Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Should We Treat Multi-Vessel Disease in STEMI Patients?

  • Coronary Artery Disease (PG Steg, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Primary angioplasty of the culprit coronary artery lesion is the preferred reperfusion strategy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when timely access to a catheterization laboratory is available. The presence of multi-vessel disease (MVD) in patients undergoing primary PCI is common, occurring in about 40 %–50 % of patients. The presence of MVD in patients who have undergone successful primary PCI substantially increases the risks of mortality and major adverse cardiac events, such as reinfarction or need for urgent revascularization. The current evidence supporting revascularization of non-culprit lesions is sparse, with no large, adequately powered randomized trials to guide clinical practice. An analysis combining observational data and small randomized trials suggests that complete revascularization with PCI to significant non-culprit lesions may afford a benefit compared with medical management alone. However, this benefit appears to be confined to when revascularization is performed as a separate, staged procedure. By contrast, when non-culprit lesion PCI is performed during the initial primary PCI procedure, the risk of death or cardiovascular events is higher than medical management alone or to staged revascularization. A large, adequately powered randomized trial is urgently needed to determine whether routine staged PCI plus optimal medical therapy is superior to optimal medical therapy alone for significant non-culprit coronary artery lesions in patients who have undergone successful primary PCI for STEMI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction–executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(3):671–719.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty vs intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomized trials. Lancet. 2003;361(9351):13–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sorajja P, Gersh BJ, Cox DA, et al. Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. EHJ. 2007;28:1709–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Corpus RA, House JA, Marso SP, et al. Multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multi-vessel disease and acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2004;148(3):493–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ, et al. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(3):226–35. This prospective observational study examined 697 ACS patients who underwent PCI using IVUS, and reported that non-culprit lesions were equally likely to be responsible for recurrent MACE. This report also identified ultrasonographic characteristics of non-culprit lesion which were associated with recurrent events.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(15):1503–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2503–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghani A, Dambrink JHE, Van’t Hof WJ, et al. Treatment of non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Neth Heart J. 2012;20:347–53. This is the most recent RCT which randomized 121 STEMI patients with MVD undergoing primary PCI to either FFR guided non-culprit lesion revascularization within 3 weeks of the index procedure or medical therapy alone. This study reported no difference in mortality between the 2 strategies; however, the invasive approach was associated with increased risk of re-MI but a lower rate of repeat intervention.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldstein JA, Demetriou D, Grines CL, Pica M, Shoukfeh M, O'Neill WW. Multiple complex coronary plaques in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(13):915–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Takano M, Inami S, Ishibashi F, et al. Angioscopic follow-up study of coronary ruptured plaques in non-culprit lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(5):652–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ambrose JA, D'Agate DJ. Plaque rupture and intracoronary thrombus in non-culprit vessels: an eyewitness account. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(5):659–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. de Feyter PJ, Ozaki Y, Baptista J, et al. Ischemia-related lesion characteristics in patients with stable or unstable angina. A study with intracoronary angioscopy and ultrasound. Circulation. 1995;92(6):1408–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rioufol G, Finet G, Ginon I, et al. Multiple atherosclerotic plaque rupture in acute coronary syndrome: a three-vessel intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2002;106(7):804–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zairis MN, Papadaki OA, Manousakis SJ, et al. C-reactive protein and multiple complex coronary artery plaques in patients with primary unstable angina. Atherosclerosis. 2002;164(2):355–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Glaser R, Selzer F, Faxon DP, et al. Clinical progression of incidental, asymptomatic lesions discovered during culprit vessel coronary intervention. Circulation. 2005;111(2):143–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G, et al. Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention vs multi-vessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multi-vessel disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(1):22–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Toma M, Buller CE, Westerhout CM, et al. Non-culprit coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the APEX-AMI trial. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:1701–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ochala A, Smolka GA, Wojakowski W, et al. The function of the left ventricle after complete multi-vessel one-stage percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Invasive Cardiol. 2004;16(12):699–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Di MC, Mara S, Flavio A, et al. Single vs multi-vessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicenter randomized HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multi-vessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) Study. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent. 2004;6(3–4):128–33.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Politi L, Sgura F, Rossi R, et al. A randomized trial of target-vessel vs multi-vessel revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart. 2010;96(9):662–7. This is the only RCT to date which compared culprit-only PCI, same-sitting multi-vessel PCI and staged non-culprit PCI in 214 STEMI patients with MVD. This study reported significantly increased MACE in patients who underwent culprit-only PCI, whereas the rate of MACE was similar between same-sitting or staged PCI to non-culprit lesions.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes DR, et al. Culprit vessel only vs multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC. 2011;58(7):692–703. This analysis examined 40,280 STEMI patients with MVD from 4 prospective and 14 retrospective studies. Three management strategies: (1) culprit-only PCI, (2) same-sitting multi-vessel PCI and (3) staged non-culprit PCI were compared. Staged PCI to non-culprit lesions was found to afford the lowest mortality, while same-sitting multi-vessel PCI was associated with the highest mortality.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brener SJ, Murphy SA, Gibson CM, DiBattiste PM, Demopoulos LA, Cannon CP. Efficacy and safety of multivessel percutaneous revascularization and tirofiban therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:631–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Brener SJ, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, Bhatt DL, Weintraub WS, Brindis RG. Culprit-only or multi-vessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Database Registry report. Am Heart J. 2008;155:140–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shishehbor MH, Lauer MS, Singh IM, et al. In unstable angina or non-ST-segment acute coronary syndrome, should patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergo multi-vessel or culprit-only stenting? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:849–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zapata GO, Lasave LI, Kozak F, et al. Culprit-only or multivessel percutaneous coronary stenting in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: one-year follow-up. J Interv Cardiol. 2009;22:329–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roiron C, Sanchez P, Bouzamondo A. Drug eluting stents: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Heart. 2006;92:641–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tu JV, Bowen J, Chiu M, et al. Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1393–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hannan EL, Racz M, Holmes DR, et al. Comparison of coronary artery stenting outcomes in the eras before and after the introduction of drug-eluting stents. Circulation. 2008;117:2071–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117,762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012;125(23):2873–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Alazzoni A, Al-Saleh A, Jolly S. Everolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thrombosis. 2012; In press.

  31. Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, Garg P, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1330–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, et al. Sirolimus-eluting vs uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1093–104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sabate S, Mases A, Guilera N, et al. Incidence and predictors of major perioperative adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in non-cardiac surgery. BJA. 2011;107(6):879–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Stone GW, Parise H, Witzenbichler B, et al. Selection criteria for drug-eluting vs bare-metal stents and the impact of routine angiographic follow-up. JACC. 2010;56:1597–604.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: Executive summary. JACC. 2011;58(24):2550–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, et al. ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. EHJ. 2012. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs215.

  37. Smith SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing committee to update of the 2001 guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention). Circulation. 2006;113:156–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Barringhaus KG, Park KL, McManus DD, et al. Outcomes from patients with multi-vessel disease following primary PCI. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;77(5):617–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cavender MA, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, et al. Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry). AJC. 2009;104:507–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jo HS, Park JS, Sohn JW, et al. Culprit-lesion-only vs multivessel revascularization using drug-eluting stents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a Korean acute myocardial infarction registry-based analysis. Korean Circ J. 2011;41:718–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kong JA, Chou ET, Minutello RM, Wong SC, Hong MK. Safety of single vs multi-vessel angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multi-vessel coronary artery disease: report from the New York State Angioplasty Registry. Coron Artery Dis. 2006;17:71–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Khattab AA, Abdel-Wahab M, Röther C, et al. Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. A single-center experience. Clin Res Cardiol. 2008;97:32–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

V. Hsieh: none. S.R. Mehta: Consultancy for AstraZeneca, BMS, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, General Division, David Braley CVSRI Building, C3-11A, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8L 2X2, Canada

    Victar Hsieh MD, PhD, FRACP & Shamir R. Mehta MD, MSc, FRCPC, FACC, FESC

Authors
  1. Victar Hsieh MD, PhD, FRACP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shamir R. Mehta MD, MSc, FRCPC, FACC, FESC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shamir R. Mehta MD, MSc, FRCPC, FACC, FESC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hsieh, V., Mehta, S.R. How Should We Treat Multi-Vessel Disease in STEMI Patients?. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med 15, 129–136 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-012-0213-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-012-0213-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation