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

• Main Authors: M.B. Faslur Rahuman, Jayanthimala B. Jayawardena, George R. Francis, Niraj Mahboob, Wasantha Kumara A.H.T., Aruna Wijesinghe, Rashan Haniffa, Ranithrie Ariyapperuma, Abbyramy Paramanayakam, Pubudu A. De Silva
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2017-04-01
• Series: Indian Heart Journal
• Subjects: Angioplasty; Infarction; Reperfusion
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019483217301372

Objective: To perform a comparative analysis of in-hospital results obtained from patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), who underwent rescue or primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim is to determine rescue PCI as a practical option for patients with no immediate access to primary PCI. Methods: From the Cardiology PCI Clinic of the National Hospital of Sri Lanka (NHSL), we selected all consecutive patients presenting with acute STEMI </ = 24 h door-to-balloon delay for primary PCI and </ = 72 h door-to-balloon delay, (90 min after failed thrombolysis) for rescue PCI, from March 2013 to April 2015 and their in-hospital results were analyzed, comparing rescue and primary PCI patients. Results: We evaluated 159 patients; 78 underwent rescue PCI and 81 underwent primary PCI. The culprit left anterior descending (LAD) vessel (76.9% vs. 58.8%; P = 0.015) was more prevalent in rescue than in primary patients. Thrombus aspiration was less frequent in rescue group (19.2% vs. 40.7%; p = 0.004). The degree of moderate-to-severe left ventricular dysfunction reflected by the ejection fraction <40% (24.3% vs. 23.7%; P = 0.927) and prevalence of multivessel disease (41.0% vs. 43.8%; P = 0.729) revealed no significant difference. Coronary stents were implanted at similar rates in both strategies (96.2% vs. 92.6%; P = 0.331). Procedural success (97.4% vs. 97.5%; P = 0.980) and mortality rates (5.1% vs. 3.8%; P = 0.674), were similar in the rescue and primary groups. Conclusion: In-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) are similar in both rescue and primary intervention groups, supporting the former as a practical option for patients with no immediate access to PCI facilities.