Staged versus immediate complete revascularization for non-culprit arteries in acute myocardial infarction: a post-hoc analysis of FRAME-AMI

Background and objectivesThe optimal timing for complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remain uncertain.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial included AMI patients with MVD (n = 549). They were classified into i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 2024-12, Vol.11
Hauptverfasser: Yongwhan Lim, Jaehyuk Jang, Seung Hun Lee, Joon Ho Ahn, Young Joon Hong, Youngkeun Ahn, Myung Ho Jeong, Chan Joon Kim, Joo-Yong Hahn, Joo Myung Lee, Keun Ho Park, Eun Ho Choo, Sung Gyun Ahn, Joon-Hyung Doh, Sang Yeub Lee, Sang Don Park, Hyun-Jong Lee, Min Gyu Kang, Yun-Kyeong Cho, Chang Wook Nam, Sung Hyun Bu, Min Chul Kim
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background and objectivesThe optimal timing for complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remain uncertain.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial included AMI patients with MVD (n = 549). They were classified into immediate (n = 329) and staged CR (n = 220) groups. All percutaneous coronary interventions were performed during inex hospitalization. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularization. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint. Additional comparisons for the outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) were also performed.ResultsThe incidence of the primary endpoint was not significantly different in any of the AMI patients [12.7% [immediate CR] vs. 17.4% [staged CR], p = 0.905, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of staged CR = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.43–1.53, p = 0.528]. Other secondary endpoints were also not significantly different. Analyses of STEMI and Neither the primary or secondary endpoints of NSTEMI patients were significantly different.ConclusionsIn this post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the immediate and staged CR strategies for AMI with MVD and the subgroups, such as STEMI or NSTEMI. However, the results should be interpreted carefully because of the many limitations, including a limited sample size and a lack of statistical power. Trial Registration: FRAME-AMI clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT02715518).
ISSN:2297-055X
DOI:10.3389/fcvm.2024.1475483