Management and outcomes of significant non-culprit coronary artery lesions in STEMI: a retrospective cohort study

Background: In the setting of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD), guidelines recommend revascularization of the culprit lesion (CL) only, due to poor evidence supporting intervention in non-culprit lesions (non-CLs) during the same index procedure. Debate over management for significant non-CLs is of interest i.e. medical management vs. percutaneous revascularization. We describe a cohort of patients with STEMI and MVD and compare the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) by therapeutic strategies for non-CLs with regard to follow-up outcomes. Methods 86 patients with STEMI and MVD were identified from a database of STEMI presentations to the University Hospital Limerick from Jan 2011 to April 2013. The occurrence of MACE was established by follow up with patients’ general practitioners. Results 48% of presentations had MVD. Predominant management for non-CLs was medical therapy alone comprising 58% (n=50) of patients, while 23% (n=20) of patients underwent PCI for non-CL, and 19% (n=16) had CABG. Median follow up was 1.8 years (range 9–36 months). We found no significant difference in the occurrence of MACE between medical management of non-CLs and PCI of non-CLs (OR 1.10 95%CI 0.34, 3.56; p= 0.88). CABG however does show a trend to be superior to both PCI (OR 3.10 95%CI 0.54, 17.88; p= 0.21) and medical management (OR 2.83 95%CI 0.65, 12.27; P= 0.17) in non-CLs. Conclusions CABG appears superior to both PCI or medical management in preventing MACE over time, and PCI is not superior to medical management alone