Procedural Variations in Performing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Radhika M. Mehta, Manyoo Agarwal, Ikechukwu Ifedili, Wael W. Rizk, Rami Khouzam

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Multiple variations exist in performing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) among various cardiologists. These variations range from the choice of peripheral access artery (radial vs femoral), performance or time of complete angiography including left ventriculography, and nonculprit vessel angiography before or after intervening on the culprit vessel. The reasons for such variations include emphasis on door-to-balloon time, knowledge of cardiac anatomy before proceeding with pPCI, physician expertise, and the level of comfort with radial approach. Over the last 2 decades, the field of interventional cardiology has changed dynamically leading to marked improvements in the clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI. This includes upstreaming of pPCI along with technical advancements ranging from radial artery catheterization to culprit lesion–guided approach. Increased comfort with use of radial access approach by cardiologists and availability of multiuse guide catheters would both reduce door-to-balloon time and enable complete coronary angiography before performance of percutaneous coronary intervention. There are no clear guidelines or consensus dictating on cardiologists a correct sequence of action during STEMI, or even suggesting what the preferred approach is. Lack of guidelines results in a substantive variation in methodology. This review aims to highlight and to better understand the variations in the current practice, and to emphasize the advantages as well as the disadvantages of each approach. It is also perhaps a call out for guidelines that direct cardiologists to the best practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)46-60
Number of pages15
JournalCurrent Problems in Cardiology
Volume42
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Radial Artery
Guidelines
Angiography
Thigh
Cardiology
Coronary Angiography
Practice Guidelines
Catheterization
Anatomy
Catheters
Physicians
Cardiologists
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Procedural Variations in Performing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. / Mehta, Radhika M.; Agarwal, Manyoo; Ifedili, Ikechukwu; Rizk, Wael W.; Khouzam, Rami.

In: Current Problems in Cardiology, Vol. 42, No. 2, 01.02.2017, p. 46-60.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2c4ca9e51e7042d2a1f55d85cb872057,
title = "Procedural Variations in Performing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction",
abstract = "Multiple variations exist in performing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) among various cardiologists. These variations range from the choice of peripheral access artery (radial vs femoral), performance or time of complete angiography including left ventriculography, and nonculprit vessel angiography before or after intervening on the culprit vessel. The reasons for such variations include emphasis on door-to-balloon time, knowledge of cardiac anatomy before proceeding with pPCI, physician expertise, and the level of comfort with radial approach. Over the last 2 decades, the field of interventional cardiology has changed dynamically leading to marked improvements in the clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI. This includes upstreaming of pPCI along with technical advancements ranging from radial artery catheterization to culprit lesion–guided approach. Increased comfort with use of radial access approach by cardiologists and availability of multiuse guide catheters would both reduce door-to-balloon time and enable complete coronary angiography before performance of percutaneous coronary intervention. There are no clear guidelines or consensus dictating on cardiologists a correct sequence of action during STEMI, or even suggesting what the preferred approach is. Lack of guidelines results in a substantive variation in methodology. This review aims to highlight and to better understand the variations in the current practice, and to emphasize the advantages as well as the disadvantages of each approach. It is also perhaps a call out for guidelines that direct cardiologists to the best practice.",
author = "Mehta, {Radhika M.} and Manyoo Agarwal and Ikechukwu Ifedili and Rizk, {Wael W.} and Rami Khouzam",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2016.12.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "46--60",
journal = "Current Problems in Cardiology",
issn = "0146-2806",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Procedural Variations in Performing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

AU - Mehta, Radhika M.

AU - Agarwal, Manyoo

AU - Ifedili, Ikechukwu

AU - Rizk, Wael W.

AU - Khouzam, Rami

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - Multiple variations exist in performing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) among various cardiologists. These variations range from the choice of peripheral access artery (radial vs femoral), performance or time of complete angiography including left ventriculography, and nonculprit vessel angiography before or after intervening on the culprit vessel. The reasons for such variations include emphasis on door-to-balloon time, knowledge of cardiac anatomy before proceeding with pPCI, physician expertise, and the level of comfort with radial approach. Over the last 2 decades, the field of interventional cardiology has changed dynamically leading to marked improvements in the clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI. This includes upstreaming of pPCI along with technical advancements ranging from radial artery catheterization to culprit lesion–guided approach. Increased comfort with use of radial access approach by cardiologists and availability of multiuse guide catheters would both reduce door-to-balloon time and enable complete coronary angiography before performance of percutaneous coronary intervention. There are no clear guidelines or consensus dictating on cardiologists a correct sequence of action during STEMI, or even suggesting what the preferred approach is. Lack of guidelines results in a substantive variation in methodology. This review aims to highlight and to better understand the variations in the current practice, and to emphasize the advantages as well as the disadvantages of each approach. It is also perhaps a call out for guidelines that direct cardiologists to the best practice.

AB - Multiple variations exist in performing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) among various cardiologists. These variations range from the choice of peripheral access artery (radial vs femoral), performance or time of complete angiography including left ventriculography, and nonculprit vessel angiography before or after intervening on the culprit vessel. The reasons for such variations include emphasis on door-to-balloon time, knowledge of cardiac anatomy before proceeding with pPCI, physician expertise, and the level of comfort with radial approach. Over the last 2 decades, the field of interventional cardiology has changed dynamically leading to marked improvements in the clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI. This includes upstreaming of pPCI along with technical advancements ranging from radial artery catheterization to culprit lesion–guided approach. Increased comfort with use of radial access approach by cardiologists and availability of multiuse guide catheters would both reduce door-to-balloon time and enable complete coronary angiography before performance of percutaneous coronary intervention. There are no clear guidelines or consensus dictating on cardiologists a correct sequence of action during STEMI, or even suggesting what the preferred approach is. Lack of guidelines results in a substantive variation in methodology. This review aims to highlight and to better understand the variations in the current practice, and to emphasize the advantages as well as the disadvantages of each approach. It is also perhaps a call out for guidelines that direct cardiologists to the best practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008440713&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008440713&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2016.12.002

DO - 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2016.12.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 28104044

AN - SCOPUS:85008440713

VL - 42

SP - 46

EP - 60

JO - Current Problems in Cardiology

JF - Current Problems in Cardiology

SN - 0146-2806

IS - 2

ER -