These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Procedural results, in-hospital course and six-month follow-up after rescue compared to primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction.
    Author: La Vecchia L, Martini M, Bedogni F, Righetti T, Sartori M, Vincenzi P, Vincenzi M.
    Journal: Ital Heart J; 2000 Jan; 1(1):50-5. PubMed ID: 10868924.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Although many previous reports showed a worse outcome after rescue compared to primary coronary angioplasty, a direct comparison of these two strategies in the era of stenting is lacking. METHODS: Fifty patients treated with rescue stenting were retrospectively compared to 61 patients treated with primary stenting during acute myocardial infarction over a 4-year period in our Laboratory. RESULTS: Baseline demographic and angiographic parameters were not significantly different in the two groups. Despite a significantly longer time-to-reperfusion in rescue stenting (4.7 +/- 2.7 vs 2.8 +/- 2.1 hours, p < 0.0001), procedural success rate (98 vs 97%), in-hospital mortality (6 vs 11%) and target vessel revascularization at 6 months (8 vs 10%) were similar in rescue compared to primary stenting. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that stenting may help improve results of rescue angioplasty, and support the concept that aggressive treatment after failed thrombolysis can be pursued with satisfactory results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]