Walsh Kieran A, Plunkett Thomas, O'Brien Kirsty K, Teljeur Conor, Smith Susan M, Harrington Patricia, Ryan Máirín
Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin 7, Ireland.
Health Research Board Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
HRB Open Res. 2021 Jan 28;4:10. doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13203.1. eCollection 2021.
The relationship between procedural volume and outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is contentious, with previous reviews suggesting an inverse volume-outcome relationship. The aim of this study was to systematically review contemporary evidence to re-examine this relationship.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the relationship between PCI procedural volume (both at hospital- and operator-levels) and outcomes in adults. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were complications, healthcare utilisation and process outcomes. Searches were conducted from 1 January 2008 to 28 May 2019. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using 'Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations' (GRADE). Screening, data extraction, quality appraisal and GRADE assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers.
Of 1,154 unique records retrieved, 22 observational studies with 6,432,265 patients were included. No significant association was found between total PCI hospital volume and mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-1.03, = 86%). A temporal trend from significant to non-significant pooled effect estimates was observed. The pooled effect estimate for mortality was found to be significantly in favour of high-volume operators for total PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.94, = 93%), and for high-volume hospitals for primary PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.94, = 78%). Overall, GRADE certainty of evidence was 'very low'. There were mixed findings for secondary outcomes.
A volume-outcome relationship may exist in certain situations, although this relationship appears to be attenuating with time, and there is 'very low' certainty of evidence. While volume might be important, it should not be the only standard used to define an acceptable PCI service and a broader evaluation of quality metrics should be considered that encompass patient experience and clinical outcomes. PROSPERO, CRD42019125288.
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的手术量与治疗结果之间的关系存在争议,以往的综述表明手术量与治疗结果呈反比关系。本研究的目的是系统回顾当代证据,重新审视这种关系。
进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以研究PCI手术量(包括医院层面和术者层面)与成人治疗结果之间的关系。主要结局是死亡率。次要结局包括并发症、医疗资源利用和过程指标。检索时间为2008年1月1日至2019年5月28日。采用“推荐分级、评估、制定与评价”(GRADE)方法评估证据的确定性。两名研究者独立进行筛选、数据提取、质量评估和GRADE评估。
在检索到的1154条独立记录中,纳入了22项观察性研究,共6432265例患者。未发现PCI医院总手术量与死亡率之间存在显著关联(比值比[OR]:0.84,95%置信区间[CI]:0.69-1.03,I² = 86%)。观察到合并效应估计值从显著到不显著的时间趋势。发现PCI总手术量方面,高手术量术者的死亡率合并效应估计值显著更有利(OR:0.77,95%CI:0.63-0.94,I² = 93%);在直接PCI手术方面,高手术量医院的死亡率合并效应估计值也显著更有利(OR:0.77,95%CI:0.62-0.94,I² = 78%)。总体而言,证据的GRADE确定性为“非常低”。次要结局的结果不一。
在某些情况下可能存在手术量与治疗结果的关系,尽管这种关系似乎随着时间推移而减弱,且证据的确定性“非常低”。虽然手术量可能很重要,但它不应是定义可接受的PCI服务的唯一标准,应考虑对包括患者体验和临床结局在内的质量指标进行更广泛的评估。国际前瞻性系统评价注册库,CRD42019125288。