What is optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction? Multivessel or culprit-only revascularization

Min Chul Kim, Myung Ho Jeong, Youngkeun Ahn, Jong Hyun Kim, Shung Chull Chae, Young Jo Kim, Seung Ho Hur, In Whan Seong, Taek Jong Hong, Dong Hoon Choi, Myeong Chan Cho, Chong Jin Kim, Ki Bae Seung, Wook Sung Chung, Yang Soo Jang, Seung Yun Cho, Seung Woon Rha, Jang Ho Bae, Jeong Gwan Cho, Seung Jung Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

45 Citations (Scopus)


Background: In patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), current guidelines did not recommend optimal revascularization management in multivessel coronary artery disease. We compared clinical outcomes between multivessel revascularization and culprit-only revascularization in this setting. Methods: A total of 1919 patients with multivessel disease (1011 patients; multivessel revascularization group, 908 patients; culprit-only revascularization group) diagnosed as NSTEMI was enrolled in a nationwide prospective Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) from November 2005 to January 2008. The primary end-points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-causes of deaths, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during 1-year clinical follow-up. Also, subgroup analysis was performed in patients with high TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) risk score (≥ 4) to find efficacy of multivessel PCI in high-risk patients. Results: Baseline clinical characteristics and the risk factors of coronary artery disease were similar between both groups. In angiography, three-vessel lesion was more presented in the multivessel group (46.1% vs. 40.9%, p = 0.024) and rates of left anterior descending and left main stem coronary artery as culprit vessel were higher in the multivessel group (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001 respectively). In-hospital mortality was higher in the culprit-only group (1.4% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.025). Primary end-points occurred in 241 patients (15.5%) during 1-year follow-up. Multivessel revascularization reduced MACEs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.658, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.96, p = 0.031], death or myocardial infarction (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.97, p = 0.037) and non-target vessel revascularization (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.81, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences in target lesion revascularization (TLR; HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.71, p = 0.529) and target vessel revascularization (TVR; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.47, p = 0.131). In subgroup analysis in patients with a higher TIMI risk score, similar results were presented. Conclusion: Multivessel revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with NSTEMI showed better clinical outcomes without significant in-stent restenosis and progression of diseased-vessel compared to culprit-only revascularization.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)148-153
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2011 Dec 1


  • Angioplasty
  • Coronary artery disease
  • Myocardial infarction
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'What is optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction? Multivessel or culprit-only revascularization'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this