Clinical Outcomes of PCI in Hospitals With or Without Surgical Backup: A Meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Tala A Haddad, Ahmad A Toubasi, Abdallah Fahmawi, Ali Zaid
{"title":"Clinical Outcomes of PCI in Hospitals With or Without Surgical Backup: A Meta-analysis.","authors":"Tala A Haddad, Ahmad A Toubasi, Abdallah Fahmawi, Ali Zaid","doi":"10.1177/00033197251326354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) have seen a steady rise. Recent guidelines have established that PCIs conducted at non-surgical on-site (NSOS) facilities have low complication rates and outcomes comparable to surgical on-site (SOS) centers. However, differing perspectives in the growing literature continue to sustain controversy. A thorough literature review was performed across four databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify studies comparing outcomes between hospitals. The primary endpoints were: 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebral vascular accident (CVA), emergency coronary artery bypass surgery (eCABG), rePCI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The final search yielded 22 studies, including a total of 2,181,897 patients. The majority of patients (71.9%) underwent PCI in SOS hospitals. There was a significant association of increased eCABG (OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 1.08-3.67) and rePCI (OR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.37-1.91) rates in SOS hospitals. However, 30-day mortality (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.53-1.54), MI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.91-1.28), CVA (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.69-1.86), and TVR (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.92-1.21) showed no significant difference between hospitals. Subgroup analyses among clinical trials and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients found no significant associations. Conclusively, this meta-analysis provides updated insight into the impact of SOS on PCI outcomes, having no difference except for eCABG and rePCI rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":8264,"journal":{"name":"Angiology","volume":" ","pages":"33197251326354"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00033197251326354","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) have seen a steady rise. Recent guidelines have established that PCIs conducted at non-surgical on-site (NSOS) facilities have low complication rates and outcomes comparable to surgical on-site (SOS) centers. However, differing perspectives in the growing literature continue to sustain controversy. A thorough literature review was performed across four databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify studies comparing outcomes between hospitals. The primary endpoints were: 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebral vascular accident (CVA), emergency coronary artery bypass surgery (eCABG), rePCI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The final search yielded 22 studies, including a total of 2,181,897 patients. The majority of patients (71.9%) underwent PCI in SOS hospitals. There was a significant association of increased eCABG (OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 1.08-3.67) and rePCI (OR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.37-1.91) rates in SOS hospitals. However, 30-day mortality (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.53-1.54), MI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.91-1.28), CVA (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.69-1.86), and TVR (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.92-1.21) showed no significant difference between hospitals. Subgroup analyses among clinical trials and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients found no significant associations. Conclusively, this meta-analysis provides updated insight into the impact of SOS on PCI outcomes, having no difference except for eCABG and rePCI rates.

有或没有手术支持的医院PCI的临床结果:一项荟萃分析。
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(pci)稳步上升。最近的指南已经确定,在非手术现场(NSOS)设施进行的pci具有较低的并发症发生率和与手术现场(SOS)中心相当的结果。然而,在越来越多的文献中,不同的观点继续保持争议。对PubMed、Cochrane Library、Scopus和Web of Science等四个数据库进行了全面的文献综述,以确定比较医院间结果的研究。主要终点为:30天死亡率、心肌梗死(MI)、脑血管意外(CVA)、紧急冠状动脉搭桥手术(eCABG)、再pci和靶血管重建术(TVR)。最终的搜索产生了22项研究,包括总计2181897名患者。大多数患者(71.9%)在SOS医院接受了PCI。与eCABG升高有显著相关性(OR = 1.99;95% CI: 1.08-3.67)和rePCI (OR = 1.62;95%置信区间:1.37-1.91)。然而,30天死亡率(OR = 0.91;95% ci: 0.53-1.54), mi (or = 1.08;95% ci: 0.91-1.28), cva (or = 1.13;95% CI: 0.69-1.86), TVR (OR = 1.06;95% CI: 0.92-1.21),医院间差异无统计学意义。临床试验与st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者的亚组分析未发现显著相关性。最后,本荟萃分析提供了SOS对PCI结果影响的最新见解,除了eCABG和rePCI率外,没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Angiology
Angiology 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: A presentation of original, peer-reviewed original articles, review and case reports relative to all phases of all vascular diseases, Angiology (ANG) offers more than a typical cardiology journal. With approximately 1000 pages per year covering diagnostic methods, therapeutic approaches, and clinical and laboratory research, ANG is among the most informative publications in the field of peripheral vascular and cardiovascular diseases. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 13 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信