Comparison of Multivessel Versus Culprit‐Vessel‐Only Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multivessel Disease During Primary PCI: In‐Hospital Outcomes From the CCC‐ACS Project in China
Tinghao Zhao, Jun Wang, Ruoxi Gu, Dongyuan Sun, Lingfei Zheng, Xiaoxiang Tian, Yaling Han, Xiaozeng Wang,ABSTRACT
Background
The consensus on whether acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) benefit from complete revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear.
Aims
This study aims to assess the impact of multivessel PCI (MV‐PCI) versus culprit‐vessel‐only PCI (CV‐PCI) on in‐hospital outcomes in a Chinese population.
Methods
We evaluated STEMI patients with MVD undergoing PCI, registered in the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China‐Acute Coronary Syndrome (CCC‐ACS) project, from November 2014 to December 2019. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and multivariable Cox regression, we compared the incidence of in‐hospital Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) and other adverse clinical outcomes between the MV‐PCI and CV‐PCI groups.
Results
Among 8138 patients included, 840 (10.3%) underwent MV‐PCI, and 7298 (89.7%) underwent CV‐PCI. MV‐PCI was associated with higher in‐hospital MACE (2.0% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.005), all‐cause mortality (1.7% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.003), and contrast‐induced acute kidney injury (CI‐AKI) (13.6% vs. 10.2%, p = 0.002), after IPTW adjustment. The multivariable Cox analysis further validated the increased risks associated with MV‐PCI.
Conclusion
In the Chinese STEMI population with MVD, participating in the CCC‐ACS project, MV‐PCI during primary PCI was linked to higher in‐hospital adverse events compared to CV‐PCI. These findings advocate for a cautious approach to MV‐PCI in this setting, suggesting a potential preference for a staged PCI strategy for nonculprit vessels.
Trial Registration
The information of clinical trial registration for CCC‐ACS project can be found at