Procedural results, in-hospital course and six-month follow-up after rescue compared to primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction

L. La Vecchia, M. Martini, F. Bedogni, T. Righetti, M. Sartori, P. Vincenzi, M. Vincenzi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background. Although many previous reports showed a worse outcome after rescue compared to primary coronary angioplasty, a direct comparison of these two strategies in the era of stenting is lacking. Methods. Fifty patients treated with rescue stenting were retrospectively compared to 61 patients treated with primary stenting during acute myocardial infarction over a 4-year period in our Laboratory. Results. Baseline demographic and angiographic parameters were not significantly different in the two groups. Despite a significantly longer time-to-reperfusion in rescue stenting (4.7 ± 2.7 vs 2.8 ± 2.1 hours, p <0.0001), procedural success rate (98 vs 97%), in-hospital mortality (6 vs 11%) and target vessel revascularization at 6 months (8 vs 10%) were similar in rescue compared to primary stenting. Conclusions. These data suggest that stenting may help improve results of rescue angioplasty, and support the concept that aggressive treatment after failed thrombolysis can be pursued with satisfactory results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)50-55
Number of pages6
JournalItalian Heart Journal
Volume1
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2000

Keywords

  • Acute myocardial infarction
  • Coronary angioplasty
  • Stenting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Procedural results, in-hospital course and six-month follow-up after rescue compared to primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this