Should patients in cardiogenic shock undergo rescue angioplasty after failed fibrinolysis: comparison of primary versus rescue angioplasty in cardiogenic shock patients.

Background. Trials of rescue angioplasty (rPCI) following failed fibrinolysis have excluded patients with cardiogenic shock and the benefit of rPCI in this setting is unknown. We compared the clinical, angiographic characteristics, 30-day and 1-year outcomes of cardiogenic shock patients undergoing rPCI with those undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods. Of the 171 patients undergoing PCI for cardiogenic shock between 1994 and 2005 at our institution, the indication was for PPCI in 65 and rPCI in 59 patients. Clinical, procedural, 30-day and 1-year mortality data were compared. Results. There were no differences between the cohorts with regard to clinical and pre-PCI angiographic variables, except that patients who underwent rPCI were more likely to be interhospital transfers (64% vs. 43%; p = 0.02) and had a longer door-to-balloon time (median 298 [IQR 395 to 180] minutes in the rPCI group vs. 131 [IQR 215 to 90] minutes in the PPCI group; p 70 years old with cardiogenic shock undergoing rPCI was 100% (n = 15) and 70% (n = 14) with PPCI. Rescue angioplasty, anterior myocardial infarction, multivessel disease and postprocedure TIMI flow grade 75 years) may be a futile treatment. Efforts should be made to improve reperfusion and survival in these patients, possibly by either adopting PPCI for all patients presenting with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction or, if this is not logistically possible, adopting PPCI for selected high-risk patients or early referral for rPCI in high-risk groups receiving fibrinolysis.