After a myocardial infarction, early restoration of normal coronary perfusion reduces infract size, preserves left ventricular function, and lowers mortality. Reperfusion therapy's major goal is to not only restore the culprit epicardial vessel's patency, but also to reperfuse tissue to preserve myocyte viability and hence LV function. The pathophysiology of myocardial infarction, on the other hand, is not limited to the culprit vessel. The treatment of non-culprit lesions in STEMI is a contentious issue. Previously published guidelines (the 2011 PCI and 2013 STEMI guidelines) recommended treating the culprit lesion only if the patient was in cardiogenic shock. These guidelines are based on expert opinions rather than randomized controlled trials, which take into account safety concerns such as complications from repeated intervention, a low technical success rate, a high incidence of coronary restenosis, and renal insufficiency after contrast agent use. The aim of this work is to Long-term outcomes Lt ventricular ejection fraction (6 months) between complete revascularization and culprit-only revascularization (followed by staged percutaneous coronary intervention of secondary lesions) in STEMI patients with multi vessel coronary disease undergoing primary angioplasty. This prospective analysis included 50 patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction who were amenable to primary coronary intervention and were admitted to the critical care unit. And was blindly randomized alternatively into 2 groups: Group A: Complete coronary revascularisation during primary percutaneous intervention. Group B: Culprit-only revascularization during primary PCI. This study enrolled 50 patients, 35 males (70%) and 15 females (30%); in G I, there were 18 males (72%) and 7 females (18%) while in G II there were 17 males (68%) and 8 females (32%). The age ranged from 34 yrs. to 82 yrs. with mean age: In G I was 61.6 (±8.9) In G II was 62.2 (±12.9) were enrolled in this study, pre-procedural EF% (Mean±St) there was no significant difference between both groups. In G I, patients had a mean EF% 49.9±10.1 Versus 48.0±11.3 seen in G II. (P=0.54) In G I, there was no a significant difference between pre- procedural versus post-procedural mean EF%. (P=0.53) In G II, there was no a significant difference between pre-procedural versus post-procedural mean EF%. (P=0.14) We concluded that There were no significant differences between infarct-related artery revascularization and multivessel revascularization in the rates of 6-month MACE, Also, there were no differences as regard in-hospital mortality, stroke, cardiogenic shock and reinfarction, ejection fraction.
| Published in | Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research (Volume 5, Issue 4) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15 |
| Page(s) | 183-193 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction, Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Transthorathic Echocardiography, Ejection Fraction Evaluation
| [1] | Ottervanger, J. P., van 't Hof, A. W., Reiffers, S., Hoorntje, J. C., Suryapranata, H., de Boer, M. J., & Zijlstra, F. (2001). Long-term recovery of left ventricular function after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. European heart journal, 22 (9), 785–790. https://doi.org/10.1053/euhj.2000.2316. |
| [2] | Goldstein, J. A., Demetriou, D., Grines, C. L., Pica, M., Shoukfeh, M., & O'Neill, W. W. (2000). Multiple complex coronary plaques in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The New England journal of medicine, 343 (13), 915–922. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200009283431303. |
| [3] | O'Gara, P. T., Kushner, F. G., Ascheim, D. D., Casey, D. E., Jr, Chung, M. K., de Lemos, J. A., Ettinger, S. M., Fang, J. C., Fesmire, F. M., Franklin, B. A., Granger, C. B., Krumholz, H. M., Linderbaum, J. A., Morrow, D. A., Newby, L. K., Ornato, J. P., Ou, N., Radford, M. J., Tamis-Holland, J. E., Tommaso, C. L., … Zhao, D. X. (2013). 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 61 (4), e78–e140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.019. |
| [4] | Marenzi, G., Assanelli, E., Campodonico, J., Lauri, G., Marana, I., De Metrio, M., Moltrasio, M., Grazi, M., Rubino, M., Veglia, F., Fabbiocchi, F., & Bartorelli, A. L. (2009). Contrast volume during primary percutaneous coronary intervention and subsequent contrast-induced nephropathy and mortality. Annals of internal medicine, 150 (3), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-3-200902030-00006. |
| [5] | Cook, S., Walker, A., Hügli, O., Togni, M., & Meier, B. (2007). Percutaneous coronary interventions in Europe: prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections based on data up to 2004. Clinical research in cardiology: official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 96 (6), 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-007-0513-0. |
| [6] | Califf, R. M., & Bengtson, J. R. (1994). Cardiogenic shock. The New England journal of medicine, 330 (24), 1724–1730. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199406163302406. |
| [7] | Keeley, E. C., Boura, J. A., & Grines, C. L. (2003). Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet (London, England), 361 (9351), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12113-7. |
| [8] | Parodi, G., Memisha, G., Valenti, R., Trapani, M., Migliorini, A., Santoro, G. M., & Antoniucci, D. (2005). Five year outcome after primary coronary intervention for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: results from a single centre experience. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 91 (12), 1541–1544. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2004.054692. |
| [9] | Toma, M., Buller, C. E., Westerhout, C. M., Fu, Y., O'Neill, W. W., Holmes, D. R., Jr, Hamm, C. W., Granger, C. B., Armstrong, P. W., & APEX-AMI Investigators (2010). Non-culprit coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the APEX-AMI trial. European heart journal, 31 (14), 1701–1707. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq129. |
| [10] | Levine, G. N., Bates, E. R., Blankenship, J. C., Bailey, S. R., Bittl, J. A., Cercek, B., Chambers, C. E., Ellis, S. G., Guyton, R. A., Hollenberg, S. M., Khot, U. N., Lange, R. A., Mauri, L., Mehran, R., Moussa, I. D., Mukherjee, D., Nallamothu, B. K., Ting, H. H., American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, … Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (2011). 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 58 (24), e44–e122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.007. |
| [11] | Levine, G. N., Bates, E. R., Blankenship, J. C., Bailey, S. R., Bittl, J. A., Cercek, B., Chambers, C. E., Ellis, S. G., Guyton, R. A., Hollenberg, S. M., Khot, U. N., Lange, R. A., Mauri, L., Mehran, R., Moussa, I. D., Mukherjee, D., Ting, H. H., O'Gara, P. T., Kushner, F. G., Ascheim, D. D., … Zhao, D. X. (2016). 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 67 (10), 1235–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.005. |
| [12] | Ambrose J. A. (2008). In search of the "vulnerable plaque": can it be localized and will focal regional therapy ever be an option for cardiac prevention?. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 51 (16), 1539–1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.12.041. |
| [13] | Kalarus, Z., Lenarczyk, R., Kowalczyk, J., Kowalski, O., Gasior, M., Was, T., Zebik, T., Krupa, H., Chodór, P., Poloński, L., & Zembala, M. (2007). Importance of complete revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. American heart journal, 153 (2), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2006.10.033. |
| [14] | Hanratty, C. G., Koyama, Y., Rasmussen, H. H., Nelson, G. I., Hansen, P. S., & Ward, M. R. (2002). Exaggeration of nonculprit stenosis severity during acute myocardial infarction: implications for immediate multivessel revascularization. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 40 (5), 911–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(02)02049-1. |
| [15] | Assali, A. R., Brosh, D., Ben-Dor, I., Solodky, A., Fuchs, S., Teplitsky, I., & Kornowski, R. (2007). The impact of renal insufficiency on patients' outcomes in emergent angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions: official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 69 (3), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.20939. |
| [16] | Qarawani, D., Nahir, M., Abboud, M., Hazanov, Y., & Hasin, Y. (2008). Culprit only versus complete coronary revascularization during primary PCI. International journal of cardiology, 123 (3), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.12.013. |
| [17] | Chung, W. Y., Seo, J. B., Choi, D. H., Cho, Y. S., Lee, J. M., Suh, J. W., Youn, T. J., Chae, I. H., & Choi, D. J. (2016). Immediate multivessel revascularization may increase cardiac death and myocardial infarction in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: data analysis from real world practice. The Korean journal of internal medicine, 31 (3), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2014.119. |
| [18] | Di Mario, C., Mara, S., Flavio, A., Imad, S., Antonio, M., Anna, P., Emanuela, P., Stefano, D. S., Angelo, R., Stefania, C., Anna, F., Carmelo, C., Antonio, C., Monzini, N., & Bonardi, M. A. (2004). Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomised HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) Study. International journal of cardiovascular interventions, 6 (3-4), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/14628840310030441. |
| [19] | Hamza, M., Mahmoud, N., & Elgendy, I. Y. (2016). A Randomized Trial of Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Diabetic Patients With Acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multi Vessel Disease. Journal of interventional cardiology, 29 (3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/joic.12293. |
| [20] | Jayaraj JC, Abrahamyan L and Demirchyan A. (2016). Comparative Effectiveness of Complete Revascularization Versus Infarct Related Arteryonly Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization for Multi- vessel Disease After ST- Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. International Cardiovascular Forum Journal. 2016; 8: 19-23. https:// doi.org: 10.17987/icfj.v8i0.256. |
| [21] | Gershlick, A. H., Khan, J. N., Kelly, D. J., Greenwood, J. P., Sasikaran, T., Curzen, N., Blackman, D. J., Dalby, M., Fairbrother, K. L., Banya, W., Wang, D., Flather, M., Hetherington, S. L., Kelion, A. D., Talwar, S., Gunning, M., Hall, R., Swanton, H., & McCann, G. P. (2015). Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 65 (10), 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.038. |
| [22] | Zhang, D., Song, X., Lv, S., Yuan, F., Xu, F., Zhang, M., Li, W., & Yan, S. (2014). Culprit vessel only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. PloS one, 9 (3), e92316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092316. |
| [23] | Mangion, K., Carrick, D., Hennigan, B. W., Payne, A. R., McClure, J., Mason, M., Das, R., Wilson, R., Edwards, R. J., Petrie, M. C., McEntegart, M., Eteiba, H., Oldroyd, K. G., & Berry, C. (2016). Infarct size and left ventricular remodelling after preventive percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 102 (24), 1980–1987. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308660. |
| [24] | McCann, G. P., Khan, J. N., Greenwood, J. P., Nazir, S., Dalby, M., Curzen, N., Hetherington, S., Kelly, D. J., Blackman, D. J., Ring, A., Peebles, C., Wong, J., Sasikaran, T., Flather, M., Swanton, H., & Gershlick, A. H. (2015). Complete Versus Lesion-Only Primary PCI: The Randomized Cardiovascular MR CvLPRIT Substudy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 66 (24), 2713–2724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.099. |
| [25] | Dahud Q, Menachem N, Salameh G, et al. (2014) Infarct Related Artery only Versus Multi-vessel Revascularization during Primary PCI for STEMI. J Clin Exp Cardiolog, https://doi.org/ 10.4172/2155-9880.1000302 |
| [26] | Kim, I., Kim, M. C., Jeong, H. C., Park, K. H., Sim, D. S., Hong, Y. J., Kim, J. H., Jeong, M. H., Cho, J. G., Park, J. C., Seung, K. B., Chang, K., & Ahn, Y. (2017). Optimal Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Nonculprit Vessel in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease. Korean circulation journal, 47 (1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2015.0358. |
| [27] | El-Hayek, G. E., Gershlick, A. H., Hong, M. K., Casso Dominguez, A., Banning, A., Afshar, A. E., Herzog, E., & Tamis-Holland, J. E. (2015). Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The American journal of cardiology, 115 (11), 1481–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.02.046. |
| [28] | Elgendy, I. Y., Mahmoud, A. N., Kumbhani, D. J., Bhatt, D. L., & Bavry, A. A. (2017). Complete or Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 10 (4), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.11.047. |
| [29] | Iqbal, M. B., Nadra, I. J., Ding, L., Fung, A., Aymong, E., Chan, A. W., Hodge, S., Della Siega, A., Robinson, S. D., & British Columbia Cardiac Registry Investigators (2017). Culprit Vessel Versus Multivessel Versus In-Hospital Staged Intervention for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Stratified Analyses in High-Risk Patient Groups and Anatomic Subsets of Nonculprit Disease. JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 10 (1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.10.024. |
| [30] | Anantha Narayanan, M., Reddy, Y. N., Sundaram, V., Reddy, Y. N., Baskaran, J., Agnihotri, K., Badheka, A., Patel, N., & Deshmukh, A. (2016). What is the optimal approach to a non- culprit stenosis after ST-elevation myocardial infarction - Conservative therapy or upfront revascularization? An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials. International journal of cardiology, 216, 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.04.054. |
| [31] | Navarese, E. P., De Servi, S., Buffon, A., Suryapranata, H., & De Luca, G. (2011). Clinical impact of simultaneous complete revascularization vs. culprit only primary angioplasty in patients with st-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis. Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 31 (2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-010-0510-4. |
| [32] | Sethi, A., Bahekar, A., Bhuriya, R., Singh, S., Ahmed, A., & Khosla, S. (2011). Complete versus culprit only revascularization in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions: official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 77 (2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22647. |
| [33] | Lee, I. M., Shiroma, E. J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S. N., Katzmarzyk, P. T., & Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group (2012). Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet (London, England), 380 (9838), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9. |
| [34] | Politi, L., Sgura, F., Rossi, R., Monopoli, D., Guerri, E., Leuzzi, C., Bursi, F., Sangiorgi, G. M., & Modena, M. G. (2010). A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 96 (9), 662–667. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2009.177162. |
| [35] | Jo, H. S., Park, J. S., Sohn, J. W., Yoon, J. C., Sohn, C. W., Lee, S. H., Hong, G. R., Shin, D. G., Kim, Y. J., Jeong, M. H., Chae, S. C., Hur, S. H., Hong, T. J., Seong, I. W., Chae, J. K., Rhew, J. Y., Chae, I. H., Cho, M. C., Bae, J. H., Rha, S. W.,… Park, S. J. (2011). Culprit-Lesion-Only Versus Multivessel Revascularization Using Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-Based Analysis. Korean circulation journal, 41 (12), 718–725. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2011.41.12.718. |
| [36] | Wald, D. S., Morris, J. K., Wald, N. J., Chase, A. J., Edwards, R. J., Hughes, L. O., Berry, C., Oldroyd, K. G., & PRAMI Investigators (2013). Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. The New England journal of medicine, 369 (12), 1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1305520. |
| [37] | Hannan, E. L., Samadashvili, Z., Walford, G., Holmes, D. R., Jr, Jacobs, A. K., Stamato, N. J., Venditti, F. J., Sharma, S., & King, S. B., 3rd (2010). Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 3 (1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.10.017. |
APA Style
Mostafa Attia Al-Sawasany. (2021). Effect of Complete Revascularization vs. Staged PCI of Secondary Lesion on LV Systolic Function in Patient with STEMI. Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research, 5(4), 183-193. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15
ACS Style
Mostafa Attia Al-Sawasany. Effect of Complete Revascularization vs. Staged PCI of Secondary Lesion on LV Systolic Function in Patient with STEMI. Cardiol. Cardiovasc. Res. 2021, 5(4), 183-193. doi: 10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15
AMA Style
Mostafa Attia Al-Sawasany. Effect of Complete Revascularization vs. Staged PCI of Secondary Lesion on LV Systolic Function in Patient with STEMI. Cardiol Cardiovasc Res. 2021;5(4):183-193. doi: 10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15,
author = {Mostafa Attia Al-Sawasany},
title = {Effect of Complete Revascularization vs. Staged PCI of Secondary Lesion on LV Systolic Function in Patient with STEMI},
journal = {Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research},
volume = {5},
number = {4},
pages = {183-193},
doi = {10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ccr.20210504.15},
abstract = {After a myocardial infarction, early restoration of normal coronary perfusion reduces infract size, preserves left ventricular function, and lowers mortality. Reperfusion therapy's major goal is to not only restore the culprit epicardial vessel's patency, but also to reperfuse tissue to preserve myocyte viability and hence LV function. The pathophysiology of myocardial infarction, on the other hand, is not limited to the culprit vessel. The treatment of non-culprit lesions in STEMI is a contentious issue. Previously published guidelines (the 2011 PCI and 2013 STEMI guidelines) recommended treating the culprit lesion only if the patient was in cardiogenic shock. These guidelines are based on expert opinions rather than randomized controlled trials, which take into account safety concerns such as complications from repeated intervention, a low technical success rate, a high incidence of coronary restenosis, and renal insufficiency after contrast agent use. The aim of this work is to Long-term outcomes Lt ventricular ejection fraction (6 months) between complete revascularization and culprit-only revascularization (followed by staged percutaneous coronary intervention of secondary lesions) in STEMI patients with multi vessel coronary disease undergoing primary angioplasty. This prospective analysis included 50 patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction who were amenable to primary coronary intervention and were admitted to the critical care unit. And was blindly randomized alternatively into 2 groups: Group A: Complete coronary revascularisation during primary percutaneous intervention. Group B: Culprit-only revascularization during primary PCI. This study enrolled 50 patients, 35 males (70%) and 15 females (30%); in G I, there were 18 males (72%) and 7 females (18%) while in G II there were 17 males (68%) and 8 females (32%). The age ranged from 34 yrs. to 82 yrs. with mean age: In G I was 61.6 (±8.9) In G II was 62.2 (±12.9) were enrolled in this study, pre-procedural EF% (Mean±St) there was no significant difference between both groups. In G I, patients had a mean EF% 49.9±10.1 Versus 48.0±11.3 seen in G II. (P=0.54) In G I, there was no a significant difference between pre- procedural versus post-procedural mean EF%. (P=0.53) In G II, there was no a significant difference between pre-procedural versus post-procedural mean EF%. (P=0.14) We concluded that There were no significant differences between infarct-related artery revascularization and multivessel revascularization in the rates of 6-month MACE, Also, there were no differences as regard in-hospital mortality, stroke, cardiogenic shock and reinfarction, ejection fraction.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Effect of Complete Revascularization vs. Staged PCI of Secondary Lesion on LV Systolic Function in Patient with STEMI AU - Mostafa Attia Al-Sawasany Y1 - 2021/11/23 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15 DO - 10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15 T2 - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research JF - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research JO - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research SP - 183 EP - 193 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2578-8914 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20210504.15 AB - After a myocardial infarction, early restoration of normal coronary perfusion reduces infract size, preserves left ventricular function, and lowers mortality. Reperfusion therapy's major goal is to not only restore the culprit epicardial vessel's patency, but also to reperfuse tissue to preserve myocyte viability and hence LV function. The pathophysiology of myocardial infarction, on the other hand, is not limited to the culprit vessel. The treatment of non-culprit lesions in STEMI is a contentious issue. Previously published guidelines (the 2011 PCI and 2013 STEMI guidelines) recommended treating the culprit lesion only if the patient was in cardiogenic shock. These guidelines are based on expert opinions rather than randomized controlled trials, which take into account safety concerns such as complications from repeated intervention, a low technical success rate, a high incidence of coronary restenosis, and renal insufficiency after contrast agent use. The aim of this work is to Long-term outcomes Lt ventricular ejection fraction (6 months) between complete revascularization and culprit-only revascularization (followed by staged percutaneous coronary intervention of secondary lesions) in STEMI patients with multi vessel coronary disease undergoing primary angioplasty. This prospective analysis included 50 patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction who were amenable to primary coronary intervention and were admitted to the critical care unit. And was blindly randomized alternatively into 2 groups: Group A: Complete coronary revascularisation during primary percutaneous intervention. Group B: Culprit-only revascularization during primary PCI. This study enrolled 50 patients, 35 males (70%) and 15 females (30%); in G I, there were 18 males (72%) and 7 females (18%) while in G II there were 17 males (68%) and 8 females (32%). The age ranged from 34 yrs. to 82 yrs. with mean age: In G I was 61.6 (±8.9) In G II was 62.2 (±12.9) were enrolled in this study, pre-procedural EF% (Mean±St) there was no significant difference between both groups. In G I, patients had a mean EF% 49.9±10.1 Versus 48.0±11.3 seen in G II. (P=0.54) In G I, there was no a significant difference between pre- procedural versus post-procedural mean EF%. (P=0.53) In G II, there was no a significant difference between pre-procedural versus post-procedural mean EF%. (P=0.14) We concluded that There were no significant differences between infarct-related artery revascularization and multivessel revascularization in the rates of 6-month MACE, Also, there were no differences as regard in-hospital mortality, stroke, cardiogenic shock and reinfarction, ejection fraction. VL - 5 IS - 4 ER -
Information
Email: