Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Periprocedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention

Joseph P Carrozza, MD
Thomas Levin, MD
Section Editor
Donald Cutlip, MD
Deputy Editor
Gordon M Saperia, MD, FACC


Complications seen during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) include those related to cardiac catheterization and diagnostic coronary angiography, and those that occur as a consequence of the specific equipment (eg, wires) required for the intervention or the intervention itself (eg, distal embolization leading to myocardial ischemia). The periprocedural complications related to PCI will be reviewed here. The complications of cardiac catheterization are discussed separately. (See "Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterization".)

Improvements in devices, the use of stents, and aggressive antiplatelet therapy have significantly reduced the incidence of major periprocedural complications of PCI over the past 15 to 20 years. As an example, the need for emergent coronary bypass surgery (CABG) decreased in two series from 1.5 percent in 1992 to 0.14 percent in 2000 [1], and from 2.9 percent in 1979 to 1994 to 0.3 percent in 2000 to 2003 [2]. (See 'Emergency CABG for failed PCI' below.)

In this discussion, PCI refers to any therapeutic procedure during which a wire or catheter is inserted into a coronary artery. Balloon angioplasty without stenting will be referred to as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). When clinically important data specific to PTCA are available, it will be given. The term PCI will be used when studies include patients who have had either PTCA or stenting. Studies of stenting alone will be presented as such.

The widespread use of intracoronary stents rather than balloon angioplasty alone has resulted in the periprocedural complications of PTCA been being largely replaced by complications seen with stenting.


The widespread use of stents (compared to balloon angioplasty) and improvements with time in stent design and technique have led to a decreasing risk of major acute complications and no increase in mortality rates despite the increasing complexity of cases [3,4]. A report from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data registry included over 100,000 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures (stent placement in 77 percent) performed between 1998 and 2000 [4]. The incidences of in-hospital Q wave myocardial infarction, urgent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), or death were 0.4, 1.9, and 1.4 percent, respectively. These values may represent an overestimate of current experience, as most laboratories report emergency CABG rates below 0.5 percent [1,5].

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: Oct 10, 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Seshadri N, Whitlow PL, Acharya N, et al. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention era. Circulation 2002; 106:2346.
  2. Yang EH, Gumina RJ, Lennon RJ, et al. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery for percutaneous coronary interventions: changes in the incidence, clinical characteristics, and indications from 1979 to 2003. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46:2004.
  3. Weintraub WS, Mahoney EM, Ghazzal ZM, et al. Trends in outcome and costs of coronary intervention in the 1990s. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88:497.
  4. Anderson HV, Shaw RE, Brindis RG, et al. A contemporary overview of percutaneous coronary interventions. The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39:1096.
  5. Kutcher MA, Klein LW, Ou FS, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions in facilities without cardiac surgery on site: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:16.
  6. Aggarwal B, Ellis SG, Lincoff AM, et al. Cause of death within 30 days of percutaneous coronary intervention in an era of mandatory outcome reporting. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:409.
  7. www.acc.org/qualityandscience/clinical/statements.htm (accessed September 18, 2007) www.acc.org/qualityandscience/clinical/statements.htm (Accessed on September 18, 2007).
  8. Epstein AJ, Rathore SS, Volpp KG, Krumholz HM. Hospital percutaneous coronary intervention volume and patient mortality, 1998 to 2000: does the evidence support current procedure volume minimums? J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43:1755.
  9. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, et al. Volume-outcome relationships for percutaneous coronary interventions in the stent era. Circulation 2005; 112:1171.
  10. Wennberg DE, Lucas FL, Siewers AE, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions performed at centers without and with onsite coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA 2004; 292:1961.
  11. Malenka DJ, McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, et al. The relationship between operator volume and outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions in high volume hospitals in 1994-1996: the northern New England experience. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34:1471.
  12. Spaulding C, Morice MC, Lancelin B, et al. Is the volume-outcome relation still an issue in the era of PCI with systematic stenting? Results of the greater Paris area PCI registry. Eur Heart J 2006; 27:1054.
  13. Moscucci M, Share D, Smith D, et al. Relationship between operator volume and adverse outcome in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention practice: an analysis of a quality-controlled multicenter percutaneous coronary intervention clinical database. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46:625.
  14. Shahian DM, Meyer GS, Yeh RW, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions without on-site cardiac surgical backup. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1814.
  15. Singh M, Holmes DR Jr, Dehmer GJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention at centers with and without on-site surgery: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2011; 306:2487.
  16. Aversano T, Lemmon CC, Liu L, Atlantic CPORT Investigators. Outcomes of PCI at hospitals with or without on-site cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1792.
  17. Jacobs AK, Normand SL, Massaro JM, et al. Nonemergency PCI at hospitals with or without on-site cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1498.
  18. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011; 124:2574.
  19. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011; 124:e574.
  20. Dehmer GJ, Blankenship JC, Cilingiroglu M, et al. SCAI/ACC/AHA Expert Consensus Document: 2014 update on percutaneous coronary intervention without on-site surgical backup. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63:2624.
  21. Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, et al. Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease. Implications for patient selection. Multivessel Angioplasty Prognosis Study Group. Circulation 1990; 82:1193.
  22. Wilensky RL, Selzer F, Johnston J, et al. Relation of percutaneous coronary intervention of complex lesions to clinical outcomes (from the NHLBI Dynamic Registry). Am J Cardiol 2002; 90:216.
  23. Ross MJ, Herrmann HC, Moliterno DJ, et al. Angiographic variables predict increased risk for adverse ischemic events after coronary stenting with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition: results from the TARGET trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:981.
  24. Holmes DR, Selzer F, Johnston JM, et al. Modeling and risk prediction in the current era of interventional cardiology: a report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry. Circulation 2003; 107:1871.
  25. Shaw RE, Anderson HV, Brindis RG, et al. Development of a risk adjustment mortality model using the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) experience: 1998-2000. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39:1104.
  26. Hannan EL, Racz M, Ryan TJ, et al. Coronary angioplasty volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiologists. JAMA 1997; 277:892.
  27. Hannan EL, Arani DT, Johnson LW, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State. Risk factors and outcomes. JAMA 1992; 268:3092.
  28. O'Connor GT, Malenka DJ, Quinton H, et al. Multivariate prediction of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions in 1994-1996. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34:681.
  29. Ellis SG, Weintraub W, Holmes D, et al. Relation of operator volume and experience to procedural outcome of percutaneous coronary revascularization at hospitals with high interventional volumes. Circulation 1997; 95:2479.
  30. Moscucci M, Kline-Rogers E, Share D, et al. Simple bedside additive tool for prediction of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation 2001; 104:263.
  31. Qureshi MA, Safian RD, Grines CL, et al. Simplified scoring system for predicting mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:1890.
  32. Singh M, Lennon RJ, Holmes DR Jr, et al. Correlates of procedural complications and a simple integer risk score for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40:387.
  33. Singh M, Rihal CS, Selzer F, et al. Validation of Mayo Clinic risk adjustment model for in-hospital complications after percutaneous coronary interventions, using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute dynamic registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:1722.
  34. Singh M, Rihal CS, Lennon RJ, et al. Bedside estimation of risk from percutaneous coronary intervention: the new Mayo Clinic risk scores. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82:701.
  35. Cavender MA, Ohman EM. What do you need to know before performing a percutaneous coronary intervention? Circulation 2008; 118:609.
  36. Jeremias A, Kleiman NS, Nassif D, et al. Prevalence and prognostic significance of preprocedural cardiac troponin elevation among patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the evaluation of drug eluting stents and ischemic events registry. Circulation 2008; 118:632.
  37. Peterson ED, Dai D, DeLong ER, et al. Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55:1923.
  38. Ndrepepa G, Berger PB, Mehilli J, et al. Periprocedural bleeding and 1-year outcome after percutaneous coronary interventions: appropriateness of including bleeding as a component of a quadruple end point. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:690.
  39. Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:1879.
  40. Fox KA, Poole-Wilson P, Clayton TC, et al. 5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Lancet 2005; 366:914.
  41. Fox KA, Clayton TC, Damman P, et al. Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55:2435.
  42. Spoon DB, Psaltis PJ, Singh M, et al. Trends in cause of death after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2014; 129:1286.
  43. Baim DS, Grossman W. Complications of cardiac catheterization. In: Cardiac Catheterization, Angiography and Intervention, Baim,DS, Grossman W (Eds), Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore 1996. p.p.17.
  44. Athanasiadis A, Haase KK, Wullen B, et al. Lesion morphology assessed by pre-interventional intravascular ultrasound does not predict the incidence of severe coronary artery dissections. Eur Heart J 1998; 19:870.
  45. Black AJ, Namay DL, Niederman AL, et al. Tear or dissection after coronary angioplasty. Morphologic correlates of an ischemic complication. Circulation 1989; 79:1035.
  46. Matthews BJ, Ewels CJ, Kent KM. Coronary dissection: a predictor of restenosis? Am Heart J 1988; 115:547.
  47. Huber MS, Mooney JF, Madison J, Mooney MR. Use of a morphologic classification to predict clinical outcome after dissection from coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1991; 68:467.
  48. Meerkin D, Tardif JC, Bertrand OF, et al. The effects of intracoronary brachytherapy on the natural history of postangioplasty dissections. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:59.
  49. Ellis SG, Roubin GS, King SB 3rd, et al. Angiographic and clinical predictors of acute closure after native vessel coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1988; 77:372.
  50. Cappelletti A, Margonato A, Rosano G, et al. Short- and long-term evolution of unstented nonocclusive coronary dissection after coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34:1484.
  51. Albertal M, Van Langenhove G, Regar E, et al. Uncomplicated moderate coronary artery dissections after balloon angioplasty: good outcome without stenting. Heart 2001; 86:193.
  52. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:496.
  53. Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:489.
  54. Sinclair IN, McCabe CH, Sipperly ME, Baim DS. Predictors, therapeutic options and long-term outcome of abrupt reclosure. Am J Cardiol 1988; 61:61G.
  55. Holmes DR Jr, Holubkov R, Vlietstra RE, et al. Comparison of complications during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty from 1977 to 1981 and from 1985 to 1986: the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988; 12:1149.
  56. Detre K, Holubkov R, Kelsey S, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in 1985-1986 and 1977-1981. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Registry. N Engl J Med 1988; 318:265.
  57. Maehara A, Mintz GS, Bui AB, et al. Incidence, morphology, angiographic findings, and outcomes of intramural hematomas after percutaneous coronary interventions: an intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 2002; 105:2037.
  58. Gruberg L, Pinnow E, Flood R, et al. Incidence, management, and outcome of coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86:680.
  59. Ellis SG, Ajluni S, Arnold AZ, et al. Increased coronary perforation in the new device era. Incidence, classification, management, and outcome. Circulation 1994; 90:2725.
  60. Stankovic G, Orlic D, Corvaja N, et al. Incidence, predictors, in-hospital, and late outcomes of coronary artery perforations. Am J Cardiol 2004; 93:213.
  61. Dippel EJ, Kereiakes DJ, Tramuta DA, et al. Coronary perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of abciximab platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade: an algorithm for percutaneous management. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001; 52:279.
  62. Elsner M, Auch-Schwelk W, Britten M, et al. Coronary stent grafts covered by a polytetrafluoroethylene membrane. Am J Cardiol 1999; 84:335.
  63. Briguori C, Nishida T, Anzuini A, et al. Emergency polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent implantation to treat coronary ruptures. Circulation 2000; 102:3028.
  64. Choi JW, Gibson CM, Murphy SA, et al. Myonecrosis following stent placement: association between impaired TIMI myocardial perfusion grade and MRI visualization of microinfarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 61:472.
  65. Aliabadi D, Tilli FV, Bowers TR, et al. Incidence and angiographic predictors of side branch occlusion following high-pressure intracoronary stenting. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80:994.
  66. Fischman DL, Savage MP, Leon MB, et al. Fate of lesion-related side branches after coronary artery stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22:1641.
  67. Iñiguez A, Macaya C, Alfonso F, et al. Early angiographic changes of side branches arising from a Palmaz-Schatz stented coronary segment: results and clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 23:911.
  68. Porto I, Selvanayagam JB, Van Gaal WJ, et al. Plaque volume and occurrence and location of periprocedural myocardial necrosis after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction myocardial perfusion grade analysis, and intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2006; 114:662.
  69. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cannon L, et al. Comparison of a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent with a bare metal stent in patients with complex coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 294:1215.
  70. Caputo RP, Chafizadeh ER, Stoler RC, et al. Stent jail: a minimum-security prison. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77:1226.
  71. Koo BK, Kang HJ, Youn TJ, et al. Physiologic assessment of jailed side branch lesions using fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46:633.
  72. Leon MB, Wong SC. Intracoronary stents. A breakthrough technology or just another small step? Circulation 1994; 89:1323.
  73. Cantor WJ, Lazzam C, Cohen EA, et al. Failed coronary stent deployment. Am Heart J 1998; 136:1088.
  74. Lohavanichbutr K, Webb JG, Carere RG, et al. Mechanisms, management, and outcome of failure of delivery of coronary stents. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83:779.
  75. Bolte J, Neumann U, Pfafferott C, et al. Incidence, management, and outcome of stent loss during intracoronary stenting. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88:565.
  76. Schühlen H, Kastrati A, Dirschinger J, et al. Intracoronary stenting and risk for major adverse cardiac events during the first month. Circulation 1998; 98:104.
  77. Garg RK, Sear JE, Hockstad ES. Spontaneous coronary artery perforation secondary to a sirolimus-eluting stent infection. J Invasive Cardiol 2007; 19:E303.
  78. Gonda E, Edmundson A, Mann T. Late coronary stent infection: a unique complication after drug-eluting stent implantation. J Invasive Cardiol 2007; 19:E307.
  79. Kini AS, Lee P, Mitre CA, et al. Postprocedure chest pain after coronary stenting: implications on clinical restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:33.
  80. Robbins MA, Marso SP, Wolski K, et al. Chest pain--a strong predictor of adverse cardiac events following precutaneous intervention (from the Evaluation of Platelet IIb/IIIa Inhibitor for Stenting Trial [EPISENT])]. Am J Cardiol 1999; 84:1350.
  81. Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). Circulation 2004; 110:e340.
  82. Maynard C, Chapko MK, Every NR, et al. Coronary angioplasty outcomes in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, 1993-1994. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81:848.
  83. Muller DW, Shamir KJ, Ellis SG, Topol EJ. Peripheral vascular complications after conventional and complex percutaneous coronary interventional procedures. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69:63.
  84. Carrozza JP Jr, Baim DS. Complications of directional coronary atherectomy: incidence, causes, and management. Am J Cardiol 1993; 72:47E.
  85. Popma JJ, Satler LF, Pichard AD, et al. Vascular complications after balloon and new device angioplasty. Circulation 1993; 88:1569.
  86. Blankenship JC, Hellkamp AS, Aguirre FV, et al. Vascular access site complications after percutaneous coronary intervention with abciximab in the Evaluation of c7E3 for the Prevention of Ischemic Complications (EPIC) trial. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81:36.
  87. Cote AV, Berger PB, Holmes DR Jr, et al. Hemorrhagic and vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunctive abciximab. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76:890.
  88. Argulian E, Patel AD, Abramson JL, et al. Gender differences in short-term cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98:48.
  89. Sadeghi HM, Grines CL, Chandra HR, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians. glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors' safety profile. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:428.
  90. Lincoff AM, Bittl JA, Harrington RA, et al. Bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary intervention: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA 2003; 289:853.
  91. Antman EM. Should bivalirudin replace heparin during percutaneous coronary interventions? JAMA 2003; 289:903.
  92. Stone GW, McLaurin BT, Cox DA, et al. Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:2203.
  93. Stone GW, White HD, Ohman EM, et al. Bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a subgroup analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy (ACUITY) trial. Lancet 2007; 369:907.
  94. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011; 377:1409.
  95. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2015; 385:2465.
  96. Romagnoli E, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, et al. Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60:2481.
  97. Bernat I, Horak D, Stasek J, et al. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63:964.
  98. Ferrante G, Rao SV, Jüni P, et al. Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9:1419.
  99. Pancholy SB. Prevention of radial artery occlusion. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2016; 9:1992.
  100. Keeley EC, Grines CL. Scraping of aortic debris by coronary guiding catheters: a prospective evaluation of 1,000 cases. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32:1861.
  101. Sanchez PL, Rubenstein MH, Harrell LC, et al. Frequency of gross hematuria shortly after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88:A7, 71.
  102. Colombo A, Hall P, Nakamura S, et al. Intracoronary stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular ultrasound guidance. Circulation 1995; 91:1676.
  103. Schömig A, Neumann FJ, Kastrati A, et al. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1084.
  104. De Labriolle A, Bonello L, Lemesle G, et al. Decline in platelet count in patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: definition, incidence, prognostic importance, and predictive factors. Eur Heart J 2010; 31:1079.
  105. Addala S, Kahn JK, Moccia TF, et al. Outcome of ventricular fibrillation developing during percutaneous coronary interventions in 19,497 patients without cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96:764.
  106. Mehta RH, Harjai KJ, Grines L, et al. Sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory among patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention: incidence, predictors, and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43:1765.
  107. Samore MH, Wessolossky MA, Lewis SM, et al. Frequency, risk factors, and outcome for bacteremia after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1997; 79:873.
  108. Cleveland KO, Gelfand MS. Invasive staphylococcal infections complicating percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: three cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 21:93.
  109. Weisz G, Metzger DC, Caputo RP, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61:1596.
  110. Plourde G, Pancholy SB, Nolan J, et al. Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015; 386:2192.
  111. Rihal CS, Sutton-Tyrrell K, Guo P, et al. Increased incidence of periprocedural complications among patients with peripheral vascular disease undergoing myocardial revascularization in the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation. Circulation 1999; 100:171.
  112. Chambers CE, Dehmer GJ, Cox DA, et al. Defining the length of stay following percutaneous coronary intervention: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 73:847.
  113. Brayton KM, Patel VG, Stave C, et al. Same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:275.
  114. Rao SV, Kaltenbach LA, Weintraub WS, et al. Prevalence and outcomes of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention among older patients. JAMA 2011; 306:1461.
  115. Abdelaal E, Rao SV, Gilchrist IC, et al. Same-day discharge compared with overnight hospitalization after uncomplicated percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6:99.
  116. Curtis JP, Schreiner G, Wang Y, et al. All-cause readmission and repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention in a cohort of medicare patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:903.
  117. Khawaja FJ, Shah ND, Lennon RJ, et al. Factors associated with 30-day readmission rates after percutaneous coronary intervention. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:112.
Topic Outline