Outcomes of 1,090 consecutive, elective, nonselected percutaneous coronary interventions at a community hospital without onsite cardiac surgery

Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals With and Without On-Site Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

BACKGROUND

Many studies have revealed no outcome differences among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in hospitals with and without surgery on-site (SOS), but one earlier study found differences in target vessel PCI rates and in mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction who did not undergo PCI. It is important to examine outcome differences between SOS and non-SOS hospitals with more contemporary data.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 21 924 propensity-matched patients who were discharged between January 1, 2013, and November 30, 2015, who were in the New York PCI registry and other hospital databases were used to compare outcomes in hospitals with and without SOS for all patients and for patients with and without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PCI. Also, 30-day mortality was compared for patients with STEMI regardless of whether they underwent PCI. For all patients with PCI and patients without STEMI, there were no significant differences in in-hospital/30-day mortality, 2-year mortality, or 2-year repeat target lesion PCI. For patients with STEMI, there were no significant mortality differences between patients in SOS and non-SOS hospitals. Patients with STEMI in SOS hospitals had significantly lower 2-year repeat target lesion PCI rates (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68 [0.49-0.94]). There was no difference in the percentage of patients undergoing PCI in the 2 types of hospitals (75.7% versus 74.6%; P=0.21) or in 30-day mortality of all patients with STEMI (patients who did and did not undergo PCI, 10.86% versus 11.32%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [0.88-1.29]).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term and long-term outcomes were not different in SOS and non-SOS hospitals except that 2-year repeat target lesion PCI rates were lower in SOS hospitals for patients with STEMI.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention at Centers With and Without On-Site Surgical Backup

Background—

Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting for unsuccessful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is now rare. We aimed to evaluate the current safety and outcomes of primary PCI and nonprimary PCI at centers with and without on-site surgical backup.

Methods and Results—

We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis by using mixed-effects models. We included 23 high-quality studies that compared clinical outcomes and complication rates of 1 101 123 patients after PCI at centers with or without on-site surgery. For primary PCI for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (133 574 patients), all-cause mortality (without on-site surgery versus with on-site surgery: observed rates, 4.8% versus 7.2%; pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.91–1.07; P =0.729; I 2 =3.4%) or emergency coronary artery bypass grafting rates (observed rates, 1.5% versus 2.4%; pooled OR, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56–1.01; P =0.062; I 2 =42.5%) did not differ by presence of on-site surgery. For nonprimary PCI (967 549 patients), all-cause mortality (observed rates, 1.6% versus 2.1%; pooled OR, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.94–1.41; P =0.172; I 2 =67.5%) and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting rates (observed rates, 0.5% versus 0.8%; pooled OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–2.13; P =0.669; I 2 =81.7%) were not significantly different. PCI complication rates (cardiogenic shock, stroke, aortic dissection, tamponade, recurrent infarction) also did not differ by on-site surgical capability. Cumulative meta-analysis of nonprimary PCI showed a temporal decrease of the effect size (OR) for all-cause mortality after 2007.

Conclusions—

Clinical outcomes and complication rates of PCI at centers without on-site surgery did not differ from those with on-site surgery, for both primary and nonprimary PCI. Temporal trends indicated improving clinical outcomes in nonprimary PCI at centers without on-site surgery.

Comparison of procedural complications with versus without interventional cardiology fellows-in-training during contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention

Despite increasing complexity of contemporary procedures at tertiary care hospitals, the relationship between interventional cardiology fellows-in-training (ICFITs) and complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been reported. We compiled logbooks of 6 ICFITs at an academic hospital and evaluated patient and procedural characteristics of PCIs performed with and without presence of an ICFIT. The primary end point was the composite of all in-hospital PCI complications defined by the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry: (1) catheterization laboratory events such as no-reflow and dissection/perforation, (2) general clinical events such as stroke or cardiogenic shock, (3) vascular and bleeding complications, and (4) miscellaneous complications such as peak troponin or creatinine levels. Logistic regression adjusted for differences in measured confounders between patients treated with and without presence of an ICFIT. All analyses were repeated after excluding PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Of 2,605 PCI procedures at the academic hospital between July 2007 and April 2010, an ICFIT was present for 1,638 procedures (63%). Despite having worse clinical and procedural characteristics, patients in the ICFIT group experienced similar rates of the composite end point (12.9% vs 14.5% without ICFIT, p = 0.27). Longer mean fluoroscopy times and greater number of stents were noted in the ICFIT group; however, hospital length of stay was shorter and no individual adverse events were increased in the ICFIT procedures. Presence of an ICFIT remained unrelated to the composite end point after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.20; p = 0.53), and findings were similar after excluding PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. In conclusion, in contemporary practice at a large academic medical center, PCI complication rates were not adversely affected by the presence of an ICFIT.

The first year of the Venlo percutaneous coronary intervention program: procedural and 6-month clinical outcomes

Objectives

Analysis of the first results of off-site percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements at VieCuri Medical Centre for Northern Limburg in Venlo.

Background

Off-site PCI is accepted in the European and American Cardiac Guidelines as the need for PCI increases and it has been proven to be a safe treatment option for acute coronary syndrome.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study reporting characteristics, PCI and FFR specifications, complications and 6-month follow-up for all consecutive patients from the beginning of off-site PCI in Venlo until July 2012. If possible, the data were compared with those of Medical Centre Alkmaar, the first off-site PCI centre in the Netherlands.

Results

Of the 333 patients, 19 (5.7 %) had a procedural complication. At 6 months, a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) occurred in 43 (13.1 %) patients. There were no deaths or emergency surgery related to the PCI or FFR procedures. There was no significant difference in occurrence of a MACE or adverse cerebral event between the Alkmaar and Venlo population in the 30-day follow-up.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates off-site PCI at VieCuri Venlo to have a high success rate. Furthermore, there was a low complication rate, low MACE and no procedure-related mortality.

Nonemergency PCI at hospitals with or without on-site cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Emergency surgery has become a rare event after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether having cardiac-surgery services available on-site is essential for ensuring the best possible outcomes during and after PCI remains uncertain.

METHODS

We enrolled patients with indications for nonemergency PCI who presented at hospitals in Massachusetts without on-site cardiac surgery and randomly assigned these patients, in a 3:1 ratio, to undergo PCI at that hospital or at a partner hospital that had cardiac surgery services available. A total of 10 hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery and 7 with on-site cardiac surgery participated. The coprimary end points were the rates of major adverse cardiac events--a composite of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, or stroke--at 30 days (safety end point) and at 12 months (effectiveness end point). The primary end points were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle and were tested with the use of multiplicative noninferiority margins of 1.5 (for safety) and 1.3 (for effectiveness).

RESULTS

A total of 3691 patients were randomly assigned to undergo PCI at a hospital without on-site cardiac surgery (2774 patients) or at a hospital with on-site cardiac surgery (917 patients). The rates of major adverse cardiac events were 9.5% in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery and 9.4% in hospitals with on-site cardiac surgery at 30 days (relative risk, 1.00; 95% one-sided upper confidence limit, 1.22; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 17.3% and 17.8%, respectively, at 12 months (relative risk, 0.98; 95% one-sided upper confidence limit, 1.13; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke (the components of the primary end point) did not differ significantly between the groups at either time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonemergency PCI procedures performed at hospitals in Massachusetts without on-site surgical services were noninferior to procedures performed at hospitals with on-site surgical services with respect to the 30-day and 1-year rates of clinical events. (Funded by the participating hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery; MASS COM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01116882.).

Current state of the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in centres without on-site cardiac surgery

Before the routine use of coronary stents, potential complications of percutaneous coronary interventions required the presence of backup cardiac surgery on-site. Advances in pharmacotherapy and interventional techniques, particularly in the last decade, have significantly decreased the rates of complications requiring emergency cardiac surgery, from approximately 4% to 6% in the balloon angioplasty era to as low as 0.3% to 0.6% in the contemporary era of routine intracoronary stent implantation. An early invasive approach has been shown to improve outcomes among patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS), particularly in those at the highest risk, emphasising the importance of early access to revascularisation premises in such patients. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction require immediate and sustained recanalisation of the culprit vessel to obtain rapid reperfusion of the threatened myocardium, in order to reduce infarct size and improve outcomes. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery improves clinical outcomes and reduces length of stay when compared with fibrinolytic therapy. It also significantly reduces door-to-balloon times when compared with transfer for percutaneous coronary interventions at hospitals with on-site surgery. It has been published that risk-adjusted mortality rates for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in centres without on-site surgical backup are comparable with those of percutaneous coronary intervention facilities that have cardiac surgery on-site, regardless of whether percutaneous coronary intervention was performed as primary therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or in a non-primary setting. To achieve these results however, an adequate percutaneous coronary intervention programme is required, including proper hospital infrastructure and appropriately trained interventional cardiologists.

Helicopter EMS: Research Endpoints and Potential Benefits

Patients, EMS systems, and healthcare regions benefit from Helicopter EMS (HEMS) utilization. This article discusses these benefits in terms of specific endpoints utilized in research projects. The endpoint of interest, be it primary, secondary, or surrogate, is important to understand in the deployment of HEMS resources or in planning further HEMS outcomes research. The most important outcomes are those which show potential benefits to the patients, such as functional survival, pain relief, and earlier ALS care. Case reports are also important "outcomes" publications. The benefits of HEMS in the rural setting is the ability to provide timely access to Level I or Level II trauma centers and in nontrauma, interfacility transport of cardiac, stroke, and even sepsis patients. Many HEMS crews have pharmacologic and procedural capabilities that bring a different level of care to a trauma scene or small referring hospital, especially in the rural setting. Regional healthcare and EMS system's benefit from HEMS by their capability to extend the advanced level of care throughout a region, provide a "backup" for areas with limited ALS coverage, minimize transport times, make available direct transport to specialized centers, and offer flexibility of transport in overloaded hospital systems.

Percutaneous coronary interventions in facilities without cardiac surgery on site

Prior to the widespread adoption of intracoronary stent implantation, potential complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) necessitated the presence of backup cardiac surgery. However, as stent implantation has become the predominant form of PCI, the incidence of emergent cardiac surgery has declined exponentially. Despite this, current guidelines recommend against the performance of elective PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery and recommend that primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) might be considered at hospitals without backup cardiac surgery. These recommendations are based predominantly on two principles: (1) hospital volume for PCI is strongly associated with clinical outcomes, and (2) results from a large registry study, in which the authors reported a substantial increase in mortality among patients undergoing non-primary/rescue PCI at hospitals without backup cardiac surgery. Since that time, evidence from multiple studies has suggested that performance of PCI at hospitals without backup cardiac surgery is feasible, safe, and both clinically and cost effective. Among STEMI patients, in particular, performance of primary PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery reduces time to reperfusion and subsequent adverse cardiovascular events as well as likely reducing infarct size. In this review, we will examine the evidence surrounding the performance of PCI for stable and unstable coronary disease at hospitals without on-site backup cardiac surgery.

Safety and efficacy of offsite percutaneous coronary interventions in 1,348 consecutive patients in rural Tasmania

Despite controversy, a growing body of data exists suggesting that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with no surgical onsite availability is safe and efficacious. Over a period of 3 years all patients requiring PCI had their intervention performed at the Launceston General Hospital, a regional hospital serving rural Tasmania, Australia. There were no exclusion criteria uniformly adopted. Primary end points included angiographic success and major procedure-related complications. A total cohort of 1,348 consecutive patients underwent PCI during the calendar years of 2005 through 2007, including patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Angiographic success for all patients was >98%. In-hospital mortality was 0.8% overall. Only 1 patient required urgent transfer to a cardiac surgical center. Bleeding rates requiring transfusion were approximately 1%. Excellent clinical outcomes have been achieved in a relatively remote PCI center in rural, northern Tasmania, where there is no emergency cardiac surgical availability. Angiographic success was high and complication rates were low, consistent with worldwide standards. In conclusion, PCI without onsite surgery appears safe and efficacious when well-trained staffing is available.