Optimal timing of staged percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease

被引:7
|
作者
Zhao, Xue-Dong [1 ]
Zhao, Guan-Qi [1 ]
Wang, Xiao [1 ]
Shi, Shu-Tian [1 ]
Zheng, Wen [1 ]
Guo, Rui-Feng [1 ]
Nie, Shao-Ping [1 ]
机构
[1] Capital Med Univ, Beijing Inst Heart Lung & Blood Vessel Dis, Beijing Anzhen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China
基金
国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划);
关键词
Myocardial infarction; Multivessel disease; Non-culprit lesion; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Timing; DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY; MULTI-VESSEL REVASCULARIZATION; GUIDELINE FOCUSED UPDATE; ARTERY-DISEASE; ACC/AHA GUIDELINE; CULPRIT LESION; STRATEGIES; DURATION; ANGIOPLASTY; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2018.05.005
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Studies have shown that staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions is beneficial for prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease. However, the optimal timing of staged revascularization is still controversial. This study aimed to find the optimal timing of staged revascularization. Methods A total of 428 STEMI patients with multivessel disease who underwent primary PCI and staged PCI were included. According to the time interval between primary and staged PCI, patients were divided into three groups (<= 1 week, 1-2 weeks, and 2-12 weeks after primary PCI). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal re-infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. Cox regression model was used to assess the association between staged PCI timing and risk of MACE. Results During the follow-up, 119 participants had MACEs. There was statistical difference in MACE incidence among the three groups (<= 1 week: 23.0%; 1-2 weeks: 33.0%; 2-12 weeks: 40.0%; P = 0.001). In the multivariable adjustment model, the timing interval of staged PCI <= 1 week and 1-2 weeks were both significantly associated with a lower risk of MACE [hazard ratio (HR): 0.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.24-0.65; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.93, respectively], mainly attributed to a lower risk of repeat revascularization (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.24-0.70; HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18-0.7), compared with a strategy of 2-12 weeks later of primary PCI. Conclusions The optimal timing of staged PCI for non-culprit vessels should be within two weeks after primary PCI for STEMI patients.
引用
收藏
页码:356 / 362
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Culprit vessel only versus "one-week" staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
    Ma, Li-Xiang
    Lu, Zhen-Hua
    Wang, Le
    Du, Xin
    Ma, Chang-Sheng
    JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC CARDIOLOGY, 2015, 12 (03) : 226 - 231
  • [32] Culprit Vessel Versus Multivessel Versus In-Hospital Staged Intervention for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease
    Iqbal, M. Bilal
    Nadra, Imad J.
    Ding, Lillian
    Fung, Anthony
    Aymong, Eve
    Chan, Albert W.
    Hodge, Steven
    Della Siega, Anthony
    Robinson, Simon D.
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2017, 10 (01) : 11 - 23
  • [33] Percutaneous coronary intervention in the elderly with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
    Gao, Lei
    Hu, Xin
    Liu, Yu-Qi
    Xue, Qiao
    Feng, Quan-Zhou
    CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS IN AGING, 2014, 9 : 1241 - 1246
  • [34] Advances in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
    Aragon, Joseph R.
    Shenoda, Michael M.
    JOURNAL OF INVASIVE CARDIOLOGY, 2011, 23 : 19 - 23
  • [35] Meta-Analysis of Culprit-Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Disease
    Bangalore, Sripal
    Toklu, Bora
    Stone, Gregg W.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2018, 121 (05): : 529 - 536
  • [36] Effect of Multivessel Revascularization during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Outcomes of Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
    Estevez-Loureiro, Rodrigo
    Rodriguez-Vilela, Alejandro
    Salgado-Fernandez, Jorge
    Barge-Caballero, Eduardo
    Calvino-Santos, Ramon
    Vazquez-Rodriguez, Jose
    Aldama-Lopez, Guillermo
    Pinon-Esteban, Pablo
    Vazquez-Gonzalez, Nicolas
    Castro-Beiras, Alfonso
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2010, 105 (9A): : 1B - 2B
  • [37] Multivessel percutaneous intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: The Mayo clinic experience
    Denktas, AE
    Orford, JL
    Fasseas, P
    Barcin, C
    Lennon, RJ
    Lerman, A
    Holmes, DR
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2003, 41 (06) : 324A - 324A
  • [38] Multivessel Versus Culprit-only Revascularization for Patients With St-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Zheng, Wen
    Zhao, Xue-Dong
    Zhang, Yu-Jiao
    Nie, Shao-Ping
    CIRCULATION, 2016, 134
  • [39] Multivessel Versus Culprit-only Revascularization for Patients With St-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Zheng, Wen
    Zhao, Xue-Dong
    Zhang, Yu-Jiao
    Nie, Shao-Ping
    CIRCULATION, 2016, 134
  • [40] 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
    Vlaar, Pieter J.
    Mahmoud, Karim D.
    Holmes, David R., Jr.
    van Valkenhoef, Gert
    Hillege, Hans L.
    van der Horst, Iwan C. C.
    Zijlstra, Felix
    de Smet, Bart J. G. L.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2011, 58 (07) : 692 - 703