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.
|Number of pages||6|
|Journal||Italian Heart Journal|
|Publication status||Published - 2000|
- Acute myocardial infarction
- Coronary angioplasty
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine