Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFernando, Himawan-
dc.contributor.authorDinh, Diem-
dc.contributor.authorDuffy, Stephen J-
dc.contributor.authorBrennan, Angela-
dc.contributor.authorSharma, Anand-
dc.contributor.authorClark, David J-
dc.contributor.authorAjani, Andrew-
dc.contributor.authorFreeman, Melanie-
dc.contributor.authorPeter, Karlheinz-
dc.contributor.authorStub, Dion-
dc.contributor.authorHiew, Chin-
dc.contributor.authorReid, Christopher M-
dc.contributor.authorOqueli, Ernesto-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Cardiology. Heart & Vasculature 2021; 33: 100745en
dc.description.abstractFibrinolysis 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. 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). 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
dc.subjectPrimary PCIen
dc.subjectRescue PCIen
dc.titleRescue PCI in the management of STEMI: Contemporary results from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleInternational Journal of Cardiology. Heart & Vasculatureen
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationCentre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics (CCRE), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAtherothrombosis Laboratory, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Cardiology, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Cardiology, Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Cardiology, Ballarat Health Services, Ballarat, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.pubmedid33786363, David J
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone- of Melbourne Clinical School-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

checked on Sep 29, 2023

Google ScholarTM


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