Background Optimal revascularization strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock and three-vessel coronary disease presenting with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is not well established. The goal of this study was to use the largest inpatient database to evaluate inpatient mortality of NSTEMI patients with three-vessel disease and cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary bypass surgery (CABG) vs percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Method Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, and ICD-10 coding for NSTEMI, cardiogenic shock, three-vessel CABG, and three-vessel PCI, we evaluate total inpatient mortality comparing three-vessel CABG vs three-vessel PCI in adults over age 18 years.

Results A total of 2,805 NSTEMI patients with 3-vessel disease and cardiogenic shock underwent PCI vs.7,585 undergoing CABG. CABG in the setting of NSTEMI-related cardiogenic shock and three-vessel CAD is associated with much lower mortality compared to three-vessel PCI despite multivariate adjustment. Mortality was more than twice in patients undergoing PCI vs CABG (Mortality 25.31% vs 11.22%, P<0.001, OR for CABG patients: 0.37, CI: 0.29-0.48, P<0.001). After adjusting baseline characteristics and comorbidities in multivariate analysis, CABG remained significantly associated with lower mortality (CABG OR 0.41, CI: 0.31-0.54, p<0.001).

Conclusion Our data suggests that three-vessel CABG is greatly superior to PCI in NSTEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and three-vessel coronary artery disease.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

N/A

None

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

NIS dfatabase is publicaly available database without an identifier exempt from IRB

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

NIS dfata is publicaly available