Thirty-day outcomes of in-hospital multi-vessel versus culpritonly revascularization strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND Many studies have demonstrated the benefit of complete multivessel revascularization versus culprit-only intervention in patients of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction(STEMI)and multivessel coronary artery disease.However,only a few single-center retrospective studies were performed on small Chinese cohorts.Our study aims to demonstrate the advantage of multivessel percutaneous intervention(PCI)strategy on 30-day in-hospital outcomes to patients with STEMI and multivessel disease in larger Chinese population.METHODS From the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome(CCC-ACS)project,5935 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease undergoing PCI and hospitalized for fewer than 30 days were analyzed.After 5:1 propensity score matching,3577 patients with culprit-only PCI and 877 with in-hospital multivessel PCI were included.The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event(MACCE),defined as a composite of myocardial infarction,all-cause death,stent thrombosis,heart failure,and stroke.RESULTS Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that in-hospital multivessel PCI was associated with lower risk of 30-day MACCE(adjusted OR=0.75,95%CI:0.57-0.98,P=0.032)than culprit-only PCI and conferred no increased risk of allcause death,myocardial infarction,stent thrombosis,stroke,or bleeding.Subgroup analysis showed that MACCE reduction was observed more often from patients with trans-femoral access(OR=0.34,95%CI:0.15-0.74)than with trans-radial access(OR=0.87,95%CI:0.66-1.16,P for interaction=0.017).CONCLUSIONS The in-hospital multivessel PCI strategy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day MACCE than culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.