Left Circumflex Occlusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry)

Compared to occlusions of other major coronary arteries, patients presenting with acute left circumflex (LCx) occlusion usually have ST-segment elevation on the electrocardiogram < 50% of the time, potentially delaying treatment and resulting in worse outcomes. In contemporary practice, little is known about the clinical outcomes of patients with LCx territory occlusion without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We identified patients with myocardial infarction from April 2004 to June 2009 in the CathPCI Registry treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for culprit LCx territory occlusion, excluding those with previous coronary artery bypass grafting. Logistic generalized estimating equation modeling was used to compare the outcomes, including in-hospital mortality between patients with STEMI and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) adjusting for differences in the baseline characteristics. Of the 27,711 patients with myocardial infarction and acute LCx territory occlusion, 18,548 (67%) presented with STEM! and 9,163 (33%) with NSTEMI. With the exception of a greater proportion of cardiac risk factors and cardiac history in the NSTEMI group, the demographic and baseline characteristics were clinically similar between the 2 groups, despite the statistical significance resulting from the large population. The patients with STEMI were more likely to have a proximal LCx culprit lesion (63% vs 27%, p < 0.0001) and had greater risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.65, p = 0.002) compared to patients with NSTEMI. In conclusion, acute LCx territory occlusion often presents as NSTEMI, but patients with NSTEMI and occlusion have a lower mortality risk than those with STEM!, possibly because of factors such as the amount of myocardium involved, the lesion location along the vessel, and/or a dual blood supply. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2011;108:959-963)