Comparison of bailout versus elective stenting: time to reassess our benchmarks of outcome.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of elective and bailout stenting in an era of improved stent deployment techniques and antithrombotic therapy. We retrospectively analysed 136 consecutive patients undergoing stent implantation over a 15 mo period. There was no significant difference in the follow-up duration, length of hospital stay, or the total incidence of major complications between the two groups. Bailout stenting, as compared to elective stenting, was not associated with an increased incidence of in-hospital (no death vs. 1.4%, 4.6% non-Q myocardial infarction vs. 0%, 7.7% vascular complications vs. 7.0%) or late complications (no death vs. 1.4%, no non-Q myocardial infarction vs. 2.8%, 3.1% repeat angioplasty vs. 5.6%, 1.5% coronary artery bypass surgery vs. 1.4%). Stents can be implanted in cases of failed angioplasty with a success rate similar to that of elective stent implantation with a low incidence of complications and equivalent clinical outcome.