OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of a policy of emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction and ECG evidence of failed reperfusion after thrombolysis. DESIGN: A cohort study. SETTING: Regional cardiothoracic unit. PATIENTS: 197 patients with acute myocardial infarction fulfilling a simple ECG criterion of failed reperfusion. INTERVENTIONS: Emergency coronary angiography proceeding to rescue angioplasty for inadequate antegrade flow. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital mortality for all 197 patients; incidence of successful and failed rescue angioplasty; need for additional revascularisation in those receiving rescue angioplasty compared with those not treated in this way. RESULTS: 197 patients had emergency angiography for ECG evidence of failed reperfusion; 156 patients received immediate rescue angioplasty. Overall hospital mortality for those undergoing rescue angioplasty was 11.5%. Rescue angioplasty achieved TIMI 2 (11) or TIMI 3 (124) in 135 patients, who had a hospital mortality of 5.9%. Failure to achieve at least TIMI 2 flow following rescue angioplasty occurred in 21 patients, with a hospital mortality of 48%. In the 41 patients in whom immediate rescue angioplasty was not performed, reinfarction or requirement for revascularisation occurred in 37%. Reinfarction occurred in three patients (1.9%) who had immediate rescue angioplasty. Hospital mortality for the whole cohort was 10.7%. CONCLUSIONS: A policy of emergency coronary angiography proceeding to rescue angioplasty where appropriate reduces mortality in a high risk group to a level less than expected for patients with acute myocardial infarction and ECG evidence of failed reperfusion. Unsuccessful rescue angioplasty is associated with a high mortality.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of a policy of emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction and ECG evidence of failed reperfusion after thrombolysis. DESIGN: A cohort study. SETTING: Regional cardiothoracic unit. PATIENTS: 197 patients with acute myocardial infarction fulfilling a simple ECG criterion of failed reperfusion. INTERVENTIONS: Emergency coronary angiography proceeding to rescue angioplasty for inadequate antegrade flow. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital mortality for all 197 patients; incidence of successful and failed rescue angioplasty; need for additional revascularisation in those receiving rescue angioplasty compared with those not treated in this way. RESULTS: 197 patients had emergency angiography for ECG evidence of failed reperfusion; 156 patients received immediate rescue angioplasty. Overall hospital mortality for those undergoing rescue angioplasty was 11.5%. Rescue angioplasty achieved TIMI 2 (11) or TIMI 3 (124) in 135 patients, who had a hospital mortality of 5.9%. Failure to achieve at least TIMI 2 flow following rescue angioplasty occurred in 21 patients, with a hospital mortality of 48%. In the 41 patients in whom immediate rescue angioplasty was not performed, reinfarction or requirement for revascularisation occurred in 37%. Reinfarction occurred in three patients (1.9%) who had immediate rescue angioplasty. Hospital mortality for the whole cohort was 10.7%. CONCLUSIONS: A policy of emergency coronary angiography proceeding to rescue angioplasty where appropriate reduces mortality in a high risk group to a level less than expected for patients with acute myocardial infarction and ECG evidence of failed reperfusion. Unsuccessful rescue angioplasty is associated with a high mortality.
Authors: A G Sutton; P G Campbell; D J Price; E D Grech; J A Hall; A Davies; M J Stewart; M A de Belder Journal: Heart Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: J S Hochman; L A Sleeper; J G Webb; T A Sanborn; H D White; J D Talley; C E Buller; A K Jacobs; J N Slater; J Col; S M McKinlay; T H LeJemtel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-08-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J M Miller; R Smalling; E M Ohman; C Bode; A Betriu; N S Kleiman; J S Schildcrout; E Bastos; E J Topol; R M Califf Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1999-10-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: T Kono; H Morita; T Nishina; M Fujita; H Onaka; Y Hirota; K Kawamura; A Fujiwara Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W W O'Neill; R Weintraub; C L Grines; T B Meany; B R Brodie; H Z Friedman; R G Ramos; V Gangadharan; R N Levin; N Choksi Journal: Circulation Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S G Ellis; E R da Silva; G Heyndrickx; J D Talley; C Cernigliaro; G Steg; C Spaulding; M Nobuyoshi; R Erbel; C Vassanelli Journal: Circulation Date: 1994-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A G C Sutton; P G Campbell; R Graham; D J A Price; J C Gray; E D Grech; J A Hall; A A Harcombe; R A Wright; R H Smith; J J Murphy; A Shyam-Sundar; M J Stewart; A Davies; N J Linker; M A de Belder Journal: Heart Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.994