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.)

Background: Left ventricular systolic deterioration (LVSD) develops in some patients despite successful percutaneous intervention and medical therapy for myocardial infarction (MI). We sought to determine predictors of LVSD by comparing demographic, procedural, angiographic variables, and 6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with and without LVSD after MI., Methods: We performed a posthoc analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in the Stent-PAMI trial if they had successful percutaneous intervention for MI (<50% residual stenosis and TIMI-3 grade flow), normal left ventricular systolic function on index ventriculogram, and protocol driven coronary angiography with ventriculography at 6 months. We defined LVSD as an absolute decrease in ejection fraction > or =15% compared to baseline value., Results: Of the 900 patients enrolled in Stent-PAMI, 187 patients met the inclusion criteria. LVSD developed in 30 patients (16%) and occurred independent of demographic, procedural, angiographic variables, and 6-month MACE. Multivariate predictors of LVSD were higher baseline ejection fraction (P = 0.0065, OR 1.09; 95% CI = 1.02-1.16) and peak creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level (P = 0.0022, OR 1.04; 95% CI = 1.02-1.07)., Conclusions: LVSD occurs in a minority of patients despite successful mechanical reperfusion and occurred independent of procedural, angiographic variables, target vessel revascularization, reinfarction, and combined MACE. Infarct size (determined by peak CPK) and high baseline ejection fraction predicted development of LVSD at 6 months. LVSD in this population likely occurred by negative left ventricular remodeling.

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.

Our objective was to evaluate the safety of percutaneous transfemoral catheterization performed by way of synthetic aortofemoral vascular grafts. Between 1994 and 2003, 123 catheterization procedures were performed using a synthetic aortofemoral graft (median graft age 2.5 years, range 4 days to 10.3 years), including 63 (51%) interventional and 60 (49%) diagnostic procedures. Adverse events related to vascular access occurred in 7 of 123 procedures (5.7%), including blood transfusion (4.1%), thrombotic occlusion (1.6%), transient limb ischemia (0.8%), and retroperitoneal hemorrhage (0.8%). No deaths, graft infections, or pseudoaneurysms occurred.

The safety and efficacy of treating recently stented patients on combination antiplatelet therapy with warfarin for clinical indications in unknown. Therefore, we examined the use of warfarin in a population of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with coronary stenting. We performed a retrospective analysis comparing patients who underwent successful coronary stenting for acute MI and were discharged on either warfarin and combination platelet therapy for clinical indications or combination antiplatelet therapy alone. There was a nonsignificant trend toward reinfarction at 6 and 12 months in warfarin-treated patients. Warfarin-treated patients had significantly higher rates of transfusion compared to nonwarfarin-treated patients at 12 months (21% vs 0%, P=0.028). There were no significant predictors of reinfarction in 6 and 12 months in multivariate analysis. These data demonstrate that warfarin anticoagulation, in combination with successful coronary stenting for acute MI and antiplatelet therapy, does not reduce risk of reinfarction but is associated with increased rates of transfusion.