Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to compare the outcomes of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing one-time multivessel revascularization (OTMVR) versus in-hospital staged complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational, and cohort study, including data from January 2013 to April 2019. A total of 634 patients were included in the study. Comparisons were made between patients who underwent in-hospital staged complete revascularization versus OTMVR. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality, secondary endpoints included cardiovascular complications, all-cause new hospitalization, and mortality evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. In addition, we constructed a logistic regression model for determining the risk factors that predicted mortality. RESULTS: Of the 634 patients, 328 were treated with staged revascularization and 306 with OTMVR. About 76.7% were men, with a mean age of 63.3 years. Less complex coronary lesions and a higher proportion of the left anterior descending artery as the culprit vessel were found in the OTMVR group. Compared with staged revascularization, the primary and secondary endpoints occurred less frequently with OTMVR strategy. CONCLUSIONS: OTMVR did not generate more complications and demonstrate better clinical outcomes than in-hospital staged revascularization.