Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions by Single or Multiple Operators: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program

Do two operators improve outcomes in left main percutaneous coronary intervention? Insights from the ORPKI Registry

BACKGROUND

Significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is prevalent in 7% of patients undergoing angiography. Limited data exists on the impact of double scrubbing in LMCA PCI. We sought to assess periprocedural outcomes in two-operator LMCA percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Using data from the Polish National Registry of PCI (ORPKI), we collected data on 28,745 patients undergoing LMCA PCI from 154 centers. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of operators performing PCI (one vs. two operators).

RESULTS

LMCA PCI was performed by a single operator in 86% of the cases and by two operators in 14% of cases. Patients treated by two operators had a greater comorbidity burden including diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, and previous revascularization. In addition, these were more likely to be treated in high-volume centers, by operators with higher volume of LMCA PCIs. The risk of periprocedural death (2.37% vs. 2.44%; P=0.78), as well as cardiac arrest, coronary artery perforation, no-reflow, and puncture site bleeding was comparable between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, we found that a two-operator strategy was an independent predictor of periprocedural death, with this effect being much more profound in an elective setting (OR=5.13 [1.37-19.26]; P=0.015), compared to an urgent (ACS) setting (OR=1.32 [1.00-1.73]; P=0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that a two-operator approach is not necessarily routinely recommended for LMCA interventions, although it can be considered for more complex cases.

Single versus Dual-Operator Approaches for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions within Chronic Total Occlusion-An Analysis of 27,788 Patients

(1) Background: Since the treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with high procedural complexity, it has been suggested to use a multi-operator approach. This study was aimed at evaluating the procedural outcomes of single (SO) versus dual-operator (DO) CTO-PCI approaches. (2) Methods: This retrospective analysis included data from the Polish Registry of Invasive Cardiology Procedures (ORPKI), collected between January 2014 and December 2020. To compare the DO and SO approaches, propensity score matching was introduced with equalized baseline features. (3) Results: The DO approach was applied in 3604 (13%) out of 27,788 CTO-PCI cases. Patients undergoing DO CTO-PCI experienced puncture-site bleeding less often than the SO group (0.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.03). No differences were found in the technical success rate (successful revascularization with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade 2/3) of the SO (72.4%) versus the DO approach (71.2%). Moreover, the presence of either multi-vessel (MVD) or left main coronary artery disease (LMCA) (odds ratio (OR), 1.67 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.20-2.32); p = 0.002), as well as lower annual and total operator volumes of PCI and CTO-PCI, could be noted as factors linked with the DO approach. (4) Conclusions: Due to the retrospective character, the findings of this study have to be considered only as hypothesis-generating. DO CTO-PCI was infrequent and was performed on patients who were more likely to have LMCA lesions or MVD. Operators collaboratively performing CTO-PCIs were more likely to have less experience. Puncture-site bleeding occurred less often in the dual-operator group; however, second-operator involvement had no impact on the technical success of the intervention.

Single vs. multiple operators for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary interventions: From the PROGRESS-CTO Registry

BACKGROUND

There is limited data on the impact of a second attending operator on chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed the association between multiple operators (MOs) (>1 attending operator) and procedural outcomes of 9296 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2021 at 37 centers.

RESULTS

CTO PCI was performed by a single operator (SO) in 85% of the cases and by MOs in 15%. Mean patient age was 64.4 ± 10 years and 81% were men. SO cases were more complex with higher Japan-CTO (2.38 ± 1.29 vs. 2.28 ± 1.20, p = 0.005) and Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention scores (1.13 ± 1.01 vs. 0.97 ± 0.93, p < 0.001) compared with MO cases. Procedural time (131 [87, 181] vs. 112 [72, 167] min, p < 0.001), fluoroscopy time (49 [31, 76] vs. 42 [25, 68] min, p < 0.001), air kerma radiation dose (2.32 vs. 2.10, p < 0.001), and contrast volume (230 vs. 210, p < 0.001) were higher in MO cases. Cases performed by MOs and SO had similar technical (86% vs. 86%, p = 0.9) and procedural success rates (84% vs. 85%, p = 0.7), as well as major adverse complication event rates (MACE 2.17% vs. 2.42%, p = 0.6). On multivariable analyses, MOs were not associated with higher technical success or lower MACE rates.

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary, multicenter registry, 15% of CTO PCI cases were performed by multiple operators. Despite being more complex, SO cases had lower procedural and fluoroscopy times, and similar technical and procedural success and risk of complications compared with MO cases.