Association of Culprit Lesion Location With Outcomes of Culprit-Lesion-Only vs Immediate Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Dec 1;5(12):1329-1337. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3377.

Abstract

Importance: Myocardial infarction with a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery compared with other coronary segments is associated with more myocardium at risk and worse clinical outcomes.

Objective: To evaluate the association of culprit lesion location with outcomes of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease, myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock.

Design, setting, and participants: Post hoc analysis of the Culprit Lesion Only Coronary Intervention vs Multivessel Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock (CULPRIT-SHOCK), an investigator-initiated randomized, open-label clinical trial. Patients with multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were enrolled at 83 European centers from April 2013 through April 2017.

Interventions: Patients were randomized to culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization or immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (1:1). For this analysis, patients were stratified by culprit lesion location in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and other-culprit-lesion location group.

Main outcomes and measures: End points included a composite of death or kidney replacement therapy at 30 days and death at 1 year.

Results: The median age of the study population was 70 (interquartile range, 60-78 years) and 524 of the study participants were men (76.4%). Of the 685 patients, 33.4% constituted the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and 66.6% the other-culprit-lesion location group. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group had worse outcomes compared with the other-culprit-lesion location group (56.8% vs 47.5%; P = .02 for the composite end point at 30 days and 59.8% vs 50.1%; P = .02 for death at 1 year). In both groups, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of the composite end point at 30 days (49.1% vs 64.3% and 44.1% vs 50.9%; P for interaction = .27). At 1 year, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery but not the other-culprit-lesion location group (50.0% vs 69.6%; P = .003 and 49.8% vs 50.4%; P = .89; P for interaction = 0.02).

Conclusions and relevance: In patients with multivessel disease with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery vs other coronary segments was associated with worse outcomes. These patients may especially benefit from culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization, although further investigation is needed to confirm this finding.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01927549.

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT01927549