肯塔基州初级PCI试点项目,无需现场冠脉搭桥。

John Myers, Guy Brock, Savitri Appana, Laman Gray
{"title":"肯塔基州初级PCI试点项目,无需现场冠脉搭桥。","authors":"John Myers,&nbsp;Guy Brock,&nbsp;Savitri Appana,&nbsp;Laman Gray","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions strongly recommend that primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) should be performed in facilities that have an experienced cardiovascular surgical team available as emergency backup for all procedures. The current study investigates the medical soundness of allowing select facilities in Kentucky to perform primary PCI despite being devoid of onsite emergency backup capabilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hospitals in the state of Kentucky, currently without emergency backup capabilities, have been allowed to perform primary PCIs for more than three years (beginning in April 2005) by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The two hospitals selected were of similar size (approximately 200 beds) and similar distances from hospitals with onsite emergency backup capabilities (approximately one hour). We performed an analysis evaluating if hospitals without backup surgical capability have similar outcomes when compared to hospitals with backup surgical capabilities. Outcome variables included: (1) mortality, (2) cardiac arrest as result of PCI, (3) emergency surgery performed as a result of PCI, and (4) door-to-balloon time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in any of the outcome variables studied between facilities with and without onsite emergency backup capabilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recommendations concerning primary PCI may need to be revisited. The principal outcomes associated with primary PCI were not significantly affected by whether a facility has onsite emergency backup capabilities. Therefore, we recommend that hospitals without backup surgical capabilities be allowed to perform primary PCI (with restrictions based on surgeon experience and the facilities' volume).</p>","PeriodicalId":76673,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the Kentucky Medical Association","volume":"107 11","pages":"451-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kentucky pilot project for primary PCI without onsite CABG.\",\"authors\":\"John Myers,&nbsp;Guy Brock,&nbsp;Savitri Appana,&nbsp;Laman Gray\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions strongly recommend that primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) should be performed in facilities that have an experienced cardiovascular surgical team available as emergency backup for all procedures. The current study investigates the medical soundness of allowing select facilities in Kentucky to perform primary PCI despite being devoid of onsite emergency backup capabilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hospitals in the state of Kentucky, currently without emergency backup capabilities, have been allowed to perform primary PCIs for more than three years (beginning in April 2005) by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The two hospitals selected were of similar size (approximately 200 beds) and similar distances from hospitals with onsite emergency backup capabilities (approximately one hour). We performed an analysis evaluating if hospitals without backup surgical capability have similar outcomes when compared to hospitals with backup surgical capabilities. Outcome variables included: (1) mortality, (2) cardiac arrest as result of PCI, (3) emergency surgery performed as a result of PCI, and (4) door-to-balloon time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in any of the outcome variables studied between facilities with and without onsite emergency backup capabilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recommendations concerning primary PCI may need to be revisited. The principal outcomes associated with primary PCI were not significantly affected by whether a facility has onsite emergency backup capabilities. Therefore, we recommend that hospitals without backup surgical capabilities be allowed to perform primary PCI (with restrictions based on surgeon experience and the facilities' volume).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of the Kentucky Medical Association\",\"volume\":\"107 11\",\"pages\":\"451-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of the Kentucky Medical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the Kentucky Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:美国心脏病学会、美国心脏协会和心血管血管造影与介入学会强烈建议,应在有经验丰富的心血管外科团队作为所有手术应急后备的机构中进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)。目前的研究调查了肯塔基州的一些医疗机构在缺乏现场应急备份能力的情况下进行初级PCI治疗的医学合理性。方法:肯塔基州的两家医院目前没有应急备份能力,但肯塔基州卫生和家庭服务内阁已允许其开展初级个人保健服务三年多(从2005年4月开始)。选定的两家医院规模相近(约200张床位),距离具有现场应急后备能力的医院距离相近(约1小时)。我们进行了一项分析,评估没有后备手术能力的医院与有后备手术能力的医院相比是否有相似的结果。结果变量包括:(1)死亡率,(2)PCI导致的心脏骤停,(3)PCI导致的紧急手术,(4)从门到球囊的时间。结果:我们的研究结果表明,在有和没有现场应急备份能力的设施之间,研究的任何结果变量都没有显著差异。结论:关于首次PCI的建议可能需要重新考虑。与初次PCI相关的主要结果不受医院是否有现场应急备份能力的显著影响。因此,我们建议允许没有备用手术能力的医院进行初级PCI(根据外科医生的经验和设备的容量进行限制)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kentucky pilot project for primary PCI without onsite CABG.

Purpose: The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions strongly recommend that primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) should be performed in facilities that have an experienced cardiovascular surgical team available as emergency backup for all procedures. The current study investigates the medical soundness of allowing select facilities in Kentucky to perform primary PCI despite being devoid of onsite emergency backup capabilities.

Methods: Two hospitals in the state of Kentucky, currently without emergency backup capabilities, have been allowed to perform primary PCIs for more than three years (beginning in April 2005) by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The two hospitals selected were of similar size (approximately 200 beds) and similar distances from hospitals with onsite emergency backup capabilities (approximately one hour). We performed an analysis evaluating if hospitals without backup surgical capability have similar outcomes when compared to hospitals with backup surgical capabilities. Outcome variables included: (1) mortality, (2) cardiac arrest as result of PCI, (3) emergency surgery performed as a result of PCI, and (4) door-to-balloon time.

Results: Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in any of the outcome variables studied between facilities with and without onsite emergency backup capabilities.

Conclusions: Recommendations concerning primary PCI may need to be revisited. The principal outcomes associated with primary PCI were not significantly affected by whether a facility has onsite emergency backup capabilities. Therefore, we recommend that hospitals without backup surgical capabilities be allowed to perform primary PCI (with restrictions based on surgeon experience and the facilities' volume).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信