Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 16, 2026

Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and
James C Blankenship1, Osvaldo S Gigliotti, Dmitriy N Feldman
1Department of Cardiology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania 17822, USA. jblankenship@geisinger.edu
Insights
Ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed during the same session as diagnostic catheterization offer convenience and cost-efficiency. While generally safe and effective, delayed PCI may be preferable in specific patient subsets for optimal outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) can be done immediately (ad hoc PCI) or later (delayed PCI) after diagnostic catheterization.
- Ad hoc PCI is increasingly common, especially for acute coronary syndromes, but its use in stable ischemic heart disease is debated.
- Existing cohort studies show no consistent differences in safety or efficacy between ad hoc and delayed PCI.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review patient subsets and clinical situations where ad hoc PCI or delayed PCI is preferable.
- To analyze the appropriateness of ad hoc PCI for stable ischemic heart disease.
- To discuss patient and payer perspectives on ad hoc PCI.
Main Methods:
- Review of existing randomized trials and cohort studies comparing ad hoc PCI and delayed PCI.
- Analysis of clinical evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of both strategies.
- Identification of specific patient groups and clinical scenarios favoring one strategy over the other.
Main Results:
- The majority of data indicate equivalent outcomes between ad hoc and delayed PCI.
- Patient preference for convenience and payer preference for cost-efficiency favor ad hoc PCI.
- Certain clinical situations and patient subsets may benefit more from delayed PCI.
Conclusions:
- Ad hoc PCI is a convenient and cost-efficient strategy with generally equivalent outcomes to delayed PCI.
- Careful preprocedural planning and reassessment are crucial for appropriate ad hoc PCI in stable ischemic heart disease.
- Delayed PCI may be safer or yield better outcomes in specific clinical contexts, necessitating individualized treatment decisions.
Abstract:
Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) may be performed during the same session as diagnostic catheterization (ad hoc PCI) or at a later session (delayed PCI). Randomized trials comparing these strategies have not been performed; cohort studies have not identified consistent differences in safety or efficacy between the two strategies. Ad hoc PCI has increased in prevalence over the past decade and is the default strategy for treating acute coronary syndromes. However, questions about its appropriateness for some patients with stable symptoms have been raised by the results of recent large trials comparing PCI to medical therapy or bypass surgery. Ad hoc PCI for stable ischemic heart disease requires preprocedural planning, and reassessment after diagnostic angiography must be performed to ensure its appropriateness. Patients may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is convenient. Payers may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is cost-efficient. The majority of data confirm equivalent outcomes in ad hoc versus delayed PCI. However, there are some situations in which delayed PCI may be safer or yield better outcomes. This document reviews patient subsets and clinical situations in which one strategy is preferable over the other.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Angina IV: Management
