RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have issued guidelines for the use of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for many years, but little is known about the impact of these evidence-based guidelines on referral decisions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cardiac catheterization laboratory database used by 19 hospitals in New York State was used to identify treatment (CABG surgery, PCI, medical treatment, or nothing) recommended by the catheterization laboratory cardiologist for patients undergoing catheterization with asymptomatic/mild angina, stable angina, and unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction between January 1, 2005, and August 31, 2007. The recommended treatment was compared with indications for these patients based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Of the 16 142 patients undergoing catheterization who were found to have coronary artery disease, the catheterization laboratory cardiologist was the final source of recommendation for 10 333 patients (64%). Of these 10 333 patients, 13% had indications for CABG surgery, 59% for PCI, and 17% for both CABG surgery and PCI. Of the patients who had indications for CABG surgery, 53% were recommended for CABG and 34% for PCI. Of the patients with indications for PCI, 94% were recommended for PCI. For the patients who had indications for both CABG surgery and PCI, 93% were recommended for PCI and 5% for CABG surgery. Catheterization laboratory cardiologists in hospitals with PCI capability were more likely to recommend patients for PCI than hospitals in which only catheterization was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with coronary artery disease receive more recommendations for PCI and fewer recommendations for CABG surgery than indicated in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines.
Assuntos
Angioplastia Coronária com Balão/normas , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/normas , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , American Heart Association , Cateterismo Cardíaco , Cardiologia/normas , Bases de Dados Factuais , Humanos , Padrões de Prática Médica , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The benefit of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (P-PCI) for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been well documented. However, controversy still exists as to whether PCI should be expanded to hospitals without coronary artery bypass graft surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients who were discharged after PCI for STEMI between January 1, 2003, and December 12, 2006, in P-PCI centers (hospitals with no coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and PCI only for patients with STEMI) were propensity matched with patients in full service centers, and mortality and subsequent revascularization rates were compared. For patients undergoing PCI, there were no differences for in-hospital/30-day mortality (2.3% for P-PCI centers versus 1.9% for full service centers [P=0.40]), emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery immediately after PCI (0.06% versus 0.35%, P=0.06), 3-year mortality (7.1% versus 5.9%, P=0.07), or 3-year subsequent revascularization (23.8% versus 21.5%, P=0.52). P-PCI centers had a lower same/next day coronary artery bypass graft rate (0.23% versus 0.69%, P=0.046) and higher repeat target vessel PCI rates (12.1% versus 9.0%, P=0.003). For patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI, P-PCI centers had higher in-hospital mortality (28.5% versus 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.75). CONCLUSIONS: No differences between P-PCI centers and full service centers were found in in-hospital/30-day mortality, the need for emergency surgery, 3-year mortality or subsequent revascularization, but P-PCI centers had higher repeat target vessel PCI rates and higher mortality rates for patients who did not undergo PCI. P-PCI centers should be monitored closely, including the monitoring of patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI.
