LAUSR

Objectives/backgroundIn patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) the decision whether to treat a single culprit vessel or to perform multivessel revascularisation may be challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) versus culprit vessel only (CV-PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease or non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.MethodsIn this dual-centre, prospective, randomised study a total 215 patients with MVD were randomly assigned to MV-PCI or CV-PCI. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularisation. Secondary endpoints were the combined endpoint of death or MI, the individual components of the primary endpoint, and the occurrence of stent thrombosis. Patients were followed up to 5 years after enrolment.ResultsThe occurrence of the primary endpoint was similar at 28% versus 31% in the MV-PCI and CV-PCI group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53–1.44, p = 0.59). The rate of repeat revascularisation was 15% versus 24% (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.11, p = 0.11), whereas definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 2% versus 0% (p = 0.44).ConclusionsIn this randomised study comparing the strategies for MV-PCI and CV-PCI in patients with MVD, no difference was found in the occurrence of MACE after 5 years. We observed a numerically higher rate of death or MI and a lower rate of repeat revascularisation after MV-PCI, although these findings were not statistically significant.