Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 22, 2026

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction
Roberto A Corpus1, John A House, Steven P Marso
1Section of Cardiology, Biostatistics, and Outcomes Research, Mid America Heart Institute, St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City, Mo 64111, USA.
Insights
For acute myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease, treating only the infarct-related artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is safer than multivessel PCI. Further intervention for non-culprit lesions should be guided by ischemia evidence.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Acute Myocardial Infarction Management
Background:
- Optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for significant non-culprit lesions in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) remains controversial.
- MVD affects multiple coronary arteries, increasing risks compared to single vessel disease (SVD).
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the outcomes of different PCI strategies in MVD patients presenting with AMI.
- To determine the safety and efficacy of treating only the infarct-related artery (IRA) versus multivessel PCI in MVD patients.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 820 AMI patients treated with primary angioplasty (1998-2002).
- Patients were categorized into SVD or MVD groups.
- MVD patients were further divided into three groups based on PCI strategy: IRA only, immediate multivessel PCI, or staged multivessel PCI.
Main Results:
- MVD patients experienced higher rates of re-infarction, revascularization, mortality, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 1 year compared to SVD patients.
- In MVD patients, multivessel PCI (immediate or staged) was associated with significantly higher rates of re-infarction, revascularization, and MACEs compared to IRA-only PCI.
- Multivessel PCI independently predicted MACEs at 1 year.
Conclusions:
- PCI in MVD patients with AMI should initially focus on the IRA only.
- Decisions regarding PCI of non-culprit lesions should be based on objective evidence of residual ischemia during late follow-up.
- Further research is warranted to validate these findings.
Background:
The optimal percutaneous interventional strategy for dealing with significant non-culprit lesions in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at presentation remains controversial.
Methods:
A total of 820 patients treated with primary angioplasty for AMI between 1998 and 2002 were classified in groups of patients with single vessel disease (SVD) or MVD (> or =70% stenosis of > or =2 coronary arteries). Patients with MVD were subdivided in 3 groups on the basis of the revascularization strategy: 1) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only; 2) patients undergoing PCI of both the IRA and non-IRA(s) during the initial procedure; and 3) patients undergoing PCI of the IRA followed by staged, in-hospital PCI of the non-IRA(s). Procedural, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes are reported.
Results:
At 1 year, compared with patients with SVD, patients with MVD had a higher incidence of re-infarction (5.9% vs 1.6%, P =.003), revascularization (18% vs 9.6%, P <.001), mortality (12% vs 3.2%, P <.001), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; 31% vs 13%, P <.001). In patients with MVD, compared with PCI restricted to the IRA only, multivessel PCI was associated with higher rates of re-infarction (13.0% vs 2.8%, P <.001), revascularization (25% vs 15%, P =.007), and MACEs (40% vs 28%, P =.006). Multivessel PCI was an independent predictor of MACEs at 1 year (odds ratio = 1.67, P =.01).
Conclusions:
These data suggest that in patients with MVD, PCI should be directed at the IRA only, with decisions about PCI of non-culprit lesions guided by objective evidence of residual ischemia at late follow-up. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Angina IV: Management
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies