Infarct-related artery only revascularization versus multi-vessel revascularization for patients with Killip I-IV acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

BackgroundThe optimal revascularization strategy for non-culprit vessels is still up for debate nowadays, particularly when it comes to individuals with different Killip classes. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate whether multivessel revascularization, as compared with infarct-related artery (IRA) alone revascularization, improves long-term prognosis in patients who have experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 646 patients who presented with AMI and multivessel CAD at Beijing Chaoyang hospital between November 2014 and November 2020. Based on various revascularization strategies, patients were categorised into two groups: IRA-only revascularization (n = 416) and multivessel revascularization (n = 230). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death.ResultsIn the following 60.6 months (60.6 +/- 23.9), the primary endpoint occurred in 3% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.6% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.284, CI 0.120-0.669, p = 0.002). For the Killip I-II patients (n = 533), the primary endpoint occurred in 2.6% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.5% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.236, CI 0.083-0.667, p = 0.003). For Killip III-IV patients (n = 113), there was no significance differences in the primary endpoint. After using the inverse probability weighted method, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed.ConclusionsMultivessel revascularization significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death for patients presenting with AMI and multivessel CAD, particularly for Killip I-II patients. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across the groups of patients with Killip III-IV.