Combined angiography-angioplasty may not be safe, easier on the patient, or more cost-effective

SCAI statement on ad hoc versus the separate performance of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and coronary intervention

Coronary intervention may be combined with diagnostic cardiac catheterization or performed separately. In the early years of angioplasty, performing these procedures separately was standard practice. Gradually, ad hoc intervention (performing diagnostic angiography and coronary intervention within the same session) has become more common, largely because of its convenience for patients and efficiency for physicians. However, the safety and potential cost savings of this approach remain uncertain. Criteria for the appropriate use of ad hoc intervention have not been established. Ad hoc intervention is reasonable for many, but not appropriate for all patients and should not be considered standard therapy. This document updates an earlier review of this topic and provides suggestions for the use of ad hoc intervention as a routine strategy.

Safety, efficacy, and cost advantages of combined coronary angiography and angioplasty

AIM

The safety and efficacy of ad hoc PTCA has been previously reported and this approach is performed in many angioplasty centers as a routine procedure. The aim of this study is to examine whether this approach reduces the length, and cost of hospital stay.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To determine the hospital costs we studied 2,440 PTCAs over 11 years in our institution (1990-2000). Urgent PTCA for acute coronary syndromes refractory to medical treatment were excluded. In 1809 patients (74%) angioplasty was performed immediately after coronary angiography, while separate procedures were performed in 631 patients. Indication for PTCA was unstable angina in 1342 patients (55%). In the ad hoc PTCA group, 92% of the culprit lesions were successfully treated; complications included myocardial infarction (2%), urgent bypass surgery (0.6%) and death (0.9%). The rate of combined procedure progressively increased from 54% in 1990 to 88% in 2000, with a significant decrease in the rate of complications. After adjusting for clinical and angiographic differences between combined and separate procedures, angiographic success and complication rates were not statistically different in the two groups. Mean length of hospital stay decreased all along the years, and was 45% less in the ad hoc PTCA group (11.4 +/- 6.9 vs 18.2 +/- 7.7 in 1990, 5.4 +/- 4.3 vs 10.8 +/- 5.7 in 2000, P < 0.0001). The cost was 40% lower in the ad hoc PTCA group. For patients with stable angina, the savings were 49%, and for those with unstable angina, they were 29%.

CONCLUSION

In the era of coronary stenting, ad hoc PTCA can be performed in most of the patients as safely and successfully as a separate procedure. It reduces the length, and the cost of hospital stay in patients with stable or unstable angina.

Ad hoc coronary intervention

Ad hoc coronary intervention is a percutaneous revascularization procedure performed at the same sitting as diagnostic cardiac catheterization. While this appears to be an efficient strategy, the safety and cost of ad hoc coronary intervention compared with delayed coronary intervention have not been clearly documented. Special preparation and precautions are necessary for patients in whom ad hoc coronary intervention is anticipated. Ad hoc coronary intervention is not appropriate if informed consent has not been previously obtained or if it would pose greater risks than delayed intervention. While ad hoc coronary intervention is often efficient and effective, its use should be individualized. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 49:130-134, 2000.

Risk of major complications from coronary angioplasty performed immediately after diagnostic coronary angiography: results from the Registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to determine the risk of performing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) at the time of diagnostic catheterization ("combined procedures").

BACKGROUND

Health care providers are under increasing pressure to combine diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures to reduce costs. However, the risk associated with combined procedures has not been rigorously assessed.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort study of 35,700 patients undergoing elective PTCA from 1992 through 1995 was performed to determine the risk of major complications (myocardial infarction, emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery or death) from combined relative to staged procedures (i.e., performing PTCA at a session subsequent to diagnostic catheterization).

RESULTS

The risks of major complications from combined and staged procedures were 2.0% and 1.6%, respectively (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 1.57). After adjusting for clinical and angiographic differences and clustering by laboratory, the risk from combined procedures was not significantly elevated (multivariable OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.55). However, several subgroups of patients did have an increased risk from combined procedures: patients with multivessel disease (multivariable OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.39); women (multivariable OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.55); patients > 65 years old (multivariable OR 1.40, 5% CI 1.02 to 1.93); and patients undergoing multilesion PTCA (multivariable OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.21). The risk of combined relative to staged procedures decreased over the 4-year period (multivariable p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining PTCA with diagnostic catheterization appears to be safe in many patients. However, several subgroups of patients may be at increased risk. Careful patient selection will most likely remain critical to ensuring the safety of combined procedures.

Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: an approach to priority setting in need of refinement

Programme budgeting is enjoying a revival in the British National Health Service primarily because of its recent coupling with marginal analysis. As well as providing a means of mapping activity and expenditure from the institutions providing care to the population receiving it, programme budgeting and marginal analysis aim to assist strategic planning by indicating where net benefits might be increased by reallocating spending within programmes. However, the method to achieve this is not yet sufficiently refined and results to date have been mixed. In particular, the approach to identifying options for evaluation is flawed because of the importance attached to the role of 'expert' groups. A more systematic technique is suggested to overcome present methodological deficiencies.