Journal of the American Heart Association
-
Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcome Between Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Infarct-Related Artery-Only Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock.
Background Data are limited regarding long-term outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock according to revascularization strategy. We sought to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction multivessel disease with cardiogenic shock and patients with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and infarct-related artery (IRA)-only PCI. Methods and Results Of 13 104 patients from the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry--National Institutes of Health) registry, we selected 659 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who had concomitant non-IRA stenosis and presented with cardiogenic shock. ⋯ The results were consistent after confounder adjustment by propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analysis. Landmark analysis at 1 year demonstrated that the multivessel PCI group had a lower risk of recurrent MI and non-IRA repeat revascularization beyond 1 year (log-rank P=0.030 and P=0.017, respectively) than the IRA-only PCI group. Conclusions In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death than IRA-only PCI at 3 years, suggesting potential benefit of non-IRA revascularization during the index hospitalization to improve long-term clinical outcomes.