Background: Patients presenting with unstable angina or (NSTEMI) often have multiple lesions that may be suitable for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the era of conventional balloon angioplasty demonstrated that patients presenting with Unstable Angina or NSTEMI were much less likely to undergo complete revascularization as the intended strategy. However non-randomized comparisons of the degree of revascularization have demonstrated no difference in mortality and MI rates, but similar or higher rates of recurrent angina, subsequent CABG and exercise-induced ischemia when incomplete revascularization is undertaken. This study aims to compare the demographics, risk factors and clinical outcome of patients admitted at PHC for unstable angina/NSTEMI with multi-vessel disease who underwent multi-vessel stenting compared with culprit vessel stenting.
Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study done at the Philippine Heart Center from January 2008 to December 2008. Included were all patients admitted at PHC from January 2008 to December 2008 diagnosed with unstable angina/NSTEMI who had at least 2 vessels with ≥ 70% stenosis who underwent PCI. Data were collected via review of medical records for 249 inpatients with UA/NSTEMI who underwent PCI. The patients were then classified according to those who underwent culprit or multi-vessel stenting. The clinical outcomes were then assessed.
Results: Overall, the patients who underwent culprit vessel stenting had higher revascularization and mortality but lower perioperative MI but it was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: In this study, there is no difference in terms of peri-operative MI, revascularization and mortality in patients with UA/NSTEMI who underwent culprit vessel or multi-vessel stenting.