Background: The optima revascularization strategy for senior patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the context of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains unclear. We aimed to compare a strategy of culprit-vessel (CV) vs. multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in older adults (≥75 years) with AMI.

Methods: We analyzed four randomized controlled trials designed to include older adults with AMI. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and major bleeding (Net Adverse Clinical Events, NACE). A nonparsimonious propensity score and nearestneighbor matching was performed to account for bias.

Results: A total of 1,334 trial participants were included; of them, 770 (57.7%) underwent CV-PCI and 564 (42.3%) a MV-PCI strategy. After a median follow-up of 365 days, patients treated with MV-PCI experienced a lower rate of death (6.0% vs. 9.9%; p=0.01) and of NACE (11.2% vs. 15.5%; p=0.016). After multivariable analysis, MV-PCI was independently associated with a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR]:0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.42- 0.96; p=0.03) and NACE (NACE 0.72[0.53- 0.98]; p=0.04). These results were confirmed in a matched propensity analysis, were consistent throughout the spectrum of older age and when analyzed by subgroups and when immortaltime bias was considered.

Conclusions: In the setting of older adults with MVCAD who were managed invasively for AMI, a MV-PCI strategy to pursue complete revascularization was associated with better survival and lower risk of NACE compared to a CV-PCI. Adequately sized RCTs are required to confirm these findings.