A Practical Update on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) for the General Physician, Answering Questions of Patient Type, Timing, and Device Choice
- 1Department of Cardiology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, People’s Republic of China
- 2Department of Medicine, MK Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abstract
Background: Since its inception in the 1970s, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has undergone significant advances. This review provides an updated perspective on PCI to assist general physicians in navigating various clinical presentations, determining the appropriate patient and optimal timing for intervention, as well as selecting appropriate devices for different populations.
Methods: Clinical trials from a targeted three-stage PubMed search, focusing on PCI indications, procedural timing, and device selection, were analyzed and integrated with consensus guidelines from leading cardiology organizations.
Results: For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), PCI is recommended within 12 h of the onset of symptoms, ideally achieving a door-to-balloon time of 90–120 min from the first medical contact. Beyond the 12 h mark, the procedure remains indicated for those exhibiting persistent ischemia, clinical symptoms, or complications such as shock, arrhythmia, or heart failure. In cases of non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients generally benefit from PCI during their initial hospital stay, although an early invasive approach may not provide clinical advantages for frail elderly individuals. Complete revascularization is typically favored over treating only the culprit lesion, except in instances of cardiogenic shock. For those with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), while PCI enhances quality of life and improves symptom management, most clinical trials report that it does not significantly reduce mortality or major cardiovascular incidents. The initial plain old balloon angioplasty faced complications of restenosis and acute vessel closure. While bare metal stents addressed acute closure, the problem of restenosis persisted and stent thrombosis was noted. Current drug-eluting stents (DESs) are the preferred choice owing to superior clinical outcomes, with lower restenosis and stent thrombosis rates. Although theoretically ideal, bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) are still undergoing further research since they have yet to prove superior to DESs in clinical trials. In addition, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have become a specialized treatment, especially for managing in-stent restenosis.
Conclusion: The necessity for and timing of PCI are dictated by the patient’s specific clinical presentation. Immediate intervention is critical for STEMI patients, within 12 h of onset, or those with complications, while NSTEMI cases should be treated during the hospital admission. For CCS, PCI serves as an elective option to alleviate symptoms without altering long-term survival. The DES remains the primary tool in modern PCI, with BRS still undergoing research trials and DCBs serving specialized roles.
Related
- Comparison of the performance of large language models (ChatGPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1, and Claude 4.6) in answering pharmacology questions
- Performance of large language models in answering orthodontic questions: A scoping review.
- Do question type and topic affect the performance of large language models in answering periodontology questions? A comparative study
- Performance of Large Language Models in Answering Otolaryngology Clinical Questions in Non‐English Languages
- Medical content quality and radiologist-rated patient understandability of three large language model systems answering patient questions about renal cystic lesions: A blinded, Paired, multi-reader study
BibTeX
@article{ong2026practical,
title = {{A Practical Update on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) for the General Physician, Answering Questions of Patient Type, Timing, and Device Choice}},
author = {Hean Teik Ong and Choon Yong Alex Tan and Zhao Wei Zhu and Shenghua Zhou},
journal = {International Journal of General Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.2147/ijgm.s602972},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2147/ijgm.s602972},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - A Practical Update on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) for the General Physician, Answering Questions of Patient Type, Timing, and Device Choice
AU - Hean Teik Ong
AU - Choon Yong Alex Tan
AU - Zhao Wei Zhu
AU - Shenghua Zhou
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
JO - International Journal of General Medicine
DO - 10.2147/ijgm.s602972
UR - https://doi.org/10.2147/ijgm.s602972
AB - Background: Since its inception in the 1970s, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has undergone significant advances. This review provides an updated perspective on PCI to assist general physicians in navigating various clinical presentations, determining the appropriate patient and optimal timing for intervention, as well as selecting appropriate devices for different populations. Methods: Clinical trials from a targeted three-stage PubMed search, focusing on PCI indications, procedural timing, and device selection, were analyzed and integrated with consensus guidelines from leading cardiology organizations. Results: For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), PCI is recommended within 12 h of the onset of symptoms, ideally achieving a door-to-balloon time of 90–120 min from the first medical contact. Beyond the 12 h mark, the procedure remains indicated for those exhibiting persistent ischemia, clinical symptoms, or complications such as shock, arrhythmia, or heart failure. In cases of non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients generally benefit from PCI during their initial hospital stay, although an early invasive approach may not provide clinical advantages for frail elderly individuals. Complete revascularization is typically favored over treating only the culprit lesion, except in instances of cardiogenic shock. For those with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), while PCI enhances quality of life and improves symptom management, most clinical trials report that it does not significantly reduce mortality or major cardiovascular incidents. The initial plain old balloon angioplasty faced complications of restenosis and acute vessel closure. While bare metal stents addressed acute closure, the problem of restenosis persisted and stent thrombosis was noted. Current drug-eluting stents (DESs) are the preferred choice owing to superior clinical outcomes, with lower restenosis and stent thrombosis rates. Although theoretically ideal, bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) are still undergoing further research since they have yet to prove superior to DESs in clinical trials. In addition, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have become a specialized treatment, especially for managing in-stent restenosis. Conclusion: The necessity for and timing of PCI are dictated by the patient’s specific clinical presentation. Immediate intervention is critical for STEMI patients, within 12 h of onset, or those with complications, while NSTEMI cases should be treated during the hospital admission. For CCS, PCI serves as an elective option to alleviate symptoms without altering long-term survival. The DES remains the primary tool in modern PCI, with BRS still undergoing research trials and DCBs serving specialized roles.
SN - 1178-7074
ER -