Division of Cardiology Department of Medicine University of Colorado Aurora CO.
Department of Biostatistics and Informatics University of Colorado Aurora CO.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Dec 7;10(23):e022131. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.022131. Epub 2021 Nov 15.
Background High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is increasingly common among contemporary patients with coronary artery disease. Experts have advocated for a collaborative 2-operator approach to support intraprocedural decision-making for these complex interventions. The impact of a second operator on patient and procedural outcomes is unknown. Methods and Results Patients who underwent HR-PCI from 2015 to 2018 within the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System were identified. Propensity-matched cohorts were generated to compare the outcomes following HR-PCI performed by a single or multiple (≥2) operators. The primary end point was the 12-month rate of major adverse cardiovascular events. We identified 6672 patients who underwent HR-PCI during the study period; 6211 (93%) were treated by a single operator, and 461 (7%) were treated by multiple operators, with a nonsignificant trend toward increased multioperator procedures over time. A higher proportion of patients treated by multiple operators underwent left main (10% versus 7%, =0.045) or chronic total occlusion intervention (11% versus 5%, <0.001). Lead interventionalists participating in multioperator procedures practiced at centers with higher annual HR-PCI volumes (124±71.3 versus 111±69.2; standardized mean difference, 0.197; <0.001) but otherwise performed a similar number of HR-PCI procedures per year (34.4±35.3 versus 34.7±30.7; standardized mean difference, 0.388; =0.841) compared with their peers performing single-operator interventions. In a propensity-matched cohort, there was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (32% versus 30%, =0.444) between patients who underwent single-operator versus multioperator HR-PCI. Adjusted analyses accounting for site-level variance showed no significant differences in outcomes. Conclusions Patients who underwent multioperator HR-PCI had similar outcomes compared with single-operator procedures. Further studies are needed to determine if the addition of a second operator offers clinical benefits to a subset of HR-PCI patients undergoing left main or chronic total occlusion intervention.
高危经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(HR-PCI)在当代冠心病患者中越来越常见。专家主张采用 2 名术者协作的方法,为这些复杂的介入治疗提供术中决策支持。目前尚不清楚第二位术者对患者和手术结果的影响。
在退伍军人事务部医疗保健系统中,对 2015 年至 2018 年间接受 HR-PCI 的患者进行了研究。通过倾向匹配的方法生成队列,比较由单个或多个(≥2 个)术者进行 HR-PCI 的结果。主要终点是 12 个月时主要不良心血管事件的发生率。我们共确定了 6672 名在研究期间接受 HR-PCI 的患者;6211 名(93%)接受了单名术者治疗,461 名(7%)接受了多名术者治疗,随着时间的推移,多术者手术的比例呈上升趋势,但差异无统计学意义。多名术者治疗的患者中,行左主干(10% vs. 7%,=0.045)或慢性完全闭塞介入治疗(11% vs. 5%,<0.001)的比例更高。参与多术者手术的介入心脏病专家在每年 HR-PCI 量较高的中心工作(124±71.3 与 111±69.2;标准化均数差,0.197;<0.001),但每年进行的 HR-PCI 手术数量相似(34.4±35.3 与 34.7±30.7;标准化均数差,0.388;=0.841)。与行单术者介入治疗的同行相比。在倾向匹配的队列中,行单术者与多术者 HR-PCI 的患者主要不良心血管事件发生率(32% vs. 30%,=0.444)无显著差异。考虑到站点水平差异的调整分析显示,结果无显著差异。
与单术者 HR-PCI 相比,多术者 HR-PCI 的患者结局相似。需要进一步的研究来确定对于行左主干或慢性完全闭塞介入治疗的 HR-PCI 患者亚组,增加第二名术者是否会带来临床获益。