Background The clinical significance of complete revascularization for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） pa- tients during admission is still debatable. Methods A total of 1406 STEMI patients from t...Background The clinical significance of complete revascularization for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） pa- tients during admission is still debatable. Methods A total of 1406 STEMI patients from the Korean Myocardial Infarction Registry with multivessel diseases without cardiogenic shock who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention （PPCI） were analyzed. We used propensity score matching （PSM） to control differences of baseline characteristics between culprit only intervention （CP） and multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions （MP）, and between double vessel disease （DVD） and triple vessel disease （TVD）. The major adverse cardiac event （MACE） was analyzed for one year after discharge. Results TVD patients showed higher incidence of MACE （14.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.01）, any cause of revascularization （10.6% vs. 5.9%, P - 0.01）, and repeated PCI （9.5% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.02）, as compared to DVD patients during one year after discharge. MP reduced MACE effectively （7.3% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.03）, as compared to CP for one year, but all cause of death （1.6% vs. 3.2%, P= 0.38）, Ml （0.4% vs. 0.8%, P = 1.00）, and any cause ofrevascularization （5.3% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.09） were comparable in the two treatment groups. Conclusions STEMI patients with TVD showed higher rate of MACE, as compared to DVD MP performed during PPCI or ad hoc during admission for STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock showed lower rate of MACE in this large scaled database. Therefore, MP could be considered as an effective treatment option for STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock.展开更多
文摘Background The clinical significance of complete revascularization for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） pa- tients during admission is still debatable. Methods A total of 1406 STEMI patients from the Korean Myocardial Infarction Registry with multivessel diseases without cardiogenic shock who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention （PPCI） were analyzed. We used propensity score matching （PSM） to control differences of baseline characteristics between culprit only intervention （CP） and multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions （MP）, and between double vessel disease （DVD） and triple vessel disease （TVD）. The major adverse cardiac event （MACE） was analyzed for one year after discharge. Results TVD patients showed higher incidence of MACE （14.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.01）, any cause of revascularization （10.6% vs. 5.9%, P - 0.01）, and repeated PCI （9.5% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.02）, as compared to DVD patients during one year after discharge. MP reduced MACE effectively （7.3% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.03）, as compared to CP for one year, but all cause of death （1.6% vs. 3.2%, P= 0.38）, Ml （0.4% vs. 0.8%, P = 1.00）, and any cause ofrevascularization （5.3% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.09） were comparable in the two treatment groups. Conclusions STEMI patients with TVD showed higher rate of MACE, as compared to DVD MP performed during PPCI or ad hoc during admission for STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock showed lower rate of MACE in this large scaled database. Therefore, MP could be considered as an effective treatment option for STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock.
