Literature DB >> 11431677

Urgent coronary bypass surgery for failed percutaneous coronary intervention in the stent era: Is backup still necessary?

S J Shubrooks1, R W Nesto, D Leeman, S Waxman, S M Lewis, P Fitzpatrick, N Dib.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines for performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States mandate availability of on-site surgical backup. With the decreasing frequency of urgent coronary bypass surgery (UCABG) with newer technologies, it is unclear whether such backup continues to be necessary.
METHODS: A database of 5655 consecutive patients undergoing PCI at a single center between August 1, 1992, and December 31, 1997, was analyzed. Outcomes were determined as well as clinical, lesion, and procedural characteristics of patients during 4 time periods preceding and during use of coronary stenting.
RESULTS: Frequency of UCABG for failed PCI decreased from 2.2% to 0.6% in the most recent time period (P <.01) with no change in incidence of in-hospital death or myocardial infarction. Incidence of stenting progressively increased to 72% in the latest period. Patients requiring UCABG had a higher prevalence of acute coronary syndromes (95%) and type B lesions (79%), but these characteristics were also common in patients who did not undergo UCABG. Although coronary stents were available during the last 3 periods studied, only 30% of UCABG patients had lesions or complications amenable to stenting, and stenting attempts in these patients were all unsuccessful. Despite stenting and use of perfusion balloons and intra-aortic balloon pumps, only 40% of patients having UCABG were stable and pain free on transfer to the operating room.
CONCLUSIONS: Although use of UCABG for a failed PCI is currently very low, there are no satisfactory predictors, patients requiring UCABG are frequently clinically unstable, and availability of stenting does not reliably eliminate the need for UCABG or result in a decrease in mortality. This small group of patients continues to require readily available surgical standby.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11431677     DOI: 10.1067/mhj.2001.116077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  6 in total

Review 1.  Percutaneous coronary interventions in facilities without cardiac surgery on site.

Authors:  Yuri B Pride; C Michael Gibson
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  Revascularisation of the unprotected left main: surgery or angioplasty?

Authors:  G A J Jessurun; R W M Hautvast; R A Tio
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.380

3.  Predicting complications of percutaneous coronary intervention using a novel support vector method.

Authors:  Gyemin Lee; Hitinder S Gurm; Zeeshan Syed
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery standby.

Authors:  Jörg Carlsson; Stefan N James; Elisabeth Ståhle; Sebastian Höfer; Bo Lagerqvist
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-09-15       Impact factor: 5.994

5.  In-hospital outcomes after elective and non-elective percutaneous coronary interventions in hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery backup.

Authors:  Ulrich Tebbe; Matthias Hochadel; Peter Bramlage; Sebastian Kerber; Rainer Hambrecht; Eberhard Grube; Karl E Hauptmann; Martin Gottwik; Albrecht Elsässer; Hans-Georg Glunz; Tassilo Bonzel; Jörg Carlsson; Uwe Zeymer; Ralf Zahn; Jochen Senges
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 5.460

6.  Predicting emergency coronary artery bypass graft following PCI: application of a computational model to refer patients to hospitals with and without onsite surgical backup.

Authors:  Zeeshan Syed; Mauro Moscucci; David Share; Hitinder S Gurm
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2015-12-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.