Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiac arrest patients without return of spontaneous circulation

7Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to examine coronary angiography (CAG) findings, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results and outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients (OHCA) without return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) on admission to hospital. Methods: We analyzed the OHCA register and compared CAG, PCI, and outcome data in patients with and without ROSC on admission to hospital. Results: Between January 2012 and December 2020, 697 OHCA patients were analyzed. Of these, 163 (23%) did not have ROSC at admission. Patients without ROSC were younger (59 vs. 61 years, p = 0.001) and had a longer resuscitation time (62 vs. 18 minutes, p < 0.001) than patients with ROSC. Significant coronary artery disease was highly prevalent in both groups (65% vs. 68%, p = 0.48). Patients without ROSC had higher rates of acute coronary occlusions (42% vs. 33%, p = 0.046), specifically affecting the left main stem (16% vs. 1%, p < 0.001). PCI was performed in 81 patients (50%) without ROSC and in 295 (55%) with ROSC (p = 0.21). The success rate was 86% in patients without ROSC and 90% in patients with ROSC (p = 0.33). Thirty-day survival was 24% in patients without ROSC and 70% in patients with ROSC. Conclusions: OHCA patients without ROSC on admission to hospital had higher acute coronary occlusion rates than patients with prehospital ROSC. PCI is feasible with a high success rate in patients without ROSC. Despite prolonged resuscitation times, meaningful survival in patients admitted without ROSC is achievable.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rob, D., Kavalkova, P., Smalcova, J., Kral, A., Kovarnik, T., Zemanek, D., … Belohlavek, J. (2022). Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiac arrest patients without return of spontaneous circulation. Resuscitation, 175, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.03.027

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free