Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Emergency Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main (LM ePCI) coronary artery necessitated by acute coronary syndrome is associated with a high risk of mortality. However, optimal treatment strategies and related outcomes remain undefined in this group. We undertook a multi-center, retrosp...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of cardiology 2022-08, Vol.177, p.1-6 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 6 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | The American journal of cardiology |
container_volume | 177 |
creator | Bajaj, Retesh Ramasamy, Anantharaman Brown, James T. Koganti, Sudheer Little, Callum Rathod, Krishnaraj S. Jones, Daniel A. Rees, Paul Guttmann, Oliver Lockie, Tim Ozkor, Mick Mathur, Anthony Kalra, Sundeep S. Baumbach, Andreas Bourantas, Christos V. Rakhit, Roby O'Mahony, Constantinos |
description | Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main (LM ePCI) coronary artery necessitated by acute coronary syndrome is associated with a high risk of mortality. However, optimal treatment strategies and related outcomes remain undefined in this group. We undertook a multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients requiring LM ePCI between 2011 and 2018 and reported the coronary anatomy, treatment strategies, outcomes, and predictors of mortality. A total of 116 consecutive cases were included. Patients were predominantly male (85%) with a median age of 68.0 years; 12 patients (10%) had previous coronary artery bypass grafting. ST-elevation was noted in 76 (66%); 30 (26%) presented with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) and 47 (41%) with cardiogenic shock. The most frequent pattern of disease was Medina 1,1,1, seen in 59 patients (51%). The commonest revascularization strategy was provisional stenting (95 cases, 82%) with improved or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow seen in 85 cases (73%). All-cause mortality was 35% at 30 days, rising to 58% at 5 years. Adverse predictors of 30-day mortality included presentation with cardiogenic shock (p = 0.018) and OOHCA (p = 0.020), whereas improved flow and/or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow in both circumflex and left anterior descending artery afforded a better prognosis (p = 0.028). In conclusion, patients who underwent LM ePCI are a high-risk subgroup and commonly present with cardiogenic shock and OOHCA. Provisional stenting appears to be the preferred option with the successful restoration of coronary flow in most cases despite complex anatomy. High 30-day mortality is driven by the presence of cardiogenic shock, OOHCA, and failure to restore or improve coronary flow. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.04.043 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2680234876</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002914922005173</els_id><sourcerecordid>2680234876</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c233t-e888db041dc7efbeba1ddad7524170468e47bc35a0ff5ae712cc5c99180aae053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE9rGzEQxUVoIK7TjxAQ5NLLOiPtP-lUiklag0sKSU49CFmaDVq8kitpA_72lXFOvQQeDAO_ebx5hNwwWDFg3d240tNodLQrDpyvoCmqL8iCiV5WTLL6E1kAAK8ka-QV-ZzSWFbG2m5B_jxH1HlCn-lTjjrjq8NEtbf0cc4mTGUJA72fML6iN0e6xSHTX9p5-hujmbP2GOZE1yEGr-ORbnzG-FbsXPDX5HLQ-4Rf3ueSvDzcP69_VtvHH5v1921leF3nCoUQdgcNs6bHYYc7zazVtm95w3poOoFNvzN1q2EYWo0948a0RkomQGuEtl6Sr2ffQwx_Z0xZTS4Z3O_P4RTvBPC6EX1X0Nv_0DHM0Zd0J0q0AFLKQrVnysSQUsRBHaKbynuKgTpVrkb1Xrk6Va6gKarL3bfzHZZv3xxGlYwrtaF1EU1WNrgPHP4BnXGNtg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2688500999</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Emergency Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Bajaj, Retesh ; Ramasamy, Anantharaman ; Brown, James T. ; Koganti, Sudheer ; Little, Callum ; Rathod, Krishnaraj S. ; Jones, Daniel A. ; Rees, Paul ; Guttmann, Oliver ; Lockie, Tim ; Ozkor, Mick ; Mathur, Anthony ; Kalra, Sundeep S. ; Baumbach, Andreas ; Bourantas, Christos V. ; Rakhit, Roby ; O'Mahony, Constantinos</creator><creatorcontrib>Bajaj, Retesh ; Ramasamy, Anantharaman ; Brown, James T. ; Koganti, Sudheer ; Little, Callum ; Rathod, Krishnaraj S. ; Jones, Daniel A. ; Rees, Paul ; Guttmann, Oliver ; Lockie, Tim ; Ozkor, Mick ; Mathur, Anthony ; Kalra, Sundeep S. ; Baumbach, Andreas ; Bourantas, Christos V. ; Rakhit, Roby ; O'Mahony, Constantinos</creatorcontrib><description>Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main (LM ePCI) coronary artery necessitated by acute coronary syndrome is associated with a high risk of mortality. However, optimal treatment strategies and related outcomes remain undefined in this group. We undertook a multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients requiring LM ePCI between 2011 and 2018 and reported the coronary anatomy, treatment strategies, outcomes, and predictors of mortality. A total of 116 consecutive cases were included. Patients were predominantly male (85%) with a median age of 68.0 years; 12 patients (10%) had previous coronary artery bypass grafting. ST-elevation was noted in 76 (66%); 30 (26%) presented with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) and 47 (41%) with cardiogenic shock. The most frequent pattern of disease was Medina 1,1,1, seen in 59 patients (51%). The commonest revascularization strategy was provisional stenting (95 cases, 82%) with improved or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow seen in 85 cases (73%). All-cause mortality was 35% at 30 days, rising to 58% at 5 years. Adverse predictors of 30-day mortality included presentation with cardiogenic shock (p = 0.018) and OOHCA (p = 0.020), whereas improved flow and/or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow in both circumflex and left anterior descending artery afforded a better prognosis (p = 0.028). In conclusion, patients who underwent LM ePCI are a high-risk subgroup and commonly present with cardiogenic shock and OOHCA. Provisional stenting appears to be the preferred option with the successful restoration of coronary flow in most cases despite complex anatomy. High 30-day mortality is driven by the presence of cardiogenic shock, OOHCA, and failure to restore or improve coronary flow.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9149</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1913</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.04.043</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Acute coronary syndromes ; Anatomy ; Angioplasty ; Calcification ; Coronary artery ; Coronary vessels ; Health services ; Heart surgery ; Hospitals ; Mortality ; Myocardial infarction ; Patients ; Risk groups ; Shock ; Stents ; Subgroups ; Thrombolysis ; Veins & arteries</subject><ispartof>The American journal of cardiology, 2022-08, Vol.177, p.1-6</ispartof><rights>2022 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2022. Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c233t-e888db041dc7efbeba1ddad7524170468e47bc35a0ff5ae712cc5c99180aae053</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7424-0419 ; 0000-0003-1441-0417 ; 0000-0003-1541-4081 ; 0000-0001-7707-2254</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2688500999?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27911,27912,45982,64370,64372,64374,72224</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bajaj, Retesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramasamy, Anantharaman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, James T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koganti, Sudheer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Little, Callum</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rathod, Krishnaraj S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rees, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guttmann, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lockie, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozkor, Mick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathur, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalra, Sundeep S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baumbach, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bourantas, Christos V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rakhit, Roby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Mahony, Constantinos</creatorcontrib><title>Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Emergency Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention</title><title>The American journal of cardiology</title><description>Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main (LM ePCI) coronary artery necessitated by acute coronary syndrome is associated with a high risk of mortality. However, optimal treatment strategies and related outcomes remain undefined in this group. We undertook a multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients requiring LM ePCI between 2011 and 2018 and reported the coronary anatomy, treatment strategies, outcomes, and predictors of mortality. A total of 116 consecutive cases were included. Patients were predominantly male (85%) with a median age of 68.0 years; 12 patients (10%) had previous coronary artery bypass grafting. ST-elevation was noted in 76 (66%); 30 (26%) presented with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) and 47 (41%) with cardiogenic shock. The most frequent pattern of disease was Medina 1,1,1, seen in 59 patients (51%). The commonest revascularization strategy was provisional stenting (95 cases, 82%) with improved or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow seen in 85 cases (73%). All-cause mortality was 35% at 30 days, rising to 58% at 5 years. Adverse predictors of 30-day mortality included presentation with cardiogenic shock (p = 0.018) and OOHCA (p = 0.020), whereas improved flow and/or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow in both circumflex and left anterior descending artery afforded a better prognosis (p = 0.028). In conclusion, patients who underwent LM ePCI are a high-risk subgroup and commonly present with cardiogenic shock and OOHCA. Provisional stenting appears to be the preferred option with the successful restoration of coronary flow in most cases despite complex anatomy. High 30-day mortality is driven by the presence of cardiogenic shock, OOHCA, and failure to restore or improve coronary flow.</description><subject>Acute coronary syndromes</subject><subject>Anatomy</subject><subject>Angioplasty</subject><subject>Calcification</subject><subject>Coronary artery</subject><subject>Coronary vessels</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Heart surgery</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Myocardial infarction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Risk groups</subject><subject>Shock</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Thrombolysis</subject><subject>Veins & arteries</subject><issn>0002-9149</issn><issn>1879-1913</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE9rGzEQxUVoIK7TjxAQ5NLLOiPtP-lUiklag0sKSU49CFmaDVq8kitpA_72lXFOvQQeDAO_ebx5hNwwWDFg3d240tNodLQrDpyvoCmqL8iCiV5WTLL6E1kAAK8ka-QV-ZzSWFbG2m5B_jxH1HlCn-lTjjrjq8NEtbf0cc4mTGUJA72fML6iN0e6xSHTX9p5-hujmbP2GOZE1yEGr-ORbnzG-FbsXPDX5HLQ-4Rf3ueSvDzcP69_VtvHH5v1921leF3nCoUQdgcNs6bHYYc7zazVtm95w3poOoFNvzN1q2EYWo0948a0RkomQGuEtl6Sr2ffQwx_Z0xZTS4Z3O_P4RTvBPC6EX1X0Nv_0DHM0Zd0J0q0AFLKQrVnysSQUsRBHaKbynuKgTpVrkb1Xrk6Va6gKarL3bfzHZZv3xxGlYwrtaF1EU1WNrgPHP4BnXGNtg</recordid><startdate>20220815</startdate><enddate>20220815</enddate><creator>Bajaj, Retesh</creator><creator>Ramasamy, Anantharaman</creator><creator>Brown, James T.</creator><creator>Koganti, Sudheer</creator><creator>Little, Callum</creator><creator>Rathod, Krishnaraj S.</creator><creator>Jones, Daniel A.</creator><creator>Rees, Paul</creator><creator>Guttmann, Oliver</creator><creator>Lockie, Tim</creator><creator>Ozkor, Mick</creator><creator>Mathur, Anthony</creator><creator>Kalra, Sundeep S.</creator><creator>Baumbach, Andreas</creator><creator>Bourantas, Christos V.</creator><creator>Rakhit, Roby</creator><creator>O'Mahony, Constantinos</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-0419</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1441-0417</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1541-4081</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7707-2254</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220815</creationdate><title>Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Emergency Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention</title><author>Bajaj, Retesh ; Ramasamy, Anantharaman ; Brown, James T. ; Koganti, Sudheer ; Little, Callum ; Rathod, Krishnaraj S. ; Jones, Daniel A. ; Rees, Paul ; Guttmann, Oliver ; Lockie, Tim ; Ozkor, Mick ; Mathur, Anthony ; Kalra, Sundeep S. ; Baumbach, Andreas ; Bourantas, Christos V. ; Rakhit, Roby ; O'Mahony, Constantinos</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c233t-e888db041dc7efbeba1ddad7524170468e47bc35a0ff5ae712cc5c99180aae053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Acute coronary syndromes</topic><topic>Anatomy</topic><topic>Angioplasty</topic><topic>Calcification</topic><topic>Coronary artery</topic><topic>Coronary vessels</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Heart surgery</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Myocardial infarction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Risk groups</topic><topic>Shock</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Thrombolysis</topic><topic>Veins & arteries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bajaj, Retesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramasamy, Anantharaman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, James T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koganti, Sudheer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Little, Callum</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rathod, Krishnaraj S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rees, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guttmann, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lockie, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozkor, Mick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathur, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalra, Sundeep S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baumbach, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bourantas, Christos V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rakhit, Roby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Mahony, Constantinos</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bajaj, Retesh</au><au>Ramasamy, Anantharaman</au><au>Brown, James T.</au><au>Koganti, Sudheer</au><au>Little, Callum</au><au>Rathod, Krishnaraj S.</au><au>Jones, Daniel A.</au><au>Rees, Paul</au><au>Guttmann, Oliver</au><au>Lockie, Tim</au><au>Ozkor, Mick</au><au>Mathur, Anthony</au><au>Kalra, Sundeep S.</au><au>Baumbach, Andreas</au><au>Bourantas, Christos V.</au><au>Rakhit, Roby</au><au>O'Mahony, Constantinos</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Emergency Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle><date>2022-08-15</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>177</volume><spage>1</spage><epage>6</epage><pages>1-6</pages><issn>0002-9149</issn><eissn>1879-1913</eissn><abstract>Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main (LM ePCI) coronary artery necessitated by acute coronary syndrome is associated with a high risk of mortality. However, optimal treatment strategies and related outcomes remain undefined in this group. We undertook a multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients requiring LM ePCI between 2011 and 2018 and reported the coronary anatomy, treatment strategies, outcomes, and predictors of mortality. A total of 116 consecutive cases were included. Patients were predominantly male (85%) with a median age of 68.0 years; 12 patients (10%) had previous coronary artery bypass grafting. ST-elevation was noted in 76 (66%); 30 (26%) presented with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) and 47 (41%) with cardiogenic shock. The most frequent pattern of disease was Medina 1,1,1, seen in 59 patients (51%). The commonest revascularization strategy was provisional stenting (95 cases, 82%) with improved or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow seen in 85 cases (73%). All-cause mortality was 35% at 30 days, rising to 58% at 5 years. Adverse predictors of 30-day mortality included presentation with cardiogenic shock (p = 0.018) and OOHCA (p = 0.020), whereas improved flow and/or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow in both circumflex and left anterior descending artery afforded a better prognosis (p = 0.028). In conclusion, patients who underwent LM ePCI are a high-risk subgroup and commonly present with cardiogenic shock and OOHCA. Provisional stenting appears to be the preferred option with the successful restoration of coronary flow in most cases despite complex anatomy. High 30-day mortality is driven by the presence of cardiogenic shock, OOHCA, and failure to restore or improve coronary flow.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.04.043</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-0419</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1441-0417</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1541-4081</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7707-2254</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9149 |
ispartof | The American journal of cardiology, 2022-08, Vol.177, p.1-6 |
issn | 0002-9149 1879-1913 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2680234876 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
subjects | Acute coronary syndromes Anatomy Angioplasty Calcification Coronary artery Coronary vessels Health services Heart surgery Hospitals Mortality Myocardial infarction Patients Risk groups Shock Stents Subgroups Thrombolysis Veins & arteries |
title | Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Emergency Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T05%3A45%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatment%20Strategies%20and%20Outcomes%20of%20Emergency%20Left%20Main%20Percutaneous%20Coronary%20Intervention&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20cardiology&rft.au=Bajaj,%20Retesh&rft.date=2022-08-15&rft.volume=177&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=6&rft.pages=1-6&rft.issn=0002-9149&rft.eissn=1879-1913&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.04.043&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2680234876%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2688500999&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0002914922005173&rfr_iscdi=true |