Percutaneous coronary intervention without onsite surgical backup

Although accepted in several countries abroad, the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without onsite surgical backup is controversial in the United States. Current guidelines from the United States do not endorse elective PCI in facilities without onsite surgical backup but acknowledge that primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is acceptable under carefully regulated and monitored circumstances. This differs from guidelines developed by organizations in other countries. In the United States, data indicate that primary alone or primary and elective PCI without onsite surgery is currently being performed in all but seven states, and the number of patients treated in this setting is increasing. More than 40 articles reporting the outcomes and safety of PCI without onsite surgical backup have been published, but these are from a limited number of centers and are retrospective reviews or prospective registries, which have inherent limitations. Additional studies are currently under way to evaluate PCI’s safety and effectiveness in this setting.     

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.     

Nonemergent coronary angioplasty without on-site surgical backup: a randomized study evaluating outcomes in low-risk patients

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in nonemergent patients with coronary artery disease in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery backup is still controversial. To prospectively evaluate a set of low procedural risk criteria for PCI, patients with stable or unstable angina were randomized to treatment in either a community hospital, which had all supportive services except for on-site cardiac surgery, or a regional surgical hospital 213 km away.

Methods and results

During a 4-year period, 609 (57%) of 1064 consecutive patients with stable or unstable angina who underwent coronary angiography at a teaching community hospital in Norway fulfilled the predefined low-risk criteria for PCI. The patients were randomized to treatment at either the community hospital (n = 305) or at the regional hospital (n = 304). The angiographic success rate (96% at both hospitals) and number of major periprocedural complications (overall 0.3%) were equal at the 2 hospitals. In particular, there were no deaths or need for urgent transfer to cardiac surgery. At 6 months of clinical follow-up, there was a significant higher major adverse cardiac event rate rate at the community hospital, compared with the regional hospital (6.9% vs 2.3%, respectively, P = .03) because of more repeat target vessel revascularizations. Improvement in angina functional class and exercise capacity was similar in both groups. The excluded high-risk PCI patients had higher 6-month major adverse cardiac event compared with all low-risk patients (8.4% vs 4.3%, respectively, P = .01).

Conclusion

Selected nonemergent patients can, based on angiography, safely undergo PCI at hospitals without cardiac surgery backup. The angiographic selection criteria identified high-risk patients, which had worsened outcome at 6 months of follow-up.     

Percutaneous coronary intervention with vs without on-site cardiac surgery backup: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Although the popularity of performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in centres without on-site cardiac surgery backup is increasing, the safety of this practice is unknown. Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of PCI with and without on-site cardiac surgery backup. We identified studies using computerized literature searches through July 2009. Main outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality and early coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Analyses were stratified by procedure indication (primary PCI and nonprimary PCI). Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects models. We identified 9 primary PCI studies (106,089 patients) and 7 nonprimary studies (910,422 patients) comparing centres with and without on-site cardiac surgery. For primary PCI, centres without on-site surgery had no significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.05) or early CABG (OR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68-1.11) compared with centres with on-site surgery. For nonprimary PCI, no increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.64-1.66) and early CABG (OR 1.38; 95% CI, 0.65-2.95) was observed in centres without backup. However, significant heterogeneity existed in estimates of nonprimary PCI studies, suggesting substantial variation in outcomes of nonprimary PCI across centres without on-site cardiac surgery. We demonstrated that rates of in-hospital mortality and early CABG were similar at PCI centres with and without on-site cardiac surgery backup. However, variations in outcomes suggest that assurance of optimal outcomes at each PCI centre without on-site surgery is needed.     

Predictors of hospital outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in the community

BACKGROUND: It is not well established to what degree advances have been adopted into contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice in the community and what effect they have on the short-term outcomes of in-hospital mortality and length of stay. METHODS: We analyzed a prospectively-collected, statewide registry that includes consecutive patients undergoing isolated PCI to determine predictors of in-hospital outcomes after the first PCI performed in the community. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with in-hospital mortality after first PCI. RESULTS: Between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000 there were a total of 12,920 cases of first PCI performed, 4535 (35.1%) of which were for acute myocardial infarction (MI). Stents and glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in 89.6% and 70.0%, respectively, of all cases. In-hospital mortality was 1.8%. Length of hospital stay was 1 (1, 3) days [median (interquartile range)] in the absence of acute MI, and 3 (2, 4) days after acute MI. After acute MI, peri-procedure GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor use [adjusted OR 0.41 (95% CI 0.26, 0.63)] and stenting [adjusted OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.37, 0.996)] were the only factors positively associated with freedom from hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary stenting and use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors have been well integrated into community practice. The observed in-hospital mortality rate is slightly higher than published in other series, but likely reflects the significant proportion of acute MI cases being treated aggressively with PCI as the primary therapy.     

Percutaneous coronary interventions in a rural hospital without surgical backup: report of one year of experience

This paper demonstrates that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can be provided in a rural setting with results that are at least as good as the national average without untoward risk to the patient. Percutaneous coronary intervention is the initial treatment of choice for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Historically, PCI has been available in metropolitan areas, yet 20% of the population lives in rural areas. Rural patients with AMI may not be receiving optimal care, especially if PCI is not readily available. In a rural setting, door-to-balloon time for patients with acute ST-elevation MI was 67.66 +/- 30.80 min. This is significantly better than the 186 min reported in the National Registry Myocardial Infarction (NRMI). These results were achieved with a complication rate that was not significantly different from national averages. This study demonstrates that PCI can be provided safely and with good results in a rural setting.     

A large dissecting sub-epicardial hematoma and cardiac tamponade following elective percutaneous coronary intervention

A 70-year-old woman was performed percutaneous coronary intervention at the stenotic lesion of the 1st diagonal branch. Soon after stenting, cardiac tamponade occurred and emergent cardiac surgery was performed. A large epicardial hematoma was observed in the antero-lateral wall that was compressing the distal diagonal branch. The patient died of multi-organ failure 3 days after surgery. An autopsy of her heart revealed an extensive intramural hematoma in the left ventricular wall. There was no evidence of perforation of the stented lesion. The suspected cause was neither coronary perforation nor coronary rupture of target lesion.