Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11054/1739
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorFernando, H.en_US
dc.contributorDinh, D.en_US
dc.contributorDuffy, S.J.en_US
dc.contributorBrennan, A.en_US
dc.contributorSharma, Ananden_US
dc.contributorClark, D.en_US
dc.contributorAjani, A.en_US
dc.contributorFreeman, M.en_US
dc.contributorPeter, K.en_US
dc.contributorStub, D.en_US
dc.contributorHiew, C.en_US
dc.contributorReid, C.en_US
dc.contributorOqueli, Ernestoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-23T00:57:03Z-
dc.date.available2021-07-23T00:57:03Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.govdoc01699en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11054/1739-
dc.description.abstractBackground Fibrinolysis is an important reperfusion strategy in the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when timely access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is unavailable. Rescue PCI is generally thought to have worse outcomes than PPCI in STEMI. We aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with rescue PCI versus PPCI for treatment of STEMI. Methods and results Patients admitted with STEMI (excluding out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) within the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry between 2005 and 2018 treated with either rescue PCI or PPCI were included in this retrospective cohort analysis. Comparison of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and long-term mortality between the two groups was performed. There were 558 patients (7.1%) with rescue PCI and 7271 with PPCI. 30-day all-cause mortality (rescue PCI 6% vs. PPCI 5%, p = 0.47) and MACE (rescue PCI 10.3% vs. PPCI 8.9%, p = 0.26) rates were similar between the two groups. Rates of in-hospital major bleeding (rescue PCI 6% vs. PPCI 3.4%, p = 0.002) and 30-day stroke (rescue PCI 2.2% vs. PPCI 0.8%, p < 0.001) were higher following rescue PCI. The odds ratio for haemorrhagic stroke in the rescue PCI group was 10.3. Long-term mortality was not significantly different between the groups (rescue PCI 20% vs. PPCI 19%, p = 0.33). Conclusions With contemporary interventional techniques and medical therapy, rescue PCI remains a valuable strategy for treating patients with failed fibrinolysis where PPCI is unavailable and it has been suggested in extenuating circumstances where alternative revascularisation strategies are considered.en_US
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2021-05-13T00:05:57Z No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2021-07-23T00:57:03Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-07-23T00:57:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2021en
dc.titleRescue PCI in the management of STEMI: Contemporary results from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.specifiedArticleen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleIJC Heart & Vasculatureen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume33en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.stpage100745en_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusRESCUE PCIen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusFIBRINOLYSISen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusSTEMIen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCOVID-19en_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusPRIMARY PCIen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100745en_US
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.