Risk of no-reflow in culprit lesion versus culprit vessel PCI in acute STEMI

ObjectivesThe present report describes patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction who had at least two lesions in the culprit vessel (CV) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Here, we aimed to examine two different strategies, namely, PCI of only culprit lesion (CL) versus PCI of all lesions in the CV in the setting of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction.Patients and methodsPatients who underwent primary PCI were examined for the presence of an additional lesion in the infarct-related artery and divided into two groups according to the PCI strategy: CV versus CL groups. Coronary angiograms were examined for coronary thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow and major clinical outcomes were determined.ResultsOf 637 patients, 472 (74.1%) underwent primary PCI for the CV (CV group) and 165 (25.9%) underwent primary PCI only for CL (CL group). TIMI flow before primary PCI and after stenting of the CL was similar; however, TIMI flow after completion of the procedure was significantly better in the CL group (P=0.022). The composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization was significantly better in the CL group (P=0.041) and early stent thrombosis was observed more commonly in the CV group [14 (3.0%) patients vs. 1 (0.6%) patient, P=0.09].ConclusionIn the presence of an additional lesion in the CV during primary PCI, deferring stenting for the non-CL in the culprit artery after stenting the CL may be considered to prevent the development of no-reflow or slow-reflow, and thus major clinical adverse events may be reduced.