Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2026
Fully Endoscopic Mitral Valve Repair with Percutaneous Cannulation of Groin Vessels
Published on: May 26, 2023
Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. A
A A Khattab1, M Abdel-Wahab, C Röther
1Herz-Kreislauf-Zentrum, Segeberger Kliniken, GmbH, Am Kurpark 1, 23795, Bad Segeberg, Germany. ahmed.khattab@segebergerkliniken.de
Insights
Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) appears feasible and safe, potentially reducing infarct size. This approach may offer benefits for patients with multivessel disease, though further research is warranted.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Acute Myocardial Infarction Management
Background:
- Primary angioplasty for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) typically focuses on the infarct-related artery (IRA).
- Multivessel disease in STEMI patients often leads to staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures.
- Theoretically, treating non-infarct-related arteries early could limit infarct size via collateral circulation, but safety and feasibility are unestablished.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the safety and feasibility of a multi-vessel (MV) PCI approach versus culprit-only (CO) PCI in patients with acute STEMI and multivessel disease.
- To assess the impact of MV PCI on infarct size and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within one year.
Main Methods:
- A single-center prospective study involving 73 consecutive STEMI patients with significant lesions in non-IRA vessels.
- Group 1 (MV PCI, n=28): All significant lesions treated during primary PCI.
- Group 2 (CO PCI, n=45): Only the IRA lesion treated initially, with staged or ischemia-driven revascularization of other lesions; compared fluoroscopy time, contrast use, and one-year MACE.
Main Results:
- MV PCI involved treating more lesions and stents per patient compared to CO PCI (p < 0.001).
- Fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amounts were similar between groups (p=0.22 and p=0.16, respectively).
- MV PCI group showed significantly lower peak CK and CK-MB levels (p < 0.001 and p=0.01).
- One-year MACE rates (24% vs 28%, p=0.73) and subsequent revascularization rates (24% vs 28%, p=0.73) were similar between groups.
Conclusions:
- Multi-vessel stenting during primary PCI for STEMI with multivessel disease is feasible and likely safe in clinical practice.
- This approach may help limit infarct size, as indicated by lower peak cardiac biomarkers.
- Larger studies, potentially utilizing drug-eluting stents, are needed to confirm safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, and to assess subsequent revascularization needs.
Background:
Recanalization of the culprit lesion is the main goal of primary angioplasty for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease are, therefore, usually subjected to staged procedures, with the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) confined to recanalization of the infarct-related artery (IRA). Theoretically at least, early relief of stenoses of non-infarct-related arteries could promote collateral circulation, which could help to limit the infarct size. However, the safety and feasibility of such an approach has not been adequately established.
Methods:
In this single-center prospective study we examined 73 consecutive patients who had an acute STEMI and at least one or more lesions > or = 70% in a major epicardial vessel other than the infarct-related artery. In the first 28 patients, forming the multi-vessel (MV) PCI group, all lesions were treated during the primary procedure. In the following 45 patients, forming the culprit-only (CO) PCI group, only the culprit lesion was treated during the initial procedure, followed by either planned-staged or ischemia-driven revascularization of the non-culprit lesions. Fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were compared between both groups, and patients were followed up for one year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and other significant clinical events.
Results:
The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical characteristics, number of diseased vessels and angiographic characteristics of the culprit lesion. In the MV-PCI group, 2.51 lesions per patient were treated using 2.96 +/- 1.34 stents (1.00 lesions and 1.76 +/- 1.17 stents in the CO-PCI group, both p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time increased from 10.3 (7.2-16.9) min in the CO-PCI group to 12.5 (8.5-19.3) min in the MV-PCI group (p = 0.22), and the amount of contrast used from 200 (180-250) ml to 250 (200-300) ml, respectively (p = 0.16). Peak CK and CK-MB were significantly lower in patients of the MV-PCI group (843 +/- 845 and 135 +/- 125 vs 1652 +/- 1550 and 207 +/- 155 U/l, p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Similar rates of major adverse cardiac events at one year were observed in the two groups (24% and 28% in multi-vessel and culprit treatment groups, p = 0.73). The incidence of new revascularization in both infarct- and non-infarct-related arteries was also similar (24% and 28%, respectively, p = 0.73).
Conclusion:
We may state from this limited experience that a multi-vessel stenting approach for patients with acute STEMI and multi-vessel disease is feasible and probably safe during routine clinical practice. Our data suggest that this approach may help to limit the infarct size. However, larger studies, perhaps using drug-eluting stents, are still needed to further evaluate the safety and efficiency of this procedure, and whether it is associated with a lower need of subsequent revascularization and lower costs.
