Long-term clinical outcome of rescue balloon angioplasty compared with rescue stenting after failed thrombolysis.

Abstract

Failed thrombolysis following acute myocardial infarction is associated with a poor prognosis. Balloon angioplasty with or without stenting is an established procedure in acute myocardial infarction and for failed thrombolysis (rescue percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty [PTCA]). Intracoronary stenting improves initial success rates, decreases incidence of abrupt closure, and reduces the rate of restenosis after angioplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of rescue PTCA with rescue stenting in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction after failed thrombolysis. Clinical data are from a retrospective review of 102 patients requiring rescue balloon angioplasty or stenting after failed thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. There was a greater incidence of recurrent angina in 11 patients (22%) in the rescue PTCA group versus 2 patients (4%) in the rescue stenting group. The in-hospital recurrent myocardial infarction rate was 14% in the rescue PTCA group versus 2% in the stented group. In the rescue PTCA cohort, 11 patients (22%) required in-hospital repeat revascularization versus 2 patients in the stented group. The in-hospital mortality rate was higher in the PTCA group (10%) versus that in the stent group (2%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postdischarge deaths. Rescue stenting is superior to rescue angioplasty. The procedure is associated with lower in-hospital angina and recurrent myocardial infarction, and the need for fewer repeat revascularizations. Long-term patients treated with stents required fewer revascularization procedures. Overall, rescue stenting was associated with a significantly lower mortality.