Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 16, 2026

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
In-hospital outcomes of ad hoc versus planned PCI for unprotected left-main disease: An analysis of 8574 cases from
Tim Kinnaird1, Sean Gallagher1, Vasim Farooq1
1Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Insights
Ad hoc unprotected left main stem PCI (uLMS-PCI) is linked to worse in-hospital outcomes than planned procedures. These findings highlight the need for careful procedural planning in uLMS-PCI cases.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Health Outcomes Research
Background:
- Existing data suggests similar outcomes for ad hoc versus planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in general.
- However, specific data regarding ad hoc unprotected left main stem PCI (uLMS-PCI) outcomes is limited.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare in-hospital outcomes between ad hoc and planned uLMS-PCI procedures.
- To identify potential differences in procedural characteristics and complications.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of UK patients undergoing uLMS-PCI between 2006-2018.
- Exclusion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or emergency PCI indications.
- Comparison of outcomes between ad hoc and planned PCI groups.
Main Results:
- Out of 8574 uLMS-PCI procedures, 33.1% were performed ad hoc.
- Ad hoc PCI was associated with less intervention for stable angina and more potent P2Y12 inhibitor use.
- Higher rates of acute procedural complications (slow flow, dissection, shock induction) and in-hospital adverse events (death, MACE) were observed in the ad hoc group.
Conclusions:
- Ad hoc uLMS-PCI is associated with increased risks of procedural complications and adverse in-hospital outcomes compared to planned uLMS-PCI.
- These findings underscore the importance of strategic planning for uLMS-PCI procedures.
Background:
Although data suggests ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in similar patient outcomes compared to planned PCI in nonselected patients, data for ad hoc unprotected left main stem PCI (uLMS-PCI) are lacking.
Aim:
To determine if in-hospital outcomes of uLMS-PCI vary by ad hoc versus planned basis.
Methods:
Data were analyzed from all patients undergoing uLMS-PCI in the United Kingdom 2006-2018, and patients grouped into uLMS-PCI undertaken on an ad hoc or a planned basis. Patients who presented with ST-segment elevation, cardiogenic shock, or with an emergency PCI indication were excluded.
Results:
In total, 8574 uLMS-PCI procedures were undertaken with 2837 (33.1%) of procedures performed on an ad hoc basis. There was a lower likelihood of intervention for stable angina (28.8% vs. 53.8%, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use (16.4% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.001) in the ad hoc PCI group compared to the planned PCI group. Patients undergoing uLMS-PCI on an ad hoc basis tended to undergo less complex procedures. Acute procedural complications including slow flow (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-2.86), coronary dissection (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.12-1.77) and shock induction (OR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.64-4.78) were more likely in the ad hoc PCI group. In-hospital death (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19-2.27) and in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13-1.98) occurred more frequently in the ad hoc group. In sensitivity analyses, these observations did not differ when several subgroups were separately examined.
Conclusions:
Ad hoc PCI for uLMS disease is associated with adverse outcomes compared to planned PCI. These data should inform uLMS-PCI procedural planning.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiac Catheterization III: Left Heart Catheterization
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care

