Immediate versus Deferred Stenting for Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention | ||||
| International Journal of Medical Arts | ||||
| Volume 3, Issue 4, October 2021, Page 1915-1922 PDF (1.7 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ijma.2021.92951.1359 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Ahmed Abdullah Almorsy  1; Mamdouh Helmy Al-Tahan2; Mohamed Adel Attia1
| ||||
| 1Department of Cardiology, Damietta Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Egypt | ||||
| 2Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Deferred stenting are proposed to be associated with better clinical outcome than early stenting. However, the evidence is consistent. Aim of the work: This study aimed to identify the effectiveness, safety, and outcomes of immediate versus deferred stenting in patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention [PCI]. Patients and Methods: This study included 400 adult patients scheduled for primary PCI. All were evaluated by full history taking, clinical, electrocardiography and echo-cardiography examination, on admission, and at 60 minutes’ post PCI. Additionally, an electrocardiographic study was completed for all patients before and after PCI. Patients were categorized according to treatment protocol, 200 for immediate stenting, and 200 for stenting 12 to 24 hours later. Patients follow up was achieved during the procedure, immediately after their return to the CCU and till their discharge. The follow included clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic assessment, and adverse cardiac events. Results: Both groups were comparable regarding patient demographics, pre-interventional comorbidities, or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction [TIMI] flow before PCI. The majority were males in their sixties. The commonest location of infarction was the anterior location [45.75%]. The femoral access was the main approach [among 96.0%]. The procedure related complications was reported among 1.75%, and transfusion was reported among 0.50%. TIMI flow was significantly better among differed than early stenting. After six and twelve months after PCI, there was significant increase of ejection fraction delayed than early stenting [55±4.9, 57±2.6 vs 53±3.1 and 55±3.7, respectively]. Conclusion: Results of the current work are in favor of delayed than early stenting in primary PCI. Especially, for clinical outcome at 6 and 12 months after primary PCI. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Primary Percutaneous Intervention; Delayed; Early; Stenting; Coronary Artery Disease | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 342 PDF Download: 218 |
||||
