only versus initial multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Ibaraki cardiovascular assessment study registry. Heart Vessels 29:171–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barringhaus KG, Park KL, McManus DD et al (2010) Outcomes from patients with multi-vessel disease following primary PCI: staged PCI imparts very low mortality. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent 77:617–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen HC, Tsai TH, Fang HY et al (2010) Benefit of revascularization in non-infarct-related artery in multivessel disease patients with ST-segment elevation myocardia infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int Heart J 51:319–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Corpus RA, House JA, Marso SP et al (2004) Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 148:493–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dziewierz A, Siudak Z, Rakowski T et al (2010) Impact of multivessel coronary artery disease and noninfarct-related artery revascularization on outcome of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the EUROTRANSFER registry). Am J Cardiol 106:342–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Han YL, Wang B, Wang XZ et al (2008) Comparative effects of percutaneous coronary intervention for infarct-related artery only or for both infarct- and non-infarct related arteries in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and-multi-vessel disease. Chin Med J 121:2384–2387

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kalarus Z, Lenarczyk R, Kowalczyk J et al (2007) Importance of complete revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J 153:304–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Katayama N, Horiuchi K, Nakao K et al (2005) Does percutaneous coronary intervention in non-culprit vessels improve the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction complicated by pump failure? J Cardiol 45:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  36. Khattab AA, Abdel-Wahab M, Rother C et al (2008) Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. A single-center experience. Clin Res Cardiol 97:32–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kong JA, Chou ET, Minutello RM et al (2006) Safety of single versus multivessel angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multi-vessel coronary artery disease: report from the New York State angioplasty registry. Coron Artery Dis 17:71–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee HW, Hong TJ, Yang MJ et al (2012) Comparison of infarct-related artery vs multivessel revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: analysis from Korea acute myocardial infarction registry. Cardiol J. 19:256–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mohamad T, Bernal JM, Kondur A et al (2011) Coronary revascularization strategy for ST elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: experience and results at 1-year follow-up. Am J Ther 18:92–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Quarawani D, Nahir M, Abboud M et al (2008) Culprit only versus complete coronary revascularization during primary PCI. Int J Cardiol 123:288–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rigattieri S, Biondi-Zoccai G, Silvestri P et al (2008) Management of multivessel coronary disease after ST elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary angioplasty. J Intervent Cardiol 21:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mt Roe, Cura FA, Joski PS et al (2001) Initial experience with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention during mechanical reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 88:170–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. CULPRIT-SHOCK TRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov: identifier NCT01927549

  44. COMPLETE TRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov: identifier NCT011740479

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiology, Maggiore Hospital, Largo Nigrisoli 2, 40133, Bologna, Italy

    Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Elisa Filippini, Pier Camillo Pavesi, Gianfranco Tortorici, Gianni Casella & Pietro Sangiorgio

Authors
  1. Giuseppe Di Pasquale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisa Filippini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pier Camillo Pavesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianfranco Tortorici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gianni Casella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pietro Sangiorgio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Di Pasquale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Di Pasquale, G., Filippini, E., Pavesi, P.C. et al. Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Intern Emerg Med 11, 499–506 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1419-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1419-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation