Treatment of Non-Culprit Lesions in STEMI: An Incomplete Journey

Approximately 50% of patients presenting with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). A number of randomized studies (Table 1) have all shown that complete revascularization (CR), either at the time of primary percutaneous coronary revascularization (PPCI) or within 45 days of the index admission, is safe and reduces the risk of repeat coronary revascularization and myocardial infarction (MI), particularly in the non-infarct related artery (NIRA). Despite consistently showing clinical benefit for CR, the results from the trials show variations in what drives this effect. Specifically, no study to date has provided a mechanistic insight as to how complete revascularization of chronic bystander disease may lead to the observed clinical benefit. Indeed, the randomized studies, through the variable nature of their results (reduction in MI versus revascularization etc.), have suggested the possibility that there are differing mechanisms for the observed benefit. In this review, we summarize the evidence base, highlight the limitations. and make the case that we need to understand the mechanism(s) underpinning the advantage of revascularizaLion of NIRA in order to establish which patients are most likely to benefit. Without this insight, the current "one size fits all" approach may lead us in the wrong direction. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.