Complete versus culprit-only revascularisatie bij ouderen met MI met/zonder cardiogene shock

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of complete revascularization is well established in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but it is less investigated in those with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess whether complete revascularization, compared with culprit-only revascularization, was associated with consistent outcomes in older patients with STEMI and NSTEMI. METHODS: In the FIRE (Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients with Multivessel Disease) trial, 1,445 older patients with myocardial infarction (MI) were randomized to culprit-only or physiology-guided complete revascularization, stratified by STEMI (n = 256 culprit-only vs n = 253 complete) and NSTEMI (n = 469 culprit-only vs n = 467 complete). The primary outcome comprised a composite of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary outcome included a composite of cardiovascular death or MI at 1 year. RESULTS: In the overall study population, physiology-guided complete revascularization reduced both primary and key secondary outcomes. The primary outcome occurred in 54 (21.1%) STEMI patients randomized to culprit-only vs 41 (16.2%) STEMI patients of the complete group (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.50-1.13) and in 98 (20.9%) NSTEMI patients randomized to culprit-only vs 72 (15.4%) NSTEMI patients of the complete group (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.53-0.97), with negative interaction testing (P for interaction, 0.846). Similarly, no signal of heterogeneity with respect to the initial clinical presentation was observed for the key secondary endpoint (P for interaction, 0.654). CONCLUSIONS: Physiology-guided complete revascularization, compared with culprit-only revascularization, provided consistent benefit across the whole spectrum of patients with MI. (FIRE [Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease]; NCT03772743).