In-Hospital Outcomes on Patients Submitted to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Rescue

Ganassin, Fabio Peixoto; Cantarelli, Marcelo José de Carvalho; Castello, Hélio José; Gonçalves, Rosaly; Ribeiro, Evandro Karlo Pracchia; Guimarães, João Batista de Freitas; Gioppato, Silvio; Vardi, Julio Cesar Francisco; Almeida, Leonardo Cao Cambra de; Navarro, Ednelson Cunha; Noronha, Higo Cunha; Farinazzo, Marcelo Mendes; Conforti, Thomas Borges; Coelho, Leonardo dos Santos; Almeida, Roberto Simõe de

doi:10.1016/s2214-1235(15)30121-6

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 21 , 22 , 23 Notably, these results were also transferred to patients who underwent rescue PCI. 8 These findings were supported by randomized trials that assessed the performance of PCI after thrombolysis treatment 6 , 9 , 10 which included a similar trend in mortality in these patients. Table 3 compares variables from two different studies 6 , 10 along with ours.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…In a comparison study conducted in Brazil, the frequency of MACE was also insignificant between the two groups (6.3% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.89). 10 None of the patients required an emergency by-pass. There were 3 patients from the primary group requiring repeat TVR whereas none of the rescue patients underwent TVR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“… 18 To further highlight the relatively younger age population in our study, we compared it with two other similar studies – where the common age groups spanned from the late 50′s to early 60′s. 6 , 10 ( Table 3 )…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mortality rates from our study were reflected in other similar studies as well, that is with no significant difference between rescue and primary PCI. 6 , 10 Data regarding the Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) which occurred in the two PCI strategies were recorded ( Table 4 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, depending on available facilities for early PCI, both primary and rescue PCI strategies are proving to be effective for coronary reperfusion. 10 The objective of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of the outcomes of rescue and primary PCI performed at the Cardiology Unit-5, NHSL over a period of 2 years (March 2013–April 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A comparison of rescue and primary percutaneous coronary interventions for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

Rahuman

Jayawardena

Francis

et al. 2017

Indian Heart Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A comparison of rescue and primary percutaneous coronary interventions for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

Rahuman

Jayawardena

Francis

et al. 2017

Indian Heart Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Predictive Value of Global Longitudinal Strain on the Recovery of Left Ventricular Function Following ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Attar,

Zahed,

Hosseinpour

et al. 2024

Shiraz E-Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Identifying reliable predictors for ventricular recovery at the outset is crucial for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the role of baseline global longitudinal strain (GLS) in predicting myocardial recovery following an acute infarction. Methods: We enrolled 60 consecutive patients diagnosed with STEMI and admitted to Al-Zahra Hospital for PCI from March 2022 to March 2023. Echocardiography was performed on all patients within 48 hours after revascularization to measure baseline parameters, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and GLS. Follow-up echocardiography was conducted 6 months later to reassess LVEF. Results: At the 6-month follow-up, 38 (63.3%) patients showed a ≥ 5% improvement in LVEF, indicating ventricular recovery. The change in GLS was significantly different between the groups (recovered: -4.72 ± 2.00, not recovered: -2.41 ± 2.15, P < 0.001). A baseline GLS ≤ -4.5 and > -14.8 was predictive of either failure to recover or successful recovery of LVEF with 100% negative and positive predictive values, respectively. Baseline GLS values > -9.2 were predictive of LV recovery with 50% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity (P = 0.0002, AUC (95% confidence interval) = 0.697 (0.594, 0.799)). The type of revascularization was linked to better prediction outcomes, with patients undergoing primary and rescue PCIs more likely to recover during the follow-up period compared to those receiving deferred PCI after 24 hours (P = 0.032). Conclusions: While certain baseline GLS value thresholds may serve as predictors of LVEF recovery in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, further prospective studies with larger cohorts are needed to establish more precise cut-off values.

show abstract

In-Hospital Outcomes on Patients Submitted to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Rescue

Cited by 2 publications

References 23 publications

A comparison of rescue and primary percutaneous coronary interventions for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

A comparison of rescue and primary percutaneous coronary interventions for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

Predictive Value of Global Longitudinal Strain on the Recovery of Left Ventricular Function Following ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About