Culprit-Only or Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Stenting in Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: One-Year Follow-Up

Objective: To investigate the major cardiac events at 1-year follow-up of multivessel versus culprit-vessel stenting in patients presenting with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention is a standard revascularization strategy for patients with NSTE-ACS. However, when these patients have MVD it is not clear whether multivessel (MVR) is superior to culprit-vessel revascularization (CVR). Methods: We screened 1,100 consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS from an institutional database. Comparisons of 1-year outcomes between multivessel and culprit-vessel revascularized patients were made. The primary outcome was the composite (MACE) of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or any revascularization. Secondary end-points were the components of the composite end-point. Regression analysis was performed to detect predictors of MACE. Results: A total of 609 patients were considered for this analysis: 204 (33.5%) and 405 (66.5%) had MVR and CVR treatment, respectively. The strategy adopted was based on a clinical decision. The incidence of MACE was lower in MVR (9.45% vs. 16.34%, P = 0.02) with lower revascularization rate (7.46% vs. 13.86%, P = 0.04) than in CVR. There was no difference in death (1.99% vs. 1.98%, P = 0.8) nor death/MI (2.49% vs. 3.22%, P = 0.8) between MVR and CVR, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed CVR as the only independent predictor of improved MACE (OR 0.66, CI95% 1.12–3.47, P = 0.01). Conclusion: Multivessel stenting in patients with NSTE-ACS and multivessel disease using a clinical decision of treatment is associated with lower rate of MACE driven by lower repeat revascularization, compared with culprit-vessel stenting, without difference in rates of death or MI.