• Jeong Hoon Yang, Pil Sang Song, Young Bin Song, Joo-Yong Hahn, Myung-Ho Jeong, and Hyeon-Cheol Gwon.
• 1Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2Department of Critical Care Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3Department of Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea. 4Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea. 5Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. 6Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Yeungnam University Hospital, Daegu, Korea.
• Crit. Care Med.. 2014 Jan 1;42(1):17-25.

ObjectivesWe investigated the clinical impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with multivessel disease.DesignA prospective, multicenter, observational study.SettingCardiac ICU of a university hospital.PatientsBetween November 2005 and September 2010, 338 patients were selected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and 2) multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the infarct-related artery. Patients were divided into multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention and culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention.InterventionsNone.Measurements And Main ResultsPrimary outcome was all-cause mortality. Median follow-up duration was 224 days (interquartile range, 46-383 d). Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was performed during the primary percutaneous coronary intervention in 60 patients (17.8%). In-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention vs culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention, 31.7% vs 24.5%; p = 0.247). All-cause mortality during follow-up was not significantly different between the two groups after adjusting for patient, angiographic, and procedural characteristics as well as propensity scores for receiving multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (35.0% vs 30.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.61-1.86; p = 0.831). There were no significant differences between the groups in rates of major adverse cardiac events (41.7% vs 37.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.62-1.71; p = 0.908) and any revascularization (6.7% vs 4.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.51-6.89; p = 0.344).ConclusionsMultivessel percutaneous coronary intervention could not reduce the prevalence of mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

21 keywords...

hide…