Abstract
Background:
In patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock (CS), and multivessel disease (MVD) questions remain unanswered when it comes to intervention on non-culprit arteries.
Objective:
This article aims to 1) characterize patients with MI, CS and MVD included in the Portuguese Registry on Acute Coronary Syndromes (ProACS); 2) compare different revascularization strategies in the sample; 3) identify predictors of in-hospital mortality among these patients.
Methods:
Observational retrospective study of patients with MI, CS and MVD included in the ProACS between 2010 and 2018. Two revascularization strategies were compared: complete during the index procedure (group 1); and complete or incomplete during the index hospitalization (groups 2-3). The primary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital death or MI. Statistical significance was defined by a p-value <0.05.
Results:
We identified 127 patients with MI, CS, and MVD (18.1% in group 1, and 81.9% in groups 2-3), with a mean age of 7012 years, and 92.9% of the sample being diagnosed with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI). The primary endpoint occurred in 47.8% of the patients in group 1 and 37.5% in group 2-3 (p = 0.359). The rates of in-hospital death, recurrent MI, stroke, and major bleeding were also similar. The predictors of in-hospital death in this sample were the presence of left ventricle systolic dysfunction on admission (OR 16.8), right bundle branch block (OR 7.6), and anemia (OR 5.2) (p ≤ 0.02 for both).
Conclusions:
Among patients with MI, CS, and MVD included in the ProACS, there was no significant difference between complete and incomplete revascularization during the index hospitalization regarding the occurrence of in-hospital death or MI. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; 116(5):867-876)
Keywords:
Myocardial Infarction; Shock; Cardiogenic; Myocardial Revascularization; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Ventricular Dysfunction; Left; Mortality; Biomarkers; Intracranial Hemorrhage
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
