Controversy continues in the United States over the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at facilities without on-site cardiac surgery. After publication of the quantitative review by Keeley et al1 in 2003, the superiority of PCI over thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was widely accepted. These findings further supported primary PCI programs at hospitals without cardiac surgery in an effort to provide more rapid care for patients with STEMI in their local communities.2 This strategy was subsequently extended, with good reported results, to nonemergent and elective PCI cases in an attempt to maintain higher PCI volumes and staff expertise.3–5 However, controversy continued as the 2005 PCI Guidelines designated primary PCI a class IIb indication (may be considered) but elective PCI a class III indication (not recommended) in hospitals that did not have cardiac surgery on site.6 Article see p 519 Despite the guideline recommendations, the number of PCI facilities without on-site cardiac surgery in the United States continued to grow.7 In 2007, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions published an expert consensus document, which reviewed the topic of PCI without on-site surgery and provided recommendations to assure appropriate patient care whenever PCI was performed in this setting.8 The goal of this document was not to challenge the guideline recommendations, but rather to deal with the reality that primary and elective PCI without on-site surgery was already being performed in 28 states despite the guideline recommendations.8 To answer that question, it is reasonable to separately consider the performance of primary and elective PCI as the risk to benefit ratio is different in each setting. Fortunately, with all the improvements in PCI during the past 32 years, the need for emergency cardiac surgery for a failed PCI is now …