Download PDF
Int J Angiol 2017; 26(03): 143-147
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1572522
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Preliminary Report on the Safety and Efficacy of Staged versus Complete Revascularization in Patients with Multivessel Disease at the Time of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Marwan Saad
1   Department of Medicine, Seton Hall University School of Health and Medical Sciences, Trinitas Regional Medical Center, Elizabeth, New Jersey
2   Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Ahmed Rashed
3   Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan
,
Wael El-kilany
2   Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Mohamed El-Haddad
4   Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
,
Islam Y. Elgendy
5   Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 February 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study aims to determine the safety and efficacy of complete versus staged-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesions at the time of primary PCI in patients with multivessel disease. Recent trials had suggested that revascularization of nonculprit lesions at the time of primary PCI is associated with better outcomes, however; the optimum timing and overall safety of this approach is not well known. An observational prospective study was conducted, including 50 patients who presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and found to have at least an additional nonculprit significant (> 70%) type A or B lesion. According to the operator's discretion, patients either underwent complete revascularization of nonculprit significant lesions during primary PCI procedure or within 60 days of primary PCI (staged-PCI). Safety outcomes evaluated were contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), the amount of contrast used, and fluoroscopy time. Efficacy outcome assessed was major adverse events (MACE) at 1 year. The fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast used were increased in complete revascularization group (35.3 ± 9.6 vs. 26.3 ± 6.7 minutes, p < 0.001, and 219.5 ± 35.1 vs. 187.5 ± 45.5 mL, p = 0.01, respectively); while incidence of CIN remained similar (p = 0.73). The incidence of MACE at 1 year was similar in both groups (23% in the complete revascularization group vs. 25% in the staged-PCI group, p = 0.43). Complete revascularization and staged-PCI of nonculprit type A or B lesions at the time of primary PCI were associated with similar long-term outcomes and safety profile. Larger studies are needed to further validate these results.

Keywords

ST elevation myocardial infarction - revascularization - primary percutaneous coronary intervention
 

  • References

  • 1 Smith Jr SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld Jr JW. , et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47 (01) 216-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Toma M, Buller CE, Westerhout CM. , et al; APEX-AMI Investigators. Non-culprit coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the APEX-AMI trial. Eur Heart J 2010; 31 (14) 1701-1707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Muller DW, Topol EJ, Ellis SG, Sigmon KN, Lee K, Califf RM. ; Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (TAMI) Study Group. Multivessel coronary artery disease: a key predictor of short-term prognosis after reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1991; 121 (4 Pt 1): 1042-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jaski BE, Cohen JD, Trausch J. , et al. Outcome of urgent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: comparison of single-vessel versus multivessel coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 1992; 124 (06) 1427-1433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Celik T, Iyisoy A, Jata B, Kardesoglu E, Isik E. Culprit only versus multivessel coronary revascularization in patients presenting with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: unending debate. Int J Cardiol 2009; 137 (01) 65-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD. , et al; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61 (04) e78-e140
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kornowski R, Mehran R, Dangas G. , et al; HORIZONS-AMI Trial Investigators. Prognostic impact of staged versus “one-time” multivessel percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58 (07) 704-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes Jr DR. , et al. Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pairwise and network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58 (07) 692-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G. , et al. Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3 (01) 22-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Corpus RA, House JA, Marso SP. , et al. Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2004; 148 (03) 493-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ. , et al; PRAMI Investigators. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013; 369 (12) 1115-1123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ. , et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65 (10) 963-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Elgendy IY, Huo T, Mahmoud A, Bavry AA. Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with multi-vessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Cardiol 2015; 186: 98-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Elgendy IY, Wen X, Mahmoud A, Bavry AA. Complete versus culprit-only revascularization for patients with multi-vessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015; (epub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26322.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ryan TJ, Faxon DP, Gunnar RM. , et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation 1988; 78 (02) 486-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mehran R, Nikolsky E. Contrast-induced nephropathy: definition, epidemiology, and patients at risk. Kidney Int Suppl 2006; 100 (100) S11-S15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kini AS. Coronary angiography, lesion classification and severity assessment. Cardiol Clin 2006; 24 (02) 153-162 , v
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bainey KR, Mehta SR, Lai T, Welsh RC. Complete vs culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J 2014; 167 (01) 1-14.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Shamir M. Complete vs culprit-only revascularization to treat multi-vessel disease after primary PCI for STEMI (COMPLETE). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01740479 . Accessed January 12, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Elgendy IY, Conti CR, Bavry AA. Fractional flow reserve: an updated review. Clin Cardiol 2014; 37 (06) 371-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Elgendy IY, Choi C, Bavry AA. The impact of fractional flow reserve on revascularization. Cardiol Ther 2015; 4 (02) 191-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar