Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI: a Contemporary Review
- 107 Downloads
Purpose of review
In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization of the culprit coronary vessel and restoration of coronary flow is the goal of the initial management. However, obstructive non-culprit disease is frequently concomitantly found during initial angiography and portends a poor prognosis. Management of non-culprit lesions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been the subject of extensive debate. This review will examine the currently available evidence, with a specific focus on randomized clinical trials performed to date.
Although early observational data suggested better outcomes with culprit-only revascularization, more recent data from several randomized trials have suggested improved outcomes with complete multivessel revascularization, either during the index PCI procedure or as a staged procedure.
Data from recent randomized controlled trials have suggested the superiority of complete or multivessel revascularization and have subsequently led to changes to the most recent iterations of STEMI guidelines. However, the optimal management and timing of revascularization of non-culprit lesions in STEMI remain controversial.
KeywordsST-segment elevation Myocardial infarction Coronary artery disease STEMI
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Daniel Y. Lu and Ming Zhong each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Dmitriy N. Feldman is a section editor for Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 1.Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes DR Jr, van Valkenhoef G, Hillege HL, van der Horst IC, et al. 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. 2011;58:692–703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:1235–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.• Smits PC, Boxma-de Klerk BM. Fractional flow reserve-guided Multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:397–8. The COMPARE-ACUTE trial was the largest and one of the most recent trials on the subject (and thus not included in most of the meta-analyses to date), randomizing 885 patients to either COR or FFR-guided CR, showing a decrease in the primary endpoint of death, MI revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 12 months in the CR group.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Sorajja P, Gersh BJ, Cox DA, McLaughlin MG, Zimetbaum P, Costantini C, et al. Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:1709–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.• Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, Fuernau G, de Waha S, Meyer-Saraei R, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(25):2419–32. The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial was the most recent trial on the subject and not included in most of the meta-analyses to date. Importantly, it evaluated the outcomes of non-culprit revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock, a subset of patients that have been generally excluded in the other randomized trials. The study demonstrated a decrease in the composite outcome of death or renal-replacement therapy within the COR group.Google Scholar
- 9.Engstrom T, Kelbaek H, Helqvist S, Hofsten DE, Klovgaard L, Holmvang L, 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. Lancet. 2015;386:665–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Dziewierz A, Siudak Z, Rakowski T, Zasada W, Dubiel JS, Dudek D. 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. 2010;106:342–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, Greenwood JP, Sasikaran T, Curzen N, et al. 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 Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:963–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey DE Jr, Chung MK, de Lemos JA, 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. Circulation. 2013;127:529–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Authors/Task Force m, Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2017;39(2):119–77.Google Scholar
- 21.Cavender MA, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Weintraub WS, Rao SV. 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. 2009;104:507–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Iqbal MB, Nadra IJ, Ding L, Fung A, Aymong E, Chan AW, et al. Culprit vessel versus multivessel versus in-hospital staged intervention for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: stratified analyses in high-risk patient groups and anatomic subsets of nonculprit disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:11–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Iqbal MB, Ilsley C, Kabir T, Smith R, Lane R, Mason M, et al. Culprit vessel versus multivessel intervention at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: real-world analysis of 3984 patients in London. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7:936–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G, Holmes DR Jr, Jacobs AK, Stamato NJ, et al. Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:22–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Bauer T, Zeymer U, Hochadel M, Mollmann H, Weidinger F, Zahn R, et al. Prima-vista multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in haemodynamically stable patients with acute coronary syndromes: analysis of over 4.400 patients in the EHS-PCI registry. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166:596–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Manari A, Varani E, Guastaroba P, Menozzi M, Valgimigli M, Menozzi A, et al. 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 Interv. 2014;84:912–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Lee HW, Hong TJ, Yang MJ, An SG, Oh JH, Choi JH, et al. 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. 2012;19:256–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Ryu KS, Park HW, Park SH, Shon HS, Ryu KH, Lee DG, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between culprit vessel only and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel coronary diseases. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2015;12:208–17.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Toyota T, Shiomi H, Taniguchi T, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, et al. Culprit vessel-only vs. staged multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention strategies in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circ J. 2016;80:371–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Jo HS, Park JS, Sohn JW, Yoon JC, Sohn CW, Lee SH, et al. 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. Korean Circ J. 2011;41:718–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.Russo JJ, Wells GA, Chong AY, So DY, Glover CA, Froeschl MP, et al. 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. 2015;116:1157–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Zeymer U, Hochadel M, Thiele H, Andresen D, Schuhlen H, Brachmann J, et al. Immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the ALKK-PCI registry. EuroIntervention. 2015;11:280–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Kornowski R, Mehran R, Dangas G, Nikolsky E, Assali A, Claessen BE, et al. 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. 2011;58:704–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Jang JS, Spertus JA, Arnold SV, Shafiq A, Grodzinsky A, Fendler TJ, et al. Impact of multivessel revascularization on health status outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2104–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 40.Marino M, Crimi G, Leonardi S, Ferlini M, Repetto A, Camporotondo R, et al. Comparison of outcomes of staged complete revascularization versus culprit lesion-only revascularization for ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119:508–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Chen HC, Tsai TH, Fang HY, Sun CK, Lin YC, Leu S, et al. Benefit of revascularization in non-infarct-related artery in multivessel disease patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int Heart J. 2010;51:319–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Zhang J, Wang Q, Yang H, Ma L, Fu X, Hou W, et al. Evaluation of different revascularization strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction with lesions of multiple coronary arteries after primary percutaneous coronary intervention and its economic evaluation. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2015;27:169–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.Hlinomaz O, Poloková K, Lehar F, Vekov T, Petkov R, Stoynev M, et al. Multivessel coronary disease diagnosed at the time of primary PCI for STEMI: complete revascularization versus conservatie strategy. PRAGUE 13 trial. Unpublished Available at http://sbhci.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PRAGUE-13-Trial.pdf.
- 49.Tarasov R, Ganyukov V, Barbarash O, Barbarash L. Two preventive multivessel stenting strategy with zotarolimus eluting stents in STelevation myocardial infarction patients: 12-month results of randomized trial. Interv Cardiol. 2017;9:57–63.Google Scholar
- 54.Di Mario C, Mara S, Flavio A, Imad S, Antonio M, Anna P, et al. Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomised hepacoat for culprit or multivessel stenting for acute myocardial infarction (HELP AMI) study. Int J Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;6:128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.Bangalore S, Kumar S, Poddar KL, Ramasamy S, Rha SW, Faxon DP. Meta-analysis of multivessel coronary artery revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:1300–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 56.Bainey KR, Mehta SR, Lai T, Welsh RC. 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. Am Heart J. 2014;167:1–14. e12Google Scholar
- 57.Lonborg J, Engstrom T, Kelbaek H, Helqvist S, Klovgaard L, Holmvang L, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization improves the prognosis in patients with st- segment-elevation myocardial infarction and severe nonculprit disease: a DANAMI 3-PRIMULTI substudy (primary PCI in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: treatment of culprit lesion only or complete revascularization). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(4). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004460.
- 58.de Waha S, Jobs A, Eitel I, Poss J, Stiermaier T, Meyer-Saraei R, et al. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2017;7:28–37.Google Scholar
- 60.Wood DA, Cairns JA, Mehta SR. Multivessel revascularization and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: do we have the complete answer? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(4). https://doi.org/10.1131/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005215.
- 63.Elgendy IY, Mahmoud AN, Kumbhani DJ, Bhatt DL, Bavry AA. Complete or culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:315–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 64.Bangalore S, Toklu B, Wetterslev J. 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 Interv. 2015;8(4). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002142.
- 65.Villablanca PA, Briceno DF, Massera D, Hlinomaz O, Lombardo M, Bortnick AE, et al. Culprit-lesion only versus complete multivessel percutaneous intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Cardiol. 2016;220:251–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 66.Shah R, Berzingi C, Mumtaz M, Jasper JB, Goswami R, Morsy MS, et al. Meta-analysis comparing complete revascularization versus infarct-related only strategies for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and Multivessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118:1466–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 68.Wang CH, Zhang SY, Jin XF. Complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;228:844–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 69.Bajaj NS, Kalra R, Aggarwal H, Ather S, Gaba S, Arora G, et al. Comparison of approaches to revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: meta-analyses of randomized control trials. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(12). https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.115.002540.
- 70.Nguyen AV, Thanh LV, Kamel MG, Abdelrahman SAM, El-Mekawy M, Mokhtar MA, et al. Optimal percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: an updated, large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;244:67–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 71.Donmez E, Koc M, Seker T, Icen YK, Cayli M. The assessment of non culprit coronary artery lesions in patients with ST segment elevated myocardial infarction and multivessel disease by control angiography with quantitative coronary angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;32:1471–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 73.Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van’t Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24.Google Scholar
- 74.Fischer JJ, Samady H, McPherson JA, Sarembock IJ, Powers ER, Gimple LW, et al. Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:210–5.Google Scholar