CAJ | 학술논문

Objective To explore the impact of a“one-week”staged multivessel 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, 2011. 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 PCI.