Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether multivessel revascularization or culprit-only revascularization is more beneficial in cardiac arrest survivors with multivessel coronary artery disease remains unclear. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate whether multivessel or culprit-only revascularization following cardiac arrest was associated with a reduced incidence of in-hospital mortality. METHODS: A total of 273 adult nontraumatic cardiac arrest survivors (aged ≥ 18 years) who underwent emergent coronary angiography (CAG) within 24 h following cardiac arrest were retrospectively recruited from three hospitals. Patients without definite coronary artery stenosis (n = 72), one-vessel stenosis (n = 74), or failed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; n = 37) were excluded. A total of 90 patients were enrolled for the final analysis and classified into multivessel (revascularization of more than one major vessel during the index CAG; n = 45) and culprit-only (revascularization of the infarct-related artery alone; n = 45) groups. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (55.6%) in the culprit-only group and 17 patients (37.8%) in the multivessel group failed to survive to discharge [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.24-0.95, p = 0.035]. The benefit of multivessel revascularization on survival was obvious among those with a prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration (> 10 min) (47.82% vs. 76.92%, adjusted HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.08-0.93, p = 0.03). No difference in neurological outcomes (favorable = cerebral performance category scores 1-2; poor = 3-5) between groups was observed (60.0% vs. 55.6%, adjusted OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.35-4.26, p = 0.753). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with culprit-only revascularization, multivessel revascularization was associated with lower in-hospital mortality among cardiac arrest survivors with multivessel lesions. Owing to the retrospective design and small sample size, the current study should be interpreted as observational and exploratory.