Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Myocardial Infarction and Functional Outcome Assessment in Pigs
Published on: April 25, 2014
Clinical outcomes in myocardial infarction and multivessel disease after a cardiac rehabilitation programme: Partial
Ricardo Mori Junco1, Regina Dalmau Gonzalez-Gallarza2, Almudena Castro Conde2
1Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario La Paz, 261, Paseo de la Castellana, 28046 Madrid, Spain.
Insights
Complete revascularization (CR) showed no significant clinical outcome differences compared to partial revascularization (PR) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Both strategies yielded similar rates of cardiovascular events and mortality during follow-up.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Cardiac Rehabilitation
Background:
- Current guidelines recommend culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel disease.
- Emerging evidence suggests improved outcomes with multivessel PCI.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare clinical outcomes between partial revascularization (PR) and complete revascularization (CR) in STEMI patients with multivessel disease.
- To assess the impact of PR versus CR within a cardiac rehabilitation program.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of 282 STEMI patients with multivessel disease who underwent PR or CR.
- Inclusion in a cardiac rehabilitation program between July 2006 and November 2013.
- Comparison of cardiovascular events, new PCI, hospital admissions, and mortality between groups.
Main Results:
- 143 patients received PR, and 139 received CR; baseline characteristics were similar, with minor differences in age, diabetes, and number of stenotic arteries.
- Over a mean follow-up of 48 months, cardiovascular events occurred in 16.1% of PR patients and 14.4% of CR patients (no significant difference).
- Adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed no difference in new cardiovascular event risk between PR and CR groups.
Conclusions:
- No statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed between partial revascularization and complete revascularization.
- These findings suggest that both PR and CR are viable strategies for STEMI patients with multivessel disease within a cardiac rehabilitation setting.
Background:
Current guideline recommendations encourage culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. However, recent studies have shown a better clinical outcome in patients who receive multivessel PCI.
Aim:
To measure and compare clinical outcomes between partial revascularization (PR) versus complete revascularization (CR) in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who underwent a cardiac rehabilitation programme.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 282 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who received PR or CR and were subsequently enrolled in a cardiac rehabilitation programme between July 2006 and November 2013 at La Paz University Hospital. The incidences of cardiovascular events, new PCI, hospital admissions for cardiovascular reasons and mortality were compared between the PR and CR groups.
Results:
Overall, 143 patients received PR and 139 received CR. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, except for mean age (59.3 vs. 56.7 years; P=0.02), diabetes mellitus prevalence (34.3% vs. 20.1%; P=0.01) and number of arteries with stenosis (2.6 vs. 2.3; P=0.001). During the mean follow-up of 48.0±25.9 months, a cardiovascular event occurred in 23 (16.1%) PR patients and 20 (14.4%) CR patients, with no statistically significant differences in the early (hazard ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-1.89) or late (hazard ratio: 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-3.14) follow-up periods. Cox regression, adjusted for age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus and number of affected coronary vessels, showed no difference in new cardiovascular event risk.
Conclusions:
There were no statistical differences in clinical outcomes between PR and CR among patients who received cardiac rehabilitation.
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Ischemic Heart Disease: Overview
Atherosclerosis, the primary malefactor, orchestrates this dangerous condition. It manifests as the accumulation of fatty deposits, akin to insidious plaques, within arterial walls. As time elapses, these plaques metamorphose, hardening and...
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care

