You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
Recent advances in percutaneous coronary intervention
  1. Stephen P Hoole,
  2. Paul Bambrough
  1. Interventional Cardiology, Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Stephen P Hoole, Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0AY, UK; s.hoole{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to advance at pace with an ever-broadening indication. In this article we will review the recent technological advances in PCI that have enabled more complex coronary disease to be treated. The choice of revascularisation strategy must take into account the evidence—just because we can treat by PCI does not necessarily mean we should. When PCI is indicated, a safe, precision PCI approach guided by physiology, imaging and optimal lesion preparation should be the goal to obtain complete revascularisation and a durable long-term result. When these standards are adhered to, the outcomes can be excellent, in even complex coronary disease. We provide contemporary trial evidence to justify PCI and treatment algorithms that ensure optimal revascularisation decision making to achieve the best patient outcomes.

  • percutaneous coronary intervention

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2019-315707

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Correction notice Since the online publication of this article, Figure 3 has been replaced as it was a duplicate of Figure 2.

    • Contributors PB and SPH contributed equally to the planning, reporting and writing of the work in this review article. SPH is the overall guarantor.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests SPH has participated in advisory boards and provided educational content for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.