Suppr超能文献

复杂高危指征性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(CHIP-PCI):让培训学员作为主要术者进行该操作是否安全?

Complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP-PCI): is it safe to let fellows-in-training perform it as primary operators?

作者信息

Protty Majd B, Hasan Saad, Premawardhana Diluka, Addin Mohammed Shugaa, Morgan Holly, Bundhoo Shantu, Hussain Hussain, Ul-Haq Zia, Chase Alexander, Hildick-Smith David, Choudhury Anirban, Kinnaird Tim, Hailan Ahmed

机构信息

Sir Geraint Evans Cardiovascular Research Building, Cardiff University, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK.

Morriston Cardiac Centre, Swansea, UK.

出版信息

Open Heart. 2025 Jan 30;12(1):e003131. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2024-003131.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Training in complex high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI) has frequently been reserved for established operators (consultants/attending) with trainees (fellows-in-training or FIT) being often discouraged from carrying out such procedures as a primary operator due to their high-risk nature. Whether the outcomes of these cases differ if the primary operator is a supervised FIT compared with a consultant is unknown.

METHODS

Using multicentre PCI data from three cardiac centres in South Wales, UK (2018-2022), we identified 2295 CHIP-PCI cases with a UK-BCIS CHIP Score of 3 or more. These were then divided by primary operator status (supervised FIT vs consultant); the primary outcome was in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (IH-MACCE). Multivariate logistic models were developed to adjust for differences in baseline and procedural characteristics.

RESULTS

The primary operator in 838 (36%) of the PCIs was a supervised FIT. Baseline and procedural characteristics had lower complexity in CHIP-PCI cases carried out by supervised FIT vs consultant. In a multivariate-adjusted model, supervised FIT procedures were associated with lower odds of concurrent valve disease (OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.69), dual access (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.83), cutting/scoring balloons (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.79) and rotational atherectomy (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.87). After adjusting for all variables, however, there was no difference in the primary outcome (OR 0.72, 95% 0.34 to 1.51) or any secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses restricted to patients with higher CHIP Scores (4+ and 5+) showed comparable IH-MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS

Training FIT as primary operators in CHIP-PCI appears to be feasible and safe and can be delivered within the standard training programme. The comparable outcomes are likely driven by the two-operator 'buddy' effect that a FIT supervised by a consultant benefits from.

摘要

背景

复杂高危经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(CHIP-PCI)的培训通常只针对经验丰富的术者(顾问医师/主治医生),由于其高风险性质,实习医生(培训学员或FIT)往往不被鼓励作为主要术者进行此类手术。与顾问医师相比,如果主要术者是受监督的FIT,这些病例的结果是否不同尚不清楚。

方法

利用英国南威尔士三个心脏中心(2018 - 2022年)的多中心PCI数据,我们确定了2295例英国心脏介入学会(UK-BCIS)CHIP评分3分及以上的CHIP-PCI病例。然后根据主要术者身份(受监督的FIT与顾问医师)进行划分;主要结局是院内主要不良心脏事件(IH-MACCE)。建立多变量逻辑模型以调整基线和手术特征的差异。

结果

838例(36%)PCI手术的主要术者是受监督的FIT。与顾问医师相比,受监督的FIT进行的CHIP-PCI病例的基线和手术特征复杂性较低。在多变量调整模型中,受监督的FIT手术并发瓣膜疾病(OR 0.45,95%CI:0.29至0.69)、双入路(OR 0.58,95%CI:0.41至0.83)、切割/刻痕球囊(OR 0.59,95%CI:0.44至0.79)和旋磨术(OR 0.60,95%CI:0.42至0.87)的几率较低。然而,在调整所有变量后,主要结局(OR 0.72,95% 0.34至1.51)或任何次要结局均无差异。仅限于CHIP评分较高(4+和5+)患者的敏感性分析显示IH-MACCE相当。

结论

培训FIT作为CHIP-PCI的主要术者似乎是可行和安全的,并且可以在标准培训计划内进行。可比的结局可能是由顾问医师监督的FIT所受益的双术者“伙伴”效应驱动的。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/dc76/11784205/e5ec55bba53a/openhrt-12-1-g001.jpg

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