Prognostic significance of periprocedural versus spontaneously occurring myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial.


Journal Article

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative impact of spontaneously occurring and periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) on survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of periprocedural MI after PCI remains uncertain. METHODS: Outcomes during a 1-year follow-up were evaluated among 7,773 patients enrolled in the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial with a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in whom PCI was performed. RESULTS: Periprocedural MI developed in 466 patients (6.0%), and spontaneous MI unrelated to PCI subsequently developed in 200 patients (2.6%). Patients developing spontaneous and periprocedural MI compared with those patients without MI had significantly greater unadjusted rates of mortality at 30 days (5.0% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.8%, respectively, p < 0.0001) and at 1 year (16.0% vs. 6.0% vs. 2.6%, respectively, p < 0.0001). In a time-updated multivariable analysis, after adjusting for differences in baseline and procedural characteristics between the groups, we found that spontaneous MI was a powerful independent predictor of subsequent mortality (hazard ratio: 7.49, 95% confidence interval: 4.95 to 11.33, p < 0.0001), whereas periprocedural MI was not a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 1.98, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI, the spontaneous development of an MI unrelated to PCI is a powerful predictor of subsequent mortality. In contrast, periprocedural MI is a marker of baseline risk, atherosclerosis burden, and procedural complexity but in most cases does not have independent prognostic significance. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158).

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Prasad, A; Gersh, BJ; Bertrand, ME; Lincoff, AM; Moses, JW; Ohman, EM; White, HD; Pocock, SJ; McLaurin, BT; Cox, DA; Lansky, AJ; Mehran, R; Stone, GW

Published Date

  • July 28, 2009

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 54 / 5

Start / End Page

  • 477 - 486

PubMed ID

  • 19628125

Pubmed Central ID

  • 19628125

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1558-3597

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.063


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States