Failed PTCA: Myocardial Protection and Surgical Management in the Catheterization Laboratory

  • Timothy J. Gardner

Abstract

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) has become, for many patients with symptomatic coronary artery obstructive disease, the first and only interventional treatment required to successfully manage their symptomatic state and functional limitations. Intra-arterial angioplasty techniques, first developed for the management of peripheral arterial disease, were introduced into general clinical use for coronary artery disease in the early 1980’s and, since that time, have surpassed coronary artery bypass grafting in terms of annual numbers of procedures performed.1 The appropriate role of coronary angioplasty versus surgical bypass grafting for symptomatic patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease is currently the subject of several randomized multi-institutional trials and initial information from these trials support the continued, if not expanded, application of PTCA for some patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Because of the potential for the iatrogenic induction of cardiac ischemia and hemodynamic instability, so-called surgical back-up has been a feature of virtually all PTCA programs since the initiation of this therapy.2 At least 5 percent of patients who undergo a PTCA procedure require early surgery, often urgently or emergently undertaken because of the occurrence of myocardial ischemia in the catheterization laboratory.3 The subject of this review is to present our view on how to best deal with these PTCA failures and whether there is a role for myocardial protective interventions while the patient is in the catheterization laboratory and prior to surgery.

Keywords

Catheter Ischemia Perforation Tate Dial 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gruentzig AR, Senning A, Siegenthaler WE: Nonoperative dilatation of coronary artery stenosis: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. N Engl J Med 1979; 301: 62.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cameron DE, Stinson DC, Greene PS, Gardner TJ: Surgical standby for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a survey of patterns of practice. Ann Thorac Surg 1990; 50: 35–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kent KM, Bentivoglio LG, Block PC, et al: PTCA: Report from the Registry of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Am J Cardiol 1982; 49: 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jutzy KR, Berte LE, Alderman EL, et al: Coronary restenosis rates in consecutive patient series one year post successful angioplasty. Circulation 1982; 66(Suppl II): II–331.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Homeffer PJ, Healy B, Gott VL, Gardner TJ: The rapid evolution of a myocardial infarction in an end-artery coronary preparation. Circulation 1987; 76(Suppl V): V–39.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turi ZG, Campbell CA, Gottimukkala MV, Kloner RA: Preservation of distal coronary perfusion with an autoperfusion angioplasty catheter. Circulation 1987; 75: 1273–1280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Angelini P, Leachman R, Heibig J: Distal coronary hemoperfusion during balloon angioplasty. Cardiology 1988; 5: 13–34.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parsonet V, Fisch D, Gielchinsky I, et al: Emergency operation after failed angioplasty. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988; 96: 198–203.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golding LAR, Loop FD, Hollman JL, et al: Early results of emergency surgery after coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1986; 74(Suppl 3): 26–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. Gardner
    • 1
  1. 1.Hospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations