Objective: To compare angiographic and clinical outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus rescue PCI following failed thrombolysis.
Background: Patients presenting with AMI are treated either with primary PCI or with thrombolysis. When thrombolysis fails, rescue PCI is performed.
Methods and results: We compared the outcome of 105 consecutive patients with AMI who underwent either primary PCI (60 patients) or rescue PCI (45 patients) between January 1997 and January 1999. The patients were followed for up to 6 months. Time delay to reperfusion was significantly longer in the rescue PCI group (354 vs. 189 min; p < 0.001). The majority of patients received a stent (93%). Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in 53% of patients in the primary PCI group and in 22% in the rescue group. TIMI grade 3 flow was achieved in 93.3% of patients in the primary PCI group and in 88.8% in the rescue group (p = 0.08). Post-procedure ejection fraction was 53% in the primary PCI group and 47% in the rescue group (p = 0.014). A composite endpoint of death, recurrent MI, repeat PCI, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and recurrent angina at 6 months occurred in 35% of the patients in the primary PCI group and 26.7% in the rescue group (p = 0.36).
Conclusion: Despite a significant delay to reperfusion and a lower immediate post-procedure ejection fraction, the clinical outcome of patients treated with rescue PCI following failed thrombolysis appears to be similar to that of patients treated with primary PCI at 6 months.