Rao Chongyou, Zhong Qin, Li Zongren, Fu Liqiang, Liu Wei, Qin Wei, Gao Jixian, Liu Bo, He Kunlun, Zhou Feihu
Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Medical Center of the Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Medical Big Data Research Center, Medical Innovation Research Division of the Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Aug;106(2):1342-1357. doi: 10.1002/ccd.31679. Epub 2025 Jun 16.
The prognostic impact of complete revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remains uncertain.
This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between complete and incomplete revascularization in NSTEMI patients with MVD, assessing the optimal timing and strategy for revascularization.
We analyzed 2460 consecutive NSTEMI patients with MVD enrolled across five institutions between January 2021 and December 2022. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs: all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and urgent revascularization) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs: cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure, and urgent revascularization). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was conducted to adjust for important clinical characteristics, and adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to assess the risk of clinical outcomes. Inverse probability weighting analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results.
Over a median 528-day follow-up, complete revascularization was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACCEs (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.64) and MACEs (aHR 0.45, 95% CI 0.33-0.60) compared to incomplete revascularization. Single-stage and multistage complete revascularization showed comparable outcomes (MACCEs: aHR 0.93, 95% CI 0.47-1.85; MACEs: aHR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44-1.82). However, compared to delayed multistage complete revascularization, early multistage complete revascularization significantly reduced the risk of MACCEs (aHR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.28) and MACEs (aHR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.27). These results were consistent after confounder adjustment by inverse probability weighting analysis.
Complete revascularization is an effective treatment strategy for reducing the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in NSTEMI patients with MVD. Moreover, an early multistage complete revascularization may be a better option.
非ST段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI)合并多支血管病变(MVD)患者中完全血运重建的预后影响仍不确定。
本研究旨在比较NSTEMI合并MVD患者完全血运重建与不完全血运重建的临床结局,评估血运重建的最佳时机和策略。
我们分析了2021年1月至2022年12月期间在五个机构连续纳入的2460例NSTEMI合并MVD患者。主要终点是主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCEs:全因死亡、再发心肌梗死、心力衰竭、中风和紧急血运重建)和主要不良心脏事件(MACEs:心血管死亡、再发心肌梗死、心力衰竭和紧急血运重建)。进行多变量Cox比例风险回归分析以调整重要的临床特征,并计算调整后的风险比(aHR)及95%置信区间(CI)以评估临床结局的风险。进行逆概率加权分析以验证结果的稳健性。
在中位528天的随访中,与不完全血运重建相比,完全血运重建与MACCEs(aHR 0.48,95%CI 0.36 - 0.64)和MACEs(aHR 0.45,95%CI 0.33 - 0.60)的风险显著降低相关。单阶段和多阶段完全血运重建显示出相似的结局(MACCEs:aHR 0.93,95%CI 0.47 - 1.85;MACEs:aHR 0.89,95%CI 0.44 - 1.82)。然而,与延迟多阶段完全血运重建相比,早期多阶段完全血运重建显著降低了MACCEs(aHR 0.05,95%CI 0.01 - 0.28)和MACEs(aHR 0.03,95%CI 0.01 - 0.27)的风险。通过逆概率加权分析进行混杂因素调整后,这些结果仍然一致。
完全血运重建是降低NSTEMI合并MVD患者不良临床结局风险的有效治疗策略。此外,早期多阶段完全血运重建可能是更好的选择。