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

Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock

AIMS

There are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI-CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

METHODS

Using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI-CS admissions receiving pre-hospital/in-hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI-CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, development of non-cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do-not-resuscitate status.

RESULTS

During 2009-2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non-White, with lower co-morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all-cause in-hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity-matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do-not-resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in-hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI-CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.

Effect of Using a Cardiac Catheterization Table-Stabilizing Stick on the Quality of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Simulation-Based Study

Rapid defibrillation and high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are necessary for patients with cardiopulmonary arrest, one of the most serious and frequently encountered complications in cardiac catheterization laboratories. However, when the catheterization table is withdrawn from its neutral position for fluoroscopy, it is unstable and unsuitable for resuscitation because of its cantilever structure. To stabilize the table in its withdrawn position, the use of a table-stabilizing stick might improve CPR quality. To investigate the effect of using a cardiac catheterization table-stabilizing stick on CPR quality, a CPR simulation mannequin was placed on a cardiac catheterization table that was withdrawn from the C-arm of the X-ray machine. CPR quality was assessed with or without the use of a table-stabilizing stick under the table. The CPR quality assessment (Q-CPR) scores were 79.6 ± 11.4% using the table-stabilizing stick and 47.7 ± 30.3% without the use of the stick device (p = 0.02). In this simulation-based study, the use of a table-stabilizing stick in a cardiac catheterization table withdrawn from the C-arm of the X-ray machine improved the quality of CPR.

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.

Prediction of Cardiac and Noncardiac Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background—

Current risk models for predicting long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention are restricted to all-cause mortality. We sought to develop novel risk models for the prediction of cardiac and noncardiac mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods and Results—

We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent index percutaneous coronary intervention at Mayo Clinic from 2003 to 2008. Long-term deaths were ascertained through scheduled prospective surveillance. Cause of death was determined via telephone interviews, medical records, and autopsy reports. Fine and Gray extension of Cox proportional hazards models was used to model cause-specific cumulative incidence. Candidate variables and interactions were chosen a priori, without variable selection methods. Resulting models were mapped to an integer-based risk score. The study comprised 6636 patients followed up over a median of 62 months (25th, 75th percentiles: 45, 77 months). There were 1488 deaths, 518 (35%) cardiac, 938 (63%) noncardiac, and 32 (2%) unknown. The 5-year predicted cardiac mortality ranged from 0.6% to 97%, with a corrected c -statistic of 0.82. Risk factors for cardiac death included age, body mass index, ejection fraction, and history of congestive heart failure. The integer score for noncardiac death included age, medicine index, body mass index, current smoker, noncardiac Charlson index and cardiac Charlson index, and accommodated significant age-based interactions for smoking and the 2 Charlson indices. Predicted noncardiac mortality at 5 years ranged from 0.2% to 81%, with a corrected c -statistic of 0.77.

Conclusions—

We report novel risk models to predict cardiac and noncardiac long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention.

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.

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.