Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A recently published study raised doubts about the need for percutaneous treatment of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS: Retrospective, unicentric, observational study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the long-term outcomes in patients undergoing treatment of the culprit artery, comparing those who remained with significant residual lesions in nonculprit arteries (group I) versus those without residual lesions in other coronary artery beds (group II). The study included 580 patients (284 in group I and 296 in group II) between May 2010 and May 2013. We obtained demographic and clinical data, as well as information regarding the coronary treatment administered to the patients. In the statistical analysis, the primary outcome included combined events (reinfarction/angina, death, heart failure, and need for reintervention). The comparison between groups was performed using the chi-square test and ANOVA. The long-term analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method, with a mean follow-up of 9.86 months. RESULTS: The mean ages were 63 years in group I and 62 years in group II. On long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in combined events in groups I and II (31.9% versus 35.6%, respectively, p = 0.76). CONCLUSION: The strategy of treating the culprit artery alone seems safe. In this study, no long-term differences in combined endpoints were observed between patients who remained with significant lesions compared with those without other obstructions.