Revascularization Strategy of Multivessel Disease for Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenator

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a fatal complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Until now, in this setting, it has been well-known that early revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was associated with improved clinical outcomes although the rate of mortality remains still high in the mechanical circulatory support (MCS) era. In real-world practice, since clinically significant non-infarct related artery (non-IRA) stenosis or occlusion in addition to an IRA can be found in 70% to 80% of patients with AMI complicated by CS, the decision of revascularization strategy is a crucial issue to improve clinical outcomes in CS patients with multivessel disease. The 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and the 2017 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend considering PCI of severe stenosis in non-IRA during a primary procedure to improve overall myocardial perfusion and hemodynamic stability for patients with AMI and CS. However, the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, which is the largest randomized trial in CS, demonstrated the 30-day risk of a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy was higher in the immediate multi-vessel PCI than in the culprit lesion-only PCI group. In this regard, the recently updated guidelines do not recommend the routine non-IRA revascularization during primary PCI and it should be considered in selected cases in which there is a very severe flow-limiting non-IRA stenosis irrigating a large myocardial area. Nevertheless, there is still some unsolved issue regarding the role of non-IRA revascularization in AMI patients with CS. Majority of enrolled patients in the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial might have a mild form of CS (median systolic blood pressure of 100) and few patients received MCS devices (28.3% of study population). Furthermore, the mortality benefits of culprit-only PCI were attenuated at 1-year follow-up with an increased risk of repeat revascularization and hospitalization for heart failure. In contrast to the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, the recent large United State registry from National Cardiovascular Data Registry demonstrated that the benefits of multi-vessel PCI in patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI and CS was more pronounced in those requiring MCS. In addition, recent data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction National Health Registry showed that multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death than culprit-only PCI, suggesting possible benefit of nonculprit lesion revascularization during the index hospitalization on long-term clinical outcomes.

Therefore, the current randomized trial sought to identify whether immediate multi-vessel PCI would be better in clinical outcomes compared with culprit lesion-only PCI for AMI and multi-vessel disease with advanced form of CS patients who requiring veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (VA-ECMO).