CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Revascularization in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction 3-Year Outcomes of the ULTIMATE Trial Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Comparison of inhospital mortality, length of hospitalization, costs, and vascular complications of percutaneous coronary interventions guided by ultrasound versus angiography Contribution of stent underexpansion to recurrence after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for in-stent restenosis Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation Criteria for Iron Deficiency in Patients With Heart Failure Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Insufficiency Genotyping to Guide Clopidogrel Treatment: An In-Depth Analysis of the TAILOR-PCI Trial Longitudinal Assessment of Vascular Function With Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Why and How to Measure Aortic Valve Calcification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Clinical Trial2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1907775.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction

Mehta SR, Wood DA, COMPLETE Trial Steering Committee and Investigators. Keywords: STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease; complete vs culprit-lesion PCI; 3 years; superiority

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear.

 

METHODS - We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization.

 

RESULTS - At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P=0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P=0.62 and P=0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively).

 

CONCLUSIONS - Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479)