Zavala-Alarcon Edgardo, Cecena Felipe, Ashar Rajiv, Patel Rajul, Van Poppel Scott, Carlson Richard
Department of Medicine, University of Arizona School of Medicine, Phoenix, Ariz, USA.
Am Heart J. 2004 Oct;148(4):676-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.03.040.
Current guidelines (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) limit the performance of elective cases to hospitals with the capability for cardiac surgery. The number of hospitals in the United States with this capability is limited, which restricts availability of this proven technology.
To determine the safety of performing elective, nonselected PCI in hospitals without cardiac surgery capability.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A single-center retrospective analysis of the first 1000 patients undergoing elective, including "high-risk," PCI in the county hospital in Phoenix, Arizona.
A database (Access Microsoft Windows) was established to follow patient characteristics, indications for the procedure, technical aspects of the procedure, outcomes and complications. The Quality Improvement Committee followed each case closely to independently assess the adequacy of indications and patient management, with a monthly case review of every patient who had a periprocedural or postprocedural complication.
Failure to complete target vessel revascularization occurred in 68 of the total 1756 vessels (3.8%). Seven patients (0.7%), required elective referral for coronary artery bypass graft surgery after failed PCI. Coronary perforations occurred in 9 patients (0.9%); all resolved with percutaneous techniques. Postprocedure myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 21 patients (2.1%). Two patients (0.2%) developed a stroke. Periprocedural death (within 48 hours of the procedure) occurred in 2 patients (0.2%). Out of the 1000 interventions performed, none required emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
Technical advances in interventional cardiology allow for safe performance of PCI in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery facilities if proposed conditions are met. Our results together with the vast experience in other countries supports a paradigm change that would increase the number of hospitals that can offer interventional cardiology procedures with a corresponding increase in the number of patients that would benefit.
当前经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)指南(美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会)将择期手术的开展限制在具备心脏手术能力的医院。美国具备这种能力的医院数量有限,这限制了这项成熟技术的可及性。
确定在不具备心脏手术能力的医院进行择期、非特定PCI的安全性。
设计、地点和患者:对亚利桑那州凤凰城县级医院首批1000例接受择期(包括“高危”)PCI的患者进行单中心回顾性分析。
建立一个数据库(Access Microsoft Windows)来跟踪患者特征、手术指征、手术技术方面、结果和并发症。质量改进委员会密切跟踪每例病例,以独立评估指征和患者管理的充分性,每月对每例围手术期或术后出现并发症的患者进行病例审查。
在总共1756支血管中,有68支(3.8%)未能完成目标血管血运重建。7例患者(0.7%)在PCI失败后需要择期转诊进行冠状动脉旁路移植术。9例患者(0.9%)发生冠状动脉穿孔;所有穿孔均通过经皮技术解决。术后心肌梗死在21例患者(2.1%)中被诊断出来。2例患者(0.2%)发生中风。围手术期死亡(在手术48小时内)发生在2例患者(0.2%)中。在进行的1000例干预中,无一例需要急诊冠状动脉旁路移植术。
如果满足提出的条件,介入心脏病学的技术进步允许在没有现场心脏手术设施的医院安全地进行PCI。我们的结果以及其他国家的丰富经验支持一种模式转变,这将增加能够提供介入心脏病学手术的医院数量,相应地使受益患者数量增加。