Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although complete revascularization is known superior to incomplete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCD), there are no definite instructions on the optimal timing of non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared 1-year clinical outcomes between 2 different complete multi-vessel revascularization strategies. METHODS: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, 606 patients with STEMI and MVCD who underwent complete revascularization were enrolled from November 2011 to December 2015. The patients were assigned to multi-vessel single-staged PCI (SS PCI) group (n=254) or multi-vessel multi-staged PCI (MS PCI) group (n=352). Propensity score matched 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: At one year, MS PCI showed a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.19-0.92; p=0.030) compared with SS PCI. In subgroup analysis, all-cause mortality increased in SS PCI with cardiogenic shock (HR, 4.60; 95% CI, 1.54-13.77; p=0.006), age ≥65 years (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.67-9.58, p=0.002), Killip class III/IV (HR, 7.32; 95% CI, 1.68-31.87; p=0.008), and creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.10-7.18; p=0.031). After propensity score-matching, MS PCI showed a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular event than SS PCI. CONCLUSIONS: SS PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with MS PCI. MS PCI for non-infarct-related artery could be a better option for patients with STEMI and MVCD, especially high-risk patients.