Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With vs Without On-Site Cardiac Surgery Backup: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Interventional cardiology. Nonprimary PCI at centres without onsite surgical backup

A new systematic review and meta-analysis by Lee and colleagues confirms the safety of nonprimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at centres without onsite surgical backup. In daily clinical practice at PCI centres without onsite surgical facilities, quality assurance and improvement programmes are important to ensure high-quality care.

Quality Markers in Cardiology. Main Markers to Measure Quality of Results (Outcomes) and Quality Measures Related to Better Results in Clinical Practice (Performance Metrics). INCARDIO (Indicadores de Calidad en Unidades Asistenciales del Área del Corazón): A SEC/SECTCV Consensus Position Paper

Cardiology practice requires complex organization that impacts overall outcomes and may differ substantially among hospitals and communities. The aim of this consensus document is to define quality markers in cardiology, including markers to measure the quality of results (outcomes metrics) and quality measures related to better results in clinical practice (performance metrics). The document is mainly intended for the Spanish health care system and may serve as a basis for similar documents in other countries.

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.