Introduction: Up to 50% of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have ≥ 50% stenosis in a major non-infarct-related artery. Several studies have evaluated the prognostic value of the completion of revascularization with overall inconclusive results. Selection of the stenoses was based on the angiographic evaluation, invasive hemodynamic measurement or the combined approach. It is unknown whether such a selection provides correlation of comparable patient groups.
Material and methods: We enrolled 51 patients (62.7 ±10.2 years) with acute STEMI and at least one residual (50-90%) stenosis in a non-infarct-related major coronary artery (excluding left main coronary artery). Overall 65 stenoses (67.9 ±10.7%) were evaluated angiographically following primary percutaneous coronary intervention and the hemodynamic significance was estimated with respect to the stenosis severity, caliber of the arterial segment, localization of the stenosis (proximity) as well as the estimated size of the supplied vascular territory. During subsequent hospitalization, invasive measurement of the hemodynamic significance using fractional flow reserve (FFR) was performed to guide the final revascularization strategy (FFR value of ≤ 0.80 considered significant).
Results: Based on angiographic evaluation, a total of 44 stenoses would be recommended for treatment, whereas only 31 stenoses were revascularized based on FFR measurement. Moreover, visual evaluation and hemodynamic measurement were discrepant in 27 of 65 (41.5%) stenoses.
Conclusions: We observed a weak correlation between visual angiographic evaluation and invasive hemodynamic measurement. More stents would be implanted based on angiographic evaluation compared to FFR measurement.
Keywords: acute ST elevation myocardial infarction; atherosclerosis; complete revascularization; coronary flow; fractional flow reserve; infarct-related artery; multivessel coronary artery disease.
Copyright: © 2023 Termedia & Banach.