Suppr超能文献

门诊与住院环境下接受择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者的结局。

Outcomes of patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions in the ambulatory versus in-hospital setting.

作者信息

Kahn Mark R, Fallahi Arzhang, Kulina Robert, Dangas George D, Kini Annapoorna S, Sharma Samin K, Kim Michael C

机构信息

Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA.

出版信息

J Invasive Cardiol. 2014 Mar;26(3):106-13.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes of elective percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in same-day discharge and overnight hospital stays.

BACKGROUND

Advances in PCI techniques and equipment have allowed same-day discharge after elective PCI. In this study, we investigated the safety of same-day discharge ambulatory PCI in patients according to age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) scores.

METHODS

The ambulatory PCI group consisted of all PCIs with same-day discharge, while the overnight-stay group consisted of all elective PCIs with in-hospital observation and discharge the following day. Patients were stratified into tertiles based on ACEF score: low (<1.08), mid (≥1.08 and <1.31), and high (≥1.31). The primary endpoint was 30-day major adverse cardiac events, defined as readmission, all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Propensity score matching was done to evaluate outcomes based on similar baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

There were 16,407 elective PCIs, of which 21.2% were in the ambulatory group. Patients who stayed overnight had similar 30-day composite outcomes as their same-day discharge counterparts in the high ACEF score (odds ratio [OR], 1.213; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.625-2.355; P=.57) and mid ACEF score (OR, 0.636; 95% CI, 0.356-1.134; P=.13) comparisons, but had worse outcomes in the low ACEF score comparison (OR, 1.867; 95% CI, 1.134-3.074; P=.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center registry, patients who underwent same-day discharge ambulatory PCI had no worse outcomes, and in some cases better outcomes, than overnight-stay patients; this result was found in the group as a whole, as well as in all ACEF score subcategories.

摘要

目的

比较择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)当日出院与过夜住院的结局。

背景

PCI技术和设备的进步使得择期PCI后可当日出院。在本研究中,我们根据年龄、肌酐和射血分数(ACEF)评分调查了当日出院门诊PCI患者的安全性。

方法

门诊PCI组包括所有当日出院的PCI,而过夜住院组包括所有择期PCI且在医院观察并于次日出院的患者。根据ACEF评分将患者分为三分位数:低(<1.08)、中(≥1.08且<1.31)和高(≥1.31)。主要终点是30天主要不良心脏事件,定义为再入院、全因死亡率、非致命性心肌梗死和靶病变血管重建。进行倾向评分匹配以根据相似的基线特征评估结局。

结果

共有16407例择期PCI,其中21.2%在门诊组。过夜住院患者在高ACEF评分(优势比[OR],1.213;95%置信区间[CI],0.625 - 2.355;P = 0.57)和中ACEF评分(OR,0.636;95%CI,0.356 - 1.134;P = 0.13)比较中与当日出院患者的30天综合结局相似,但在低ACEF评分比较中结局更差(OR,1.867;95%CI,1.134 - 3.074;P = 0.01)。

结论

在这个单中心登记研究中,接受当日出院门诊PCI的患者结局不比过夜住院患者差,在某些情况下结局更好;这一结果在整个组以及所有ACEF评分亚组中均有发现。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验