Search

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence, mechanisms, and in-hospital outcomes after failed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: The most common causes of PCI failure are severe dissection, no-reflow, and uncrossable total occlusions., Methods: Demographic, clinical, procedural, and quality assurance data were recorded in a prospective database to determine the incidence and outcome of failed PCI. Data were analyzed according to the year of PCI: prestent era (PSE 1993-1995), first generation stent era (FGSE 1996-2000), and contemporary stent era (CSE 2000-2003)., Results: PCI (20,884) were performed over a 10-year-period from 1993 through 2003, including 4,344 (20.8%) in the PSE, 9,114 (43.6%) in the FGSE, and 7,426 (35.6%) in the CSE; 19,171 (91.8%) were successful and 1,704 (8.2%) were failures. Nearly 90% of PCI failures are due to no-reflow or uncrossable total occlusions. Among PCI failures, 7.5% were treated medically and 0.7% required emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (ECABG). PCI success was independently associated with PCI during CSE (OR 1.86, P < 0.0001). ECABG decreased sixfold from 1.2% in the PSE to 0.2% in the CSE., Conclusions: Contemporary PCI patients have better procedural outcomes and fewer in-hospital adverse events than patient treated before the availability of stents. However, recanalization of total occlusions and avoiding no-reflow will have the most impact on future PCI success., (Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Although there has been enthusiasm for using embolic protection devices in acute myocardial infarction, it is unclear how often these devices can be used in nonselected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential eligibility for use of either proximal or distal embolic protection during primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in a consecutive, nonselected population. We analyzed the angiograms of 259 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to determine eligibility for use of either type of protection device. Overall, 202 (78%) patients had anatomy suitable for embolic protection, including 154 (59%) who were eligible for proximal protection, 128 (49%) who were eligible for distal protection, and 80 (31%) who were eligible for both devices. Patients eligible for proximal protection were more likely to have a right coronary culprit, whereas patients eligible for distal protection were more likely to have a lesion in the left anterior descending coronary artery.