Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) may be performed during the same session as diagnostic catheterization (ad hoc PCI) or at a later session (delayed PCI). Randomized trials comparing these strategies have not been performed; cohort studies have not identified consistent differences in safety or efficacy between the two strategies. Ad hoc PCI has increased in prevalence over the past decade and is the default strategy for treating acute coronary syndromes. However, questions about its appropriateness for some patients with stable symptoms have been raised by the results of recent large trials comparing PCI to medical therapy or bypass surgery. Ad hoc PCI for stable ischemic heart disease requires preprocedural planning, and reassessment after diagnostic angiography must be performed to ensure its appropriateness. Patients may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is convenient. Payers may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is cost-efficient. The majority of data confirm equivalent outcomes in ad hoc versus delayed PCI. However, there are some situations in which delayed PCI may be safer or yield better outcomes. This document reviews patient subsets and clinical situations in which one strategy is preferable over the other. V C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background-Rapid activation of a cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) has reduced door-to-balloon times in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), leading to lower mortality. This process is accelerated with prehospital electrocardiography and notification. False activations of the CCL occur at an unknown rate and have been poorly described. Methods and Results-We analyzed 345 consecutive CCL activations for suspected STEMI over 18 months (March 2009 -August 2010

No abstract

Protamine sulfate has been used for many years to reverse the effects of unfractionated heparin, but it can cause hemodynamic changes and other serious side effects. Platelet factor 4 (PF4) is a naturally occurring protein synthesized in megakaryocytes and eventually stored in the alpha granules of platelets for later release. Although the complete physiologic role of PF4 is unknown, it is highly effective for the neutralization of heparin anticoagulation. Several preliminary animal studies and trials using blood obtained from cardiopulmonary bypass circuits suggested recombinant PF4 (rPF4) would be an effective alternative to protamine. In the first open-label, phase 1 human study, patients received rPF4 in doses of 0.5, 1.0, 2.5, or 5.0 mg/kg over 3 minutes to reverse heparin anticoagulation after diagnostic cardiac catheterization. There were no important hemodynamic changes and the rPF4 was highly effective in neutralizing heparin. Serial measurements of rPF4 levels showed a monophasic elimination pattern with a serum half-life of 25.5 +/- 13.5 minutes that was independent of dose administered. A randomized and blinded trial comparing rPF4 to protamine confirmed the safety and effectiveness of rPF4. Although rPF4 was initially being evaluated as a clinical alternative to protamine, it is not currently being developed for general clinical use.

Temporary pacing is occasionally required during percutaneous coronary artery interventions. This can be accomplished by the insertion of a temporary transvenous pacemaker wire into the right ventricle, but there is some risk and inconvenience associated with this approach. Temporary pacing using the coronary artery guidewire was described in 1985 but is used infrequently. Using currently available equipment, we evaluated guidewire pacing in 26 patients. Guidewire pacing was successful in all patients, but not with all coronary guidewires at acceptable ventricular capture thresholds. No complications occurred from guidewire pacing. Bench testing of multiple different wires showed several with very high resistances likely unsuitable for clinical use. Temporary guidewire pacing is easily performed and should be considered as an alternative to the separate placement of a temporary transvenous pacemaker.