OBJECTIVES: We examined the safety and efficacy of nonculprit multivessel compared with culprit-only stenting in patients with multivessel disease presenting with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes [NSTE-ACS]). BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with NSTE-ACS, multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with adverse outcome. METHODS: Patients with multivessel CAD and NSTE-ACS that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were included. The culprit lesion was defined by reviewing each patient's angiographic report, electrocardiogram, echocardiogram and, if available, nuclear stress test. All patients had at least 2 vessels with > or =50% stenosis, and the angiographic severity of CAD was assessed using the Duke Prognostic Angiographic Score. Patients with coronary bypass grafts, chronic total occlusions, and those with uncertain culprit lesions were excluded. Our end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or any target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: From January 1995 to June 2005, 1,240 patients with ACS and multivessel CAD underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stenting and met our study criteria. Of these, 479 underwent multivessel and 761 underwent culprit-only stenting. There were 442 events during a median follow-up of 2.3 years. Multivessel intervention was associated with lower death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization after both adjusting for baseline and angiographic characteristics (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.99; p = 0.04) and propensity matched analysis (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.88; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel CAD presenting with NSTE-ACS, multivessel intervention was significantly associated with a lower revascularization rate, which translated to a lower incidence of the composite end point compared with culprit-only stenting.
OBJECTIVES: We examined the safety and efficacy of nonculprit multivessel compared with culprit-only stenting in patients with multivessel disease presenting with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes [NSTE-ACS]). BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with NSTE-ACS, multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with adverse outcome. METHODS:Patients with multivessel CAD and NSTE-ACS that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were included. The culprit lesion was defined by reviewing each patient's angiographic report, electrocardiogram, echocardiogram and, if available, nuclear stress test. All patients had at least 2 vessels with > or =50% stenosis, and the angiographic severity of CAD was assessed using the Duke Prognostic Angiographic Score. Patients with coronary bypass grafts, chronic total occlusions, and those with uncertain culprit lesions were excluded. Our end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or any target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: From January 1995 to June 2005, 1,240 patients with ACS and multivessel CAD underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stenting and met our study criteria. Of these, 479 underwent multivessel and 761 underwent culprit-only stenting. There were 442 events during a median follow-up of 2.3 years. Multivessel intervention was associated with lower death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization after both adjusting for baseline and angiographic characteristics (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.99; p = 0.04) and propensity matched analysis (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.88; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel CAD presenting with NSTE-ACS, multivessel intervention was significantly associated with a lower revascularization rate, which translated to a lower incidence of the composite end point compared with culprit-only stenting.
Authors: A Romagnoli; E Martuscelli; M Sperandio; C Arganini; B De Angelis; V Acampora; A Patrei; G Bazzocchi; F Romeo; G Simonetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 3.469