Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
January 1, 2013Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia InvasivaOpen Access

The incidence of in-hospital MACCE was not significantly different between primary and rescue PCI groups (6.3% vs 6.9%; P = 0.89).

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Does rescue PCI result in similar in-hospital MACCE compared to primary PCI in patients with STEMI?

Population

801 consecutive patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction enrolled in the Angiocardio…

Comparison

Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention after… vs Primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

in-hospital

Authors

FGFábio Peixoto GanassinMCMarcelo José de Carvalho CantarelliHCHélio José Castello

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Rescue PCI was associated with similar in-hospital MACCE versus primary PCI; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.

Structured PICO

Does rescue PCI result in similar in-hospital MACCE compared to primary PCI in patients with STEMI?

P
Population
801 consecutive patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) enrolled in the Angiocardio Registry in Brazil.
I
Intervention
Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after failed intravenous thrombolysis (n=202)
C
Comparator
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=599)
O
Outcome
Incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)composite

Rescue PCI after failed thrombolysis yields similar in-hospital outcomes compared to primary PCI in STEMI patients, supporting its safety and efficacy in regions with delayed access to primary PCI.

Cite This Study

Ganassin et al. (2013) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1a7d405448f1e38b45b7e5https://doi.org/10.1016/s0104-1843(13)50028-2
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share