Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI

Investor logo

Warning

This publication doesn't include Institute of Computer Science. It includes Faculty of Medicine. Official publication website can be found on muni.cz.
Authors

HLINOMAZ Ota MOTOVSKA Zuzana KALA Petr HROMADKA Milan PRECEK Jan MROZEK Jan ČERVINKA Pavel KETTNER Jiri MATEJKA Jan ZOHOOR Ahmad BIS Josef JARKOVSKÝ Jiří

Year of publication 2024
Type Article in Periodical
Magazine / Source Hellenic Journal of Cardiology
MU Faculty or unit

Faculty of Medicine

Citation
Web https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S110996662300146X?via%3Dihub
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hjc.2023.08.009
Keywords Acute myocardial infarction; Cardiogenic shock; Multivessel disease; Culprit vessel primary angioplasty; Multivessel primary angioplasty
Attached files
Description Introduction and objectives Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure. Material and methods From 2016 to 2020, 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI. Results Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality. Conclusions Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.
Related projects:

You are running an old browser version. We recommend updating your browser to its latest version.

More info