This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heggunje, P. S. Articles by Grines, C. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Heggunje, P. S. Articles by Grines, C. L.

Procedural success versus clinical risk status in determining discharge of patients after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

Prabhakara S. Heggunje, MD, FACC^*, Kishore J. Harjai, MD, FACC, Gregg W. Stone, MD, FACC, Rajendra H. Mehta, MD, FACC, Dominic L. Marsalese, MD, FACC^*, Judith A. Boura, MS^*, William W. O'Neill, MD, FACC^* and Cindy L. Grines, MD, FACC^*,*

^* William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
Guthrie Clinic, Sayre, Pennsylvania
Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Figure 1 Kaplan-Meier event-free survival rates for the composite end point of death, re-infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. Patients with successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a low major adverse cardiac events rate after hospital day 4, whereas patients with unsuccessful PCI continued to experience a significantly higher rate of major adverse cardiac events up to 7 to 10 days.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Figure 2 Kaplan-Meier event-free survival rates for the composite end point of death and re-infarction. PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier analysis of the cumulative event rate for death. PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.