Demirkiran, AykutAydin, CihanAkyuz, AydinAlpsoy, Seref2025-04-062025-04-0620251016-51691308-4488https://doi.org/10.5543/tkda.2024.59839https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11776/17094Objective: There remain conflicting recommendations regarding revascularization strategies for patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD). This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of different revascularization strategies. Method: Patients with similar characteristics were categorized into three groups: immediate complete revascularization (ICR), staged complete revascularization (SCR), and non-complete revascularization (NCR). The SCR group was further divided based on the time interval between the index and staged procedures: SCR <= 24 hours and SCR > 24 hours. Cardiac composite outcomes included the total number of cardiac deaths and recurrent myocardial infarction during the follow-up period. Results: Out of 14,511 screened patients, 316 were included in the analysis. The results showed a significant difference in risk between SCR and ICR (hazard ratio [HR] (95% confidence interval [CI]): 0.27 (0.15-0.47); P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between NCR and SCR (HR (95% CI): 1.06 (0.61-1.84); P = 0.832). The SCR group was divided into two groups based on the time interval from the first to the second procedure (time interval [TI] <= 24 hours in the SCR1 group, and TI > 24 hours in the SCR2 group). The frequency of cardiac composite outcomes was lower in SCR1 compared to SCR2 (16.7% vs. 47.1%; P = 0.038). Conclusion: Our findings support the use of ICR and SCR completed within 24 hours due to their favorable long-term outcomes in patients with MVD and NSTEMI.en10.5543/tkda.2024.59839info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessComplete revascularizationinfarct-related arterymultivessel diseaserevascularization strategiesnon-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionArticle5329399N/AWOS:0014511919000032-s2.0-8600016302240035253Q3