Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions

Sigmund Silber, Per Albertsson, Francisco F. Avilés, Paolo G. Camici, Antonio Colombo, Christian Hamm, Erik Jørgensen, Jean Marco, Jan Erik Nordrehaug, Witold Ruzyllo, Philip Urban, Gregg W. Stone, William Wijns

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1525 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly-independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)804-847
Number of pages44
JournalEuropean Heart Journal
Volume26
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2005

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Guidelines
Chest Pain
Ischemia
Stroke
Coronary Angiography
Myocardium
Drug-Eluting Stents
Cardiogenic Shock
Patient Preference
Random Allocation
Cardiology
Reperfusion
Stents
Coronary Vessels
Angiography
Pathologic Constriction
Emergencies
Therapeutics
Myocardial Infarction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Silber, S., Albertsson, P., Avilés, F. F., Camici, P. G., Colombo, A., Hamm, C., ... Wijns, W. (2005). Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. European Heart Journal, 26(8), 804-847. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi138

Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. / Silber, Sigmund; Albertsson, Per; Avilés, Francisco F.; Camici, Paolo G.; Colombo, Antonio; Hamm, Christian; Jørgensen, Erik; Marco, Jean; Nordrehaug, Jan Erik; Ruzyllo, Witold; Urban, Philip; Stone, Gregg W.; Wijns, William.

In: European Heart Journal, Vol. 26, No. 8, 04.2005, p. 804-847.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Silber, S, Albertsson, P, Avilés, FF, Camici, PG, Colombo, A, Hamm, C, Jørgensen, E, Marco, J, Nordrehaug, JE, Ruzyllo, W, Urban, P, Stone, GW & Wijns, W 2005, 'Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions', European Heart Journal, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 804-847. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi138
Silber S, Albertsson P, Avilés FF, Camici PG, Colombo A, Hamm C et al. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. European Heart Journal. 2005 Apr;26(8):804-847. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi138
Silber, Sigmund ; Albertsson, Per ; Avilés, Francisco F. ; Camici, Paolo G. ; Colombo, Antonio ; Hamm, Christian ; Jørgensen, Erik ; Marco, Jean ; Nordrehaug, Jan Erik ; Ruzyllo, Witold ; Urban, Philip ; Stone, Gregg W. ; Wijns, William. / Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. In: European Heart Journal. 2005 ; Vol. 26, No. 8. pp. 804-847.
@article{77b87a0dca6d4c5cb0cf42eab604f852,
title = "Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions",
abstract = "In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly-independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.",
author = "Sigmund Silber and Per Albertsson and Avil{\'e}s, {Francisco F.} and Camici, {Paolo G.} and Antonio Colombo and Christian Hamm and Erik J{\o}rgensen and Jean Marco and Nordrehaug, {Jan Erik} and Witold Ruzyllo and Philip Urban and Stone, {Gregg W.} and William Wijns",
year = "2005",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1093/eurheartj/ehi138",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "804--847",
journal = "European Heart Journal",
issn = "0195-668X",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions

AU - Silber, Sigmund

AU - Albertsson, Per

AU - Avilés, Francisco F.

AU - Camici, Paolo G.

AU - Colombo, Antonio

AU - Hamm, Christian

AU - Jørgensen, Erik

AU - Marco, Jean

AU - Nordrehaug, Jan Erik

AU - Ruzyllo, Witold

AU - Urban, Philip

AU - Stone, Gregg W.

AU - Wijns, William

PY - 2005/4

Y1 - 2005/4

N2 - In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly-independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.

AB - In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly-independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20244377701&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20244377701&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi138

DO - 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi138

M3 - Article

C2 - 15769784

AN - SCOPUS:20244377701

VL - 26

SP - 804

EP - 847

JO - European Heart Journal

JF - European Heart Journal

SN - 0195-668X

IS - 8

ER -