[Feasibility and safety of immediately returning patients transferred for percutaneous coronary intervention in a large metropolitan area]. / Fattibilità e sicurezza dell'immediato reinvio al centro di provenienza dei pazienti sottoposti ad angioplastica coronarica in una vasta area metropolitana.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capabilities are used to transfer patients who need coronary angiography and/or PCI to other centers. In order to optimize economic resources and hospital bed management, PCIs might be performed with an in-service organization, with re-transfer to the community hospital immediately after the procedure. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety of a consecutive, unselected series of in-service PCIs compared to PCIs performed in patients admitted to hospitals with cath-lab capabilities. METHODS: During 2008, 1030 PCI procedures were performed at the European Hospital and Aurelia Hospital: 905 in patients admitted to a hospital with PCI capabilities (Group I) and 125 (12%) with an in-service strategy (Group II) referring from the Città di Roma Hospital. All treatment protocols were preventively uniformed and standardized. RESULTS: The two groups were statistically comparable in terms of baseline clinical characteristics and/or procedural findings, with the exception for older age (66 +/- 10 vs 70 +/- 10 years, p = 0.004) and a higher prevalence of acute coronary syndromes (56 vs 88%, p < 0.001) and femoral vascular access (94 vs 98%, p = 0.03) in Group II. The rate of left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 35% (20 vs 13%, p = 0.06), multivessel PCI (23 vs 19%, p = 0.4), and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use (15 vs 13%, p = 0.5) was similar between the two groups. Among patients treated with an in-service strategy, 2 (1.6%) were not transferred to the community hospital, because of hemodynamic instability. The in-hospital rate of major clinical events (death for cardiovascular causes, cerebrovascular events, urgent revascularization, stent thrombosis) was 0.75% and 0.8% (p = 0.8), 1.8% and 1% (p = 0.4) for periprocedural myocardial infarction, 1.7% and 1.9% (p = 0.5) for major bleeding, 1.1% and 1.6% (p = 0.6) for vascular complications, in Group I and II, respectively. Left ventricular dysfunction was the only independent predictor of major clinical events (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of in-service organization for PCI presents a similar rate of in-hospital clinical events and complications compared to an overnight stay into a hospital with PCI capabilities. Such a strategy may be utilized in order to optimize economic resources and hospital bed management.