Not So Fast
Complete Revascularization of the ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patient Is Not Yet Proven
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Opposing Viewpoint, see p 1571
In most advanced healthcare systems, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) has replaced thrombolysis as the optimal therapy for patients presenting with ST-segment–elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). The frequent discovery of nonculprit vessel lesions during this index revascularization has fueled enthusiasm among interventional cardiologists to implant additional stents at the time of PPCI. The potential for cost saving by preventing an additional second procedure, reductions in inpatient stay, and even mortality benefits from immediate complete revascularization have been hypothesized. Determining whether this approach is a rational extension of the index emergency revascularization procedure or a costly and potentially hazardous extrapolation of the benefits of coronary stents has sparked considerable debate.
Disease in the nonculprit vessel in patients with STEMI is common; it is present in up to 60% of patients and, predictably, its presence is associated with worse outcomes.1 A pooled meta-analysis of 40 280 patients published in 2011 suggested that staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesions yielded superior short- and long-term outcomes in comparison with culprit lesion–only treatment, whereas multivessel PCI resulted in worse outcomes to culprit-only PCI or staged PCI.1 Because this retrospective analysis is subject to confounding (multivessel PCI performed preferentially for cardiogenic shock), 3 …