Objective To explore the impact of a ＂one-week＂ staged muhivessel percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） versus culprit-only PCI on deaths and major adverse cardiac events （MACE）. Methods We retrospectively an...Objective To explore the impact of a ＂one-week＂ staged muhivessel percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） versus culprit-only PCI on deaths and major adverse cardiac events （MACE）. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 447 patients with multivessel disease who experienced a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） within 12 h before undergoing PCI between July 26, 2008 and Septem- ber 25, 201 l. After completion of PCI in the infarct artery, 201 patients still in the hospital agreed to undergo PCI in non-infarct arteries with more than 70% stenosis for a ＂one-week＂ staged multivessel PCI. A total of 246 patients only received intervention for the culprit vessel. Follow-up ended on September 9, 2014. This study examined the differences in deaths from any cause （i.e., cardiac and noncardiac） and MACE between the two treatment groups. Results Compared to a culprit-only PCI treatment approach, the ＂one-week＂ staged multivessel PCI was strongly associated with greater benefits for 55-month all cause death [41 （16.7%） vs. 13 （6.5%）, P = 0.004] and MACE [82 （33.3%） vs. 40 （19.9%）, P = 0.002] rates. In addition, there were significant differences in the number of myocardial infarctions [43 （17.5%） vs. 20 （10.0%）, P = 0.023], coronary-artery bypass grafting [CABG; 20 （8.1%） vs. 6 （3.0%）, P = 0.021], and PCI [31 （12.6%） vs. 12 （6.0%）, P - 0.018]. Patients undergoing culprit-only PCI compared to ＂one-week＂ PCI had the same number of stent thrombosis events [7 （2.8%） vs. 3 （1.5%）, P - 0.522]. Conclusions Compared to a culprit-only PCI treatment approach, ＂one-week＂ staged multi-vessel PCI was a safe and effective selection for STEMI and multi-vessel PCL展开更多
文摘Objective To explore the impact of a ＂one-week＂ staged muhivessel percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） versus culprit-only PCI on deaths and major adverse cardiac events （MACE）. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 447 patients with multivessel disease who experienced a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） within 12 h before undergoing PCI between July 26, 2008 and Septem- ber 25, 201 l. After completion of PCI in the infarct artery, 201 patients still in the hospital agreed to undergo PCI in non-infarct arteries with more than 70% stenosis for a ＂one-week＂ staged multivessel PCI. A total of 246 patients only received intervention for the culprit vessel. Follow-up ended on September 9, 2014. This study examined the differences in deaths from any cause （i.e., cardiac and noncardiac） and MACE between the two treatment groups. Results Compared to a culprit-only PCI treatment approach, the ＂one-week＂ staged multivessel PCI was strongly associated with greater benefits for 55-month all cause death [41 （16.7%） vs. 13 （6.5%）, P = 0.004] and MACE [82 （33.3%） vs. 40 （19.9%）, P = 0.002] rates. In addition, there were significant differences in the number of myocardial infarctions [43 （17.5%） vs. 20 （10.0%）, P = 0.023], coronary-artery bypass grafting [CABG; 20 （8.1%） vs. 6 （3.0%）, P = 0.021], and PCI [31 （12.6%） vs. 12 （6.0%）, P - 0.018]. Patients undergoing culprit-only PCI compared to ＂one-week＂ PCI had the same number of stent thrombosis events [7 （2.8%） vs. 3 （1.5%）, P - 0.522]. Conclusions Compared to a culprit-only PCI treatment approach, ＂one-week＂ staged multi-vessel PCI was a safe and effective selection for STEMI and multi-vessel PCL
