A Total of 1,007 Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Without Onsite Cardiac Surgery

Balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes by procedure location: Catheterization laboratory versus operating room

BACKGROUND

The impact of procedure location on clinical outcomes after TAVR remains unclear. We aimed to compare short-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the catheterization laboratory (CATH) versus surgical operating room (OR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of 63,581 trans-femoral TAVR patients using balloon-expandable valves from 2015 to 2018 were captured utilizing the TVT Registry. Propensity score matching was performed using 24 covariates resulting in 2 risk-adjusted groups. Patients were further stratified by STS Risk Score with outcomes compared.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 24,160 risk-matched CATH and OR patient pairs. Short-term clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, and new dialysis were similar between CATH and OR (p = all ns). There was no difference in conversion to open heart surgery between CATH and OR with both occurring at a very low rate (0.4% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.07). Moreover, the 30-day survival post-conversion was similar whether TAVR was performed in CATH versus OR (43.3% and 49.7%, p = 0.28). When stratified by STS Risk Score, there was no difference in conversion to surgery or 30-day mortality in low and intermediate risk patients between CATH and OR. For high risk patients, however, conversion to surgery was lower in CATH vs. OR (0.2% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.04) with no difference in 30-day survival (46% vs. 43%, p = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Procedure location has minimal impact on TAVR procedural and 30-day outcomes with a very low conversion to open surgery rate between CATH versus OR for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients.

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.

Off-site primary percutaneous coronary intervention in a new centre is safe: comparing clinical outcomes with a hospital with surgical backup

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the procedural and clinical outcomes of a new primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) centre without surgical back-up (off-site PCI) and to investigate whether these results are comparable with a high volume on-site PCI centre in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains about the safety and efficacy of PPCI in off-site PCI centres.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed clinical and procedural data as well as 6‑month follow-up of 226 patients diagnosed with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent PPCI at VieCuri Medical Centre Venlo and 115 STEMI patients who underwent PPCI at Catharina Hospital Eindhoven.

RESULTS

PPCI patients in VieCuri Medical Centre had similar procedural and clinical outcomes to those in Catharina Hospital. Overall there were no significant differences. The occurrence of procedural complications was low in both groups (8.4 % VieCuri vs. 12.3 % Catharina Hospital). In the VieCuri group there was one procedural-related death. No patients in either group needed emergency surgery. At 30 days, 17 (7.9 %) patients in the VieCuri group and 9 (8.1 %) in the Catharina Hospital group had a major adverse cardiac event.

CONCLUSION

Performing PPCI in an off-site PCI centre is safe and effective. The study results show that the procedural and clinical outcomes of an off-site PPCI centre are comparable with an on-site high-volume PPCI centre.

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.

Assessment of individual operator performance using a risk-adjustment model for percutaneous coronary interventions

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the applicability of the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS) in the assessment of performance metrics of individual interventional cardiologists at 3 Mayo Clinic sites.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

We evaluated the risk-adjusted performance of 21 interventional cardiologists who performed 8187 percutaneous coronary intervention procedures at 3 Mayo Clinic sites from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2010. Observed mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (eg, death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, urgent or emergent coronary artery bypass graft, and stroke), and expected risk were estimated using the MCRS. To compare individual performance against the other operators, risk estimates were recalibrated by excluding the individual performer from logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The log odds ratio for observed vs estimated risk was estimated for each interventional cardiologist, and their individual effects were then plotted on a normal probability plot to identify outliers. Observed in-hospital mortality was not different than expected (1.8% vs 1.6%; P=.24); however, the postprocedural MACE rate was lower than predicted (observed, 2.7%; expected, 3.8%; P<.001). All but one interventional cardiologist had MACE and death rates within the expected variation. Detailed assessment of that operator's risk performance produced excellent outcomes (observed vs expected MACE rate, 1.0% vs 4.4%).

CONCLUSION

The MCRS can serve as a tool for the assessment of performance metrics for interventional cardiologists, and risk-adjusted outcomes may serve as a better surrogate for institutional quality metrics.

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.

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.

Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Propensity-score matching is frequently used in the cardiology literature. Recent systematic reviews have found that this method is, in general, poorly implemented in the medical literature. The study objective was to examine the quality of the implementation of propensity-score matching in the general cardiology literature.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 44 articles published in the American Heart Journal, the American Journal of Cardiology, Circulation, the European Heart Journal, Heart, the International Journal of Cardiology, and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2006, were examined. Twenty of the 44 studies did not provide adequate information on how the propensity-score-matched pairs were formed. Fourteen studies did not report whether matching on the propensity score balanced baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects in the matched sample. Only 4 studies explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for matched studies to compare baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects. Only 11 (25%) of the 44 studies explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the effect of treatment on the outcomes. Only 2 studies described the matching method used, assessed balance in baseline covariates by appropriate methods, and used appropriate statistical methods to estimate the treatment effect and its significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of propensity-score matching was poor in the cardiology literature. Suggestions for improving the reporting and analysis of studies that use propensity-score matching are provided.

Outcomes for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals With and Without Onsite Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Background— The benefit of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (P-PCI) for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been well documented. However, controversy still exists as to whether PCI should be expanded to hospitals without coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Methods and Results— Patients who were discharged after PCI for STEMI between January 1, 2003, and December 12, 2006, in P-PCI centers (hospitals with no coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and PCI only for patients with STEMI) were propensity matched with patients in full service centers, and mortality and subsequent revascularization rates were compared. For patients undergoing PCI, there were no differences for in-hospital/30-day mortality (2.3% for P-PCI centers versus 1.9% for full service centers [ P =0.40]), emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery immediately after PCI (0.06% versus 0.35%, P =0.06), 3-year mortality (7.1% versus 5.9%, P =0.07), or 3-year subsequent revascularization (23.8% versus 21.5%, P =0.52). P-PCI centers had a lower same/next day coronary artery bypass graft rate (0.23% versus 0.69%, P =0.046) and higher repeat target vessel PCI rates (12.1% versus 9.0%, P =0.003). For patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI, P-PCI centers had higher in-hospital mortality (28.5% versus 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.75).

Conclusions— No differences between P-PCI centers and full service centers were found in in-hospital/30-day mortality, the need for emergency surgery, 3-year mortality or subsequent revascularization, but P-PCI centers had higher repeat target vessel PCI rates and higher mortality rates for patients who did not undergo PCI. P-PCI centers should be monitored closely, including the monitoring of patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI.

Outcomes Among Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Presenting to Interventional Hospitals With and Without On-Site Cardiac Surgery

Background— Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The quality of care and safety and efficacy of pPCI at hospitals without on-site open heart surgery (No-OHS hospitals) remains an area of active investigation.

Methods and Results— The National Registry of Myocardial Infarction enrolled 58 821 STEMI patients from 214 OHS hospitals (n=54 076) and 52 No-OHS hospitals (n=4745) with PCI capabilities from 2004 to 2006. Patients presenting to OHS hospitals had substantially lower in-hospital mortality (7.0% versus 9.8%, P <0.001) and were more likely to receive any form of acute reperfusion therapy (80.8% versus 70.8%, P <0.001). Patients who presented to OHS hospitals were more likely to receive guideline recommended medications within 24 hours of arrival. In a propensity score model matching for patient characteristics and transfer status, in-hospital mortality remained significantly lower among patients presenting to OHS hospitals (7.2% versus 9.3%, P =0.025). When this model was further adjusted for differences in the use of acute reperfusion therapy, medications administered within 24 hours and hospital characteristics, the mortality difference was of borderline significance (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01; P =0.067). When the propensity score analysis was restricted to patients who underwent pPCI, there was no significant difference in mortality (3.8% versus 3.3%, P =0.44).

Conclusions— STEMI patients presenting to No-OHS hospitals have substantially higher mortality, are less likely to receive guideline recommended medications within 24 hours, and are less likely to undergo acute reperfusion therapy, although this difference was of borderline significance after adjusting for hospital and treatment variables. There was no difference in mortality among patients undergoing pPCI.

Outcomes of a system-wide protocol for elective and nonelective coronary angioplasty at sites without on-site surgery: the Mayo Clinic experience

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) at 2 community hospitals without on-site surgery (Franciscan Skemp Healthcare and Immanuel St. Joseph's Hospital) with a center with on-site surgery (Saint Marys Hospital).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a matched case-control design, we studied 1842 elective and 667 nonelective PCI procedures (myocardial infarction [MI]/cardiogenic shock) performed from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2007. The quality assurance protocol included operator volume and training, application of a risk-adjustment model, transport protocol, and database participation. We compared in-hospital mortality and/or emergent coronary artery bypass surgery after PCI at Franciscan Skemp Healthcare and Immanuel St. Joseph's Hospital, which do not have on-site surgery, with Saint Marys Hospital, a medical center with the capability to perform coronary artery bypass grafting on site.

RESULTS

Of 22 baseline variables, significant imbalances between matched groups were present in only 3 (hyperlipidemia, history of MI, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association B2/C type lesion) in the elective group and 2 (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III/IV angina, multivessel disease) in the nonelective group. The primary end point occurred in 0.3%, 0.1%, and 0.6% of patients undergoing elective PCI (P=.07) and 3.3%, 3.3%, and 3.7% of patients undergoing nonelective PCI (P=.65) at Immanuel St. Joseph's Hospital, Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, and Saint Marys Hospital, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate at Immanuel St. Joseph's Hospital and Franciscan Skemp Healthcare was comparable to that at Saint Marys Hospital for both elective (0.3%, 0.1%, 0.4%; P=.24) and nonelective PCI (2.6%, 2.4%, 3.1%; P=.49). No patient undergoing elective PCI required transfer for emergency cardiac surgery. Of the 21 transfers, 20 (95%) were in the setting of MI and cardiogenic shock or left main/3-vessel disease; 18 patients (86%) survived to discharge.

CONCLUSION

Optimal outcomes with PCI have been observed at community hospitals without on-site cardiac surgical programs with application of a prospective, standardized quality assurance protocol.

Outcomes of a system-wide protocol for elective and nonelective coronary angioplasty at sites without on-site surgery: the Mayo Clinic experience

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) at 2 community hospitals without on-site surgery (Franciscan Skemp Healthcare and Immanuel St. Joseph's Hospital) with a center with on-site surgery (Saint Marys Hospital).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a matched case-control design, we studied 1842 elective and 667 nonelective PCI procedures (myocardial infarction [MI]/cardiogenic shock) performed from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2007. The quality assurance protocol included operator volume and training, application of a risk-adjustment model, transport protocol, and database participation. We compared in-hospital mortality and/or emergent coronary artery bypass surgery after PCI at Franciscan Skemp Healthcare and Immanuel St. Joseph's Hospital, which do not have on-site surgery, with Saint Marys Hospital, a medical center with the capability to perform coronary artery bypass grafting on site.

RESULTS

Of 22 baseline variables, significant imbalances between matched groups were present in only 3 (hyperlipidemia, history of MI, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association B2/C type lesion) in the elective group and 2 (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III/IV angina, multivessel disease) in the nonelective group. The primary end point occurred in 0.3%, 0.1%, and 0.6% of patients undergoing elective PCI (P=.07) and 3.3%, 3.3%, and 3.7% of patients undergoing nonelective PCI (P=.65) at Immanuel St. Joseph's Hospital, Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, and Saint Marys Hospital, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate at Immanuel St. Joseph's Hospital and Franciscan Skemp Healthcare was comparable to that at Saint Marys Hospital for both elective (0.3%, 0.1%, 0.4%; P=.24) and nonelective PCI (2.6%, 2.4%, 3.1%; P=.49). No patient undergoing elective PCI required transfer for emergency cardiac surgery. Of the 21 transfers, 20 (95%) were in the setting of MI and cardiogenic shock or left main/3-vessel disease; 18 patients (86%) survived to discharge.

CONCLUSION

Optimal outcomes with PCI have been observed at community hospitals without on-site cardiac surgical programs with application of a prospective, standardized quality assurance protocol.

Differences between early, intermediate, and late angioplasty after coronary artery bypass grafting

The aim of the present study was to identify patients with recurrent ischemia after coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Graft failure after CABG may be managed conservatively or treated by surgery or PCI. We thought to investigate clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics in relation to clinical outcome. This was a retrospective single-center study. Patients who underwent revascularization by PCI with a previous CABG were analyzed. Patients were divided in 3 groups, depending on interval between CABG and index PCI: group 1, interval <72 hours; group 2, interval between 72 hours and 1 year; group 3, interval >1 year. Two hundred twenty-one patients were studied. Clinical characteristics and survival curves were comparable in groups 2 and 3. Postoperative creatine kinase MB and troponin values were significantly higher in group 1 (P = 0.000). From group 1, significantly more patients (10.5%) required emergency CABG after the index PCI than compared with group 2 (2.1%) and group 3 (0%), (P = 0.003). There were more off-pump CABGs in group 1 than in the other 2 groups. Group 1 received less PCIs in native ungrafted vessels compared with the other 2 groups. Mortality in group 1 (18.4%) was higher than in the other 2 groups (7.4 and 4.5%, respectively; P < 0.05). Mortality in group 1 was higher in the acute phase of follow-up. PCI performed less than 72 hours after CABG is feasible but accompanied by a higher mortality and redo CABG. This outcome is probably related to the high-risk patient category.

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.

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

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at a hospital without onsite cardiac surgery. A growing number of hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery perform elective PCI. Few hospitals have reported outcomes, despite controversy surrounding this practice. From August 2003 to December 2005, 1,090 elective PCI were performed at Saint Luke's South Hospital (SLS), a hospital without onsite cardiac surgery, for which the referral center is the Mid America Heart Institute (MAHI). The elective PCI program used experienced interventionalists, technicians, and nurses; a tested helicopter transport protocol; a well-equipped catheterization laboratory; and a quality assurance process. Baseline characteristics, procedural success, and adverse clinical outcomes were compared. Observed frequencies of in-hospital death, a combined end point of Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI)/emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, and vascular complications were compared with prediction models. SLS, with lower risk characteristics than MAHI, had unadjusted frequencies of procedural success (93% vs 94%, p = NS), Q-wave MI (0.3% vs 0.3%, p = NS), emergency CABG surgery (0.2% vs 0.03%, p = 0.09), vascular complications (0.6% vs 0.6%, p = NS), and in-hospital death (0.1% vs 0.8%, p = 0.002) that compared favorably with MAHI. Two patients transferred from SLS to MAHI for emergency CABG surgery without adverse effects. Fewer in-hospital deaths and vascular complications were observed at SLS than predicted by models. In conclusion, favorable clinical outcomes were achieved for elective PCI at a hospital without onsite cardiac surgery that used strict program requirements.

The incidence and cost of cardiac surgery adverse events in Australian (Victorian) hospitals 2003-2004

The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of adverse events in acute surgical admissions for cardiac disease in admitted episodes in the year 2003-2004 and to estimate the cost of these complications to the Victorian health system. Cardiac surgery adverse events are among the most frequent and significant contributors to the morbidity, mortality and cost associated with hospitalisation. Patient-level costing data set for major Victorian public hospitals in 2003-2004 was analysed for adverse events using C-prefixed markers, denoting complications that arose during the course of hospital treatment for cardiac surgery diagnosis related groups (DRGs). The cost of adverse events was estimated by linear regression modelling, adjusted for age and co-morbidity. A total of 16,766 multi-day cardiac disease cases were identified, of whom 6,181 (36.85%) had at least one adverse event. Patients with adverse events stayed approximately 7 days longer and had four times the case fatality rate than those without. After adjustment for age and co-morbidity, the presence of an adverse event adds AUS$5,751. The sum of the total cost of adverse events for each DRG was AUS$42.855 million, representing 21.6% of total expenditure on cardiac surgery and adding 27.5% in broad terms to the cardiac surgery budget.

Emergency cardiac surgery after a failed percutaneous coronary intervention in an interventional centre without on-site cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND.: Based on experience from other countries, the Medical Centre Alkmaar was granted permission to start the first Dutch PCI programme without on-site cardiac surgery. The cardiology group of the Medical Centre Alkmaar started an off-site PCI programme in 2002 with only primary PCI in the first year and a full PCI programme from November 2003 onwards. We report the first Dutch experience with acute cardiac surgery following a failed PCI procedure in an off-site clinic. PATIENTS.: From October 2002 until February 2007, 2500 patients were treated by PCI in the Medical Centre Alkmaar. These patients were treated for an acute myocardial infarction (33%), acute coronary syndromes (37%) or progressive angina (30%). In this first series of off-site PCI in the Netherlands, the incidence of emergency cardiac surgery following failed PCI was 0.2% All five patients who needed emergency surgery underwent elective PCI for progressive stable coronary artery disease. No emergency surgery was needed for primary PCIs in patients with an acute myocardial infarction. All patients survived emergency surgery following failed PCI. CONCLUSION.: Adherence to the Dutch guidelines of interventional cardiology with protocols describing a close collaboration with cardiac surgeons and an immediate availability of rapid ground transportation are mandatory when performing off-site PCI. This series extends the current expertise of emergency surgery after failed PCI to off-site clinics. With appropriate settings, off-site PCI may not be associated with an increase in the risk of adverse events. (Neth Heart J 2007;15:173-7.).

On-site surgical standby for percutaneous coronary intervention: a thing of the past?

Is the requirement for onsite surgical back-up in centres performing percutaneous coronary intervention still relevant today?

Frequency of percutaneous coronary interventions at facilities without on-site cardiac surgical backup--a report from the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR)

The practice of performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in centers without on-site cardiac surgical backup is controversial. Using data from facilities that participated in the American College of Cardiology/National Cardiovascular Data Registry, the incidence of PCI without on-site surgical backup was evaluated. From January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2004, 39 of 449 (8.7%) centers were identified as sites that performed PCI without on-site surgical backup. By the end of 2005, 75 of 463 (16%) participating facilities were performing PCI without on-site backup. By using standardized data element definitions, it was possible to differentiate between patients who underwent elective PCI and those who had urgent nonelective PCI for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. This analysis showed that the number of elective and nonelective PCI procedures with or without on-site surgical backup per quarter had increased significantly (p <0.0001) from 2001 to 2004. The number of PCI procedures performed without on-site surgical backup continued to increase in 2005. In conclusion, the significant increase in elective PCIs performed at facilities without on-site surgical backup occurred despite national guidelines that state elective PCI should not be done in centers without on-site cardiac surgery.

In-Hospital Outcomes of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Performed at Hospitals With and Without On-Site Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is performed in hospitals without on-site coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the ;real world'. However, data on the in-hospital outcomes of primary PCI performed at hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery are still lacking in Japan.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the present study, 2,230 AMI patients were enrolled in the AMI-Kyoto Multi-Center Risk Study between January 2000 and December 2005. Of these, 1,817 patients underwent primary PCI. Excluding patients without adequate data, we retrospectively compared clinical background, coronary risk factors, angiographic findings, acute results of primary PCI and in-hospital prognosis between patients undergoing primary PCI in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery (without surgery group, n=792) and those in hospitals with (with surgery group, n=993). The without surgery group had higher prevalence of previous myocardial infarction, Killip class>or=3 at admission and multivessels as a culprit lesion than the with surgery group. The without surgery group was more likely to have lower frequency of stent usage and lower thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade just after PCI, whereas it was more likely to have intra-aortic balloon pumping and temporary pacing during procedures. The overall in-hospital mortality did not differ between the 2 groups. On multivariate analysis, in AMI patients undergoing primary PCI, Killip class>or=3 at admission, multivessels or left main trunk (LMT) as culprit lesions, number of diseased vessels>or=2 or diseased LMT, and age were the independent predictors of the in-hospital mortality, but the presence of on-site cardiac surgery was not.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that in-hospital outcomes in AMI patients undergoing primary PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery are comparable to those at hospitals with on-site cardiac surgery in Japan.

Outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery standby

OBJECTIVE

To compare characteristics and outcome of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinics with (WSB) or without (NOSB) on-site cardiac surgery backup.

DESIGN

Analysis according to hospital, type of prospectively collected data of all patients who underwent PCI during 2000-3.

SETTING

The Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry covers all PCI procedures performed in Sweden.

PATIENTS

34,363 patients underwent PCI between January 2000 and December 2003. 8838 procedures were performed in NOSB (mean age of patients was 64.5 years) hospitals and 25,525 in WSB (mean age of patients was 64.1 years) hospitals (p = 0.002).

RESULTS

More patients in NOSB hospitals had diabetes (17.8% vs 16.8%; p = 0.03). Other clinical characteristics (previous infarct, previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)) also showed a tendency towards worse patients being treated in NOSB hospitals. However, there was a higher percentage of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (18% vs 9.7%; p<0.01) in WSB hospitals. After adjusting for differences in baseline risk no significant differences regarding outcome (30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, stroke and emergency CABG) were observable between WSB and NOSB hospitals. This applied to elective and non-elective procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of these data it does not seem warranted to recommend against percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in NOSB hospitals.