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

Clinical Outcomes of PCI in Hospitals With or Without Surgical Backup: A Meta-analysis

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) have seen a steady rise. Recent guidelines have established that PCIs conducted at non-surgical on-site (NSOS) facilities have low complication rates and outcomes comparable to surgical on-site (SOS) centers. However, differing perspectives in the growing literature continue to sustain controversy. A thorough literature review was performed across four databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify studies comparing outcomes between hospitals. The primary endpoints were: 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebral vascular accident (CVA), emergency coronary artery bypass surgery (eCABG), rePCI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The final search yielded 22 studies, including a total of 2,181,897 patients. The majority of patients (71.9%) underwent PCI in SOS hospitals. There was a significant association of increased eCABG (OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 1.08-3.67) and rePCI (OR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.37-1.91) rates in SOS hospitals. However, 30-day mortality (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.53-1.54), MI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.91-1.28), CVA (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.69-1.86), and TVR (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.92-1.21) showed no significant difference between hospitals. Subgroup analyses among clinical trials and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients found no significant associations. Conclusively, this meta-analysis provides updated insight into the impact of SOS on PCI outcomes, having no difference except for eCABG and rePCI rates.

A National Evaluation of Emergency Cardiac Surgery After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Postsurgical Patient Outcomes

There is limited national data regarding emergency cardiac surgery for complications sustained after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to examine emergency cardiac surgery after PCI in England and Wales and postsurgical patient outcomes. We analyzed patients in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database who underwent PCI between 2007 and 2014 and compared characteristics and outcomes for patients with and without emergency cardiac surgery. A total of 549,303 patients were included in the analysis and 362 (0.07%) underwent emergency cardiac surgery. There was a modest decline in the annual rate of emergency cardiac surgery from 0.09% to 0.06% between 2007 and 2014. Variables associated with emergency cardiac surgery included receipt of circulatory support (Odds ratio (OR) 39.20 95% confidence interval (CI) 27.75 to 55.36), aortic dissection (OR 28.39 95%CI 14.59 to 55.26), coronary dissection (OR 18.50 95%CI 13.60 to 25.18), coronary perforation (OR 7.86 95%CI 4.27 to 14.46), cardiac tamponade (OR 6.77 95%CI 3.13 to 14.66), and on-site surgical cover (OR 2.15 95%CI 1.56 to 2.97). After adjustments, patients with emergency cardiac surgery were at increased odds of 30-day mortality (OR 4.41 95%CI 2.94 to 6.62) and in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR 1.63 95%CI 1.07 to 2.48). On site surgical cover was independently associated with increased odds of mortality (OR 1.26 95%CI 1.20 to 1.33) following emergency cardiac surgery. In conclusion, emergency cardiac surgery after PCI is a rarely required procedure and in England and Wales there appears to be a decline in recent years. Patients who underwent emergency cardiac surgery have higher risk of adverse outcomes and longer length of hospital stay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Three-Year Experience of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in a Hospital without On-site Cardiac Surgery

Introduction: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery capability, despite receiving only a class IIb recommendation in the ACC/AHA practice guidelines, can be per-formed effectively and safely. We reviewed the first 3 years of our experience. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective single centre review of all patients receiving primary PCI for STEMI between 2003 and 2005. Demographic, procedural and outcome data were analysed. Results: There were 259 patients who underwent primary PCI. The mean age was 55.3 ± 12.3 years. Median door-to-balloon time was 97.5 minutes and 45.2% and 52.9% had anterior and inferior STEMI, respectively. The majority of patients presented with Killip class I (87.6%); however, 5.8% were in Killip class IV. Single vessel disease was found in 47.1%. Angiographic PCI success (defined as residual stenosis <50% with TIMI 3 flow) was achieved in 89.1%. Usage of stents, distal protection and aspiration devices were 97.2%, 27.8% and 34.1 %, respectively; 9.3% required intra-aortic balloon pump insertion. No patients required transfer for emergency coronary bypass surgery as a result of PCI complications. Post-PCI ST resolution >50% was achieved in 80.6%. The mean post-infarct left ventricular ejection fraction was 44.1%. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality rates were 2%, 2.8%, 4.0% and 4.8%, respectively. Clini-cally driven target lesion revascularisation rate was 2.8% at 1 year. Conclusions: Our results are comparable to those from on-site surgical centres. This supports the feasibility and safety of primary PCI in cardiac centres without on-site cardiac surgery. Key words: Emergency, PCI, STEMI, Transfer

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.

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.

Reperfusion strategies in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a comprehensive review of contemporary management options

There are an estimated 500,000 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) events in the U.S. annually. Despite improvements in care, up to one-third of patients presenting with STEMI within 12 h of symptom onset still receive no reperfusion therapy acutely. Clinical studies indicate that speed of reperfusion after infarct onset may be more important than whether pharmacologic or mechanical intervention is used. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), when performed rapidly at high-volume centers, generally has superior efficacy to fibrinolysis, although fibrinolysis may be more suitable for many patients as an initial reperfusion strategy. Because up to 70% of STEMI patients present to hospitals without on-site PCI facilities, and prolonged door-to-balloon times due to inevitable transport delays commonly limit the benefit of PCI, the continued role and importance of the prompt, early use of fibrinolytic therapy may be underappreciated. Logistical complexities such as triage or transportation delays must be considered when a reperfusion strategy is selected, because prompt fibrinolysis may achieve greater benefit, especially if the fibrinolytic-to-PCI time delay associated with transfer exceeds approximately 1 h. Selection of a fibrinolytic requires consideration of several factors, including ease of dosing and combination with adjunctive therapies. Careful attention to these variables is critical to ensuring safe and rapid reperfusion, particularly in the prehospital setting. The emerging modality of pharmacoinvasive therapy, although controversial, seeks to combine the benefits of mechanical and pharmacologic reperfusion. Results from ongoing clinical trials will provide guidance regarding the utility of this strategy.

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?