Complete or incomplete coronary revascularisation in patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a propensity score analysis from the "real-life" BleeMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged with diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry

Aims: The benefit of complete or incomplete percutaneous coronary Intervention (PC in patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remains debated. The aim of our study was to compare a complete vs. a "culprit only" revascularisation strategy hi patients with myocardial infarction distinguishing the different clinical subsets (STEM and NSTEMI) and to provide one-year clinical outcome from the "real-life" BleeMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged with diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry. Methods and results: We conducted a multicentre study including all patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary disease included in the BleeMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged with diagnosis of Acute Coronae Syndrome) registry. They were divided into two groups, complete revascularisation (CR) and incomplete revascularisation (IR). The primary end-point was the death rate at one-year follow-up. Secondary end-points were in-hospital repeat myocardial infarction (re-AM1), in-hospital heart failure (111:), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and myocardial infarction at one year. Four thousand five hundred and twenty patients were included in our analysis, with a diagnosis of STEMI in 67.7% and NSTEMI in 32.3%. CR was performed in 27.2% and 42.4%, respectively. At univariate analysis, in-hospital and one-year outcomes were similar between CR and IR hi STEMI patients (all p-values >0.05). In NSTEMI patients, CR was associated with a lower one-year death rate (4.5% vs. 8.5%; 1)p=0.002), re-AMI (3.7% vs. 6.6%; p=0.016) and MACE (8.1% vs. 13.9%; p=0.001). After propensity score matching, CR also reduced events in STEM patients, including one-vear mortality (5.3% vs. 13.8%; p <0.001), re-AMI (4.9% vs. 17.4%; p <0.001) and MACE (8.5% vs. 24.6%; p <0.001.). Conclusions: This tulticentre retrospective registry showed the benefit of CR 1 terms of reduction of one-year mortality in patients with myocardial reinfarction and multivessel coronary disease. Randomised controlled trials including functional evaluation of the lesions should be performed to confirm our results