Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Percutaneous coronary intervention for nonculprit vessels in cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation
Jeong Hoon Yang1, Joo-Yong Hahn, Pil Sang Song
11Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2Department of Critical Care Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3Department of Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea. 4Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea. 5Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. 6Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Yeungnam University Hospital, Daegu, Korea.
Insights
Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not reduce mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease. Culprit-only PCI showed similar outcomes during follow-up.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Acute Coronary Syndromes
Background:
- ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease presents a complex clinical challenge.
- Optimal revascularization strategy in these high-risk patients remains debated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the clinical impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus culprit-only PCI.
- To compare mortality and major adverse cardiac events in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease.
Main Methods:
- A prospective, multicenter, observational study involving 338 patients with STEMI, cardiogenic shock, and multivessel disease.
- Patients underwent either multivessel PCI or culprit-only PCI during primary PCI.
- Outcomes including all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events were assessed during a median follow-up of 224 days.
Main Results:
- In-hospital mortality was similar between groups (31.7% vs 24.5%, p=0.247).
- No significant difference in all-cause mortality during follow-up was observed after adjusting for confounders (35.0% vs 30.6%, adjusted HR 1.06, p=0.831).
- Rates of major adverse cardiac events and revascularization were also comparable between the two strategies.
Conclusions:
- Multivessel PCI during primary PCI did not reduce mortality in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease.
- Culprit-only PCI appears to be a viable strategy in this high-risk population, with similar long-term outcomes.
Objectives:
We investigated the clinical impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with multivessel disease.
Design:
A prospective, multicenter, observational study.
Setting:
Cardiac ICU of a university hospital.
Patients:
Between November 2005 and September 2010, 338 patients were selected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and 2) multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the infarct-related artery. Patients were divided into multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention and culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention.
Interventions:
None.
Measurements And Main Results:
Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Median follow-up duration was 224 days (interquartile range, 46-383 d). Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was performed during the primary percutaneous coronary intervention in 60 patients (17.8%). In-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention vs culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention, 31.7% vs 24.5%; p = 0.247). All-cause mortality during follow-up was not significantly different between the two groups after adjusting for patient, angiographic, and procedural characteristics as well as propensity scores for receiving multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (35.0% vs 30.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.61-1.86; p = 0.831). There were no significant differences between the groups in rates of major adverse cardiac events (41.7% vs 37.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.62-1.71; p = 0.908) and any revascularization (6.7% vs 4.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.51-6.89; p = 0.344).
Conclusions:
Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention could not reduce the prevalence of mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management

