CardiologyNowNews.org CardiologyNowNews.org
Font ResizerAa
  • Home
    • About
      • Message from the Editor-in-Chief
      • Mission Statement
      • Editorial Board
  • News
  • Topics
    • Acute Coronary Syndrome
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Cardiovascular Imaging
    • Cardiovascular Intervention
    • Cardiovascular Prevention
    • Cerebrovascular Disease
    • Heart Failure
    • Peripheral Vascular Disease
    • Structural Heart Disease
    • Valvular Heart Disease
  • Educational Resources
    • WikiDoc
    • BAIM Grand Rounds
    • Clinical Trial Results
  • ACC
    • ACC 2017
    • ACC 2018
    • ACC 2019
    • ACC 2020
    • ACC 2021
    • ACC 2022
    • ACC 2023
    • ACC 2024
    • ACC 2025
  • AHA
    • AHA 2017
    • AHA 2019
    • AHA 2021
    • AHA 2022
    • AHA 2023
    • AHA 2024
    • AHA 2025
  • ESC
    • ESC 2017
    • ESC 2018
    • ESC 2019
    • ESC 2021
    • ESC 2022
    • ESC 2023
    • ESC 2024
    • ESC 2025
  • SCAI
    • SCAI 2017
    • SCAI 2018
  • Videos
CardiologyNowNews.org CardiologyNowNews.org
Font ResizerAa
Search
  • Home
    • About
  • News
  • Topics
    • Acute Coronary Syndrome
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Cardiovascular Imaging
    • Cardiovascular Intervention
    • Cardiovascular Prevention
    • Cerebrovascular Disease
    • Heart Failure
    • Peripheral Vascular Disease
    • Structural Heart Disease
    • Valvular Heart Disease
  • Educational Resources
    • WikiDoc
    • BAIM Grand Rounds
    • Clinical Trial Results
  • ACC
    • ACC 2017
    • ACC 2018
    • ACC 2019
    • ACC 2020
    • ACC 2021
    • ACC 2022
    • ACC 2023
    • ACC 2024
    • ACC 2025
  • AHA
    • AHA 2017
    • AHA 2019
    • AHA 2021
    • AHA 2022
    • AHA 2023
    • AHA 2024
    • AHA 2025
  • ESC
    • ESC 2017
    • ESC 2018
    • ESC 2019
    • ESC 2021
    • ESC 2022
    • ESC 2023
    • ESC 2024
    • ESC 2025
  • SCAI
    • SCAI 2017
    • SCAI 2018
  • Videos
Follow US
Clinical TrialsInterventional CardiologyOut Of Hospital Cardiac ArrestStructural Heart DiseaseSudden Cardiac Death

Study Shows Emergent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Unstable Coronary Plaque Improves the Survival After Sudden Cardiac Arrest

sahar
Share
3 Min Read

The emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unstable plaques, compared to stable plaques, was associated with a better survival rate among patients with sudden cardiac arrest in a recent study by Dr. Louis Pechmajou et al. The results of the study were recently published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Sudden cardiac arrest is responsible for half of the cardiovascular-related deaths. Given the high prevalence of coronary artery disease among patients with cardiac arrest, it remains unclear whether emergent coronary intervention is of benefit in patients without evidence of coronary artery occlusion on the electrocardiogram tracing. The current clinical care, although not validated by clinical trials, includes a coronary angiogram within 2-hours of hospital admission in patients with non-ST segment elevation cardiac arrest without another known cause. In the COACT trial, immediate angiography after out-of-hospital arrest in persons without ST-segment elevations did not find significant differences between survival rates. However, whether plaque stability affects the outcome of PCI was not addressed in this study. 

In this prospective 3-year registry of patients with sudden cardiac arrest, Pechmajou and colleagues evaluated the association between the type of coronary artery plaque and the survival rate at discharge after PCI. Briefly, the study included 1078 patients after the cardiac arrest who underwent immediate coronary angiography. Of the included individuals, the unstable and stable plaque was reported in 463 (42.9%) and 253 (23.5%), respectively. In total, 423 individuals with unstable lesions and 55 individuals with stable lesions underwent immediate PCI. Survival rate at discharge was two times higher among patients with unstable plaques having undergone PCI (47.9%) compared with patients with untreated unstable plaques (25.6%) (p=0.013). The results of the analysis remained significant even after adjustment for confounding variables (odds ratio:2.09 [95% CI:1.42–3.09]; P<0.001). Among patients with stable plaques, however, no significant differences were observed in post-discharge survival rates between those undergoing PCI and those treated conservatively  (25.5% versus 26.3%, P=1.00), and the association remained insignificant after adjustment (odds ratio:0.92 [95% CI:0.44–1.87]; P=0.824). The investigators also reported chest pain, initial shockable rhythm, ST-segment elevation on electrocardiogram tracing, and absence of known coronary artery disease as the independent predictors of unstable lesions.

There are several caveats to take into account when interpreting the results of this study, as stated by the authors. First, the study was not randomized, and PCI was performed as a result of emergency medicine physician’s judgment. Second, unstable lesions were identified based on coronary angiography and no intracoronary imaging was performed.

Finally, the data from the study suggests that immediate PCI of unstable coronary artery lesions may improve the survival rate in the setting of sudden cardiac arrest. Future research is warranted to further confirm the results of this study.

TAGGED:FeaturedNews
Share This Article
Copy Link Print
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

CardiologyNowNews.org CardiologyNowNews.org
Copyright - CardiologyNowNews
  • Contact Us
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?