INFARCT RELATED ARTERY VERSUS MULTIVESSEL ...
INFARCT RELATED ARTERY VERSUS MULTIVESSEL REVASCULARIZATION IN ACUTE STEMI WITH MULTIVESSEL DISEASE
H.W. Lee, M.J. Yang, S.K. Ahn, B.W. Kim, J.H. Choi, J.H. Oh, J.H. Choi, H.C. Lee,
K.S. Cha, T.J. Hong
Busan National University Hospital, Busan, South Korea
Objective: We compared long-term clinical outcomes of multivessel revascularization with infarct-related artery (IRA) revascularization in ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.
Background: A lot of patients with STEMI have multivessel disease. Current guidelines recommend multiple revascularization only in cardiogenic shock.
Methods: A total of 1,283 STEMI patients with multivessel disease [975 in IRA revascularization group (group I), 308 in multivessel revascularization group (group II)] who received primary PCI were analyzed from a nationwide Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE, defined as death, myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularization). Secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications and components of the MACE.
Results: The number of patients with hemodynamic instability was larger in group I than II. In-hospital mortality was lower in group II with marginal significance (6.6% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.051). 12 month MACE occurred in 84 patients (14.6%) in group I, 20 patients (11.5%) in group II (p = 0.294). Components of MACE were occurred similarly between two groups but non-target vessel revascularization (6.4% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.012). After adjustment of confounding factors such as hemodynamic instability, Killip class, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, female and older age, multivessel revascularization did not reduce in-hospital mortality(OR 0.935, 95% CI 0.403-2.167, p=0.875). It was same for 12-month MACE (OR 0.953, 95% CI 0.406-2.233, p = 0.911) and secondary outcomes. But multivessel revascularization reduced non-target vessel revascularization significantly(OR 0.279, 95% CI 0.085-0.922, p = 0.036).
Conclusions: There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes except for low risk of non-target vessel revascularization in multivessel revascularization group. Therefore, results of our study support current guidelines.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- national pbm monograph template rev20091005
- consistent benefits with
- nstemi initial dosing guide
- stemi standing orders
- quality indicators and mortality in belgian stemi patients
- jazz fest ischemia and infarction
- ucla chest pain and unstable angina
- infarct related artery versus multivessel
- prognostic variables in locally non stemi and its
Related searches
- chronic infarct vs acute infarct
- apical infarct ekg
- chronic infarct definition
- cardiac infarct vs ischemia
- allergies versus cold versus flu
- cold versus flu versus pneumonia
- chronic infarct on mri
- right cerebellar infarct symptoms
- cerebellar infarct signs and symptoms
- infarct vs stroke
- infarct vs ischemic stroke
- what does subacute infarct mean