Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Does reducing ischemia time justify to catheterize firstly the culprit artery in every primary PCI?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Does reducing ischemia time justify to catheterize firstly the culprit artery in every primary PCI?
Do you wish to request the book?
Does reducing ischemia time justify to catheterize firstly the culprit artery in every primary PCI?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Does reducing ischemia time justify to catheterize firstly the culprit artery in every primary PCI?
2016
Overview
No consensus exists about which coronary artery should be firstly catheterized in primary PCIs. Initial catheterization of the “culprit artery” could reduce reperfusion time. However, complete knowledge of coronary anatomy could modify revascularization strategy. The objective of the study was to analyze this issue in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary PCI. PCIs were performed in 384 consecutive patients. Choice of ipsilateral approach (IA): starting with a guiding catheter for the angiography and PCI of the “culprit artery”, or contralateral approach (CA): starting with a diagnostic catheter for the “non-culprit artery” and completing the angiography and PCI of the culprit with a guiding catheter was left to the operator. Differences between two approaches regarding reperfusion time, acute events or revascularization strategies were analyzed. There were no differences between two approaches regarding reperfusion time or clinical events. When the left coronary artery was responsible, IA was more frequent (76.4 vs 22.6 %), but when it was the right coronary artery, CA was preferred (20 vs 80 %);
p
< 0.0001. With CA, bare metal stents (BMS) were more used than drug eluting (DES) (60.8 vs 39.2 %) inversely than with IA (BMS 41.3 vs DES 59.7 %;
p
< 0.0001). With CA there were more patients with left main or multivessel disease in which revascularization was completed with non-urgent surgery (4.13 vs 2.4 %,
p
< 0.0001). Initial CA does not involve higher reperfusion time. Furthermore, overall knowledge of coronary anatomy offers more options in revascularization strategy and may imply a change in management. Despite the need to individualize each case, contralateral approach may be the first option with the exception of unstable patients.
Publisher
Springer Japan,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
/ Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering
/ Cardiac Catheterization - instrumentation
/ Cardiac Catheterization - methods
/ Coronary Vessels - diagnostic imaging
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Medicine
/ Metals
/ Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - adverse effects
/ Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - instrumentation
/ Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods
/ Spain
/ ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction - diagnostic imaging
/ ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction - therapy
/ Stents
