BACKGROUND: Despite decreasing rates of acute and subacute complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), these procedures are generally only performed in centers where it is possible for failed PCI to be treated by rescue coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Case reports and case series have documented successful PCI following failed CABG. We sought to confirm this decrease in the need for rescue CABG following failed PCI and to examine trends in the utilization of rescue PCI following failed CABG. HYPOTHESIS: The interface between interventional cardiologist and cardiac surgeon is characterized by changing practice patterns and resource utilization. METHODS: We examined the medical records of all patients admitted to the Brigham and Women's Hospital over a 7-year period and identified 169 patients who required both PCI and CABG during the same hospital admission. We describe and compare three predetermined groups of patients defined by the sequence of, and indication for, the relevant myocardial revascularization procedures. RESULTS: In all, 100 patients required CABG for failed PCI, 46 patients had planned hybrid procedures involving both CABG and PCI, and 23 patients required PCI following failed CABG. There was a decrease in the need for rescue CABG following failed PCI, both in total numbers and as a percentage of total cases (2.5% in 1994 and 0.22% in 1999). There was a simultaneous increase in the utilization of rescue PCI following failed CABG (0% in 1994 and 1.6% in 2000). Hybrid procedures were identified as a source of innovative solutions to a variety of challenging clinical problems. CONCLUSIONS: Changing patterns of resource utilization should be considered when planning hospital facilities and patient triage, and these patients undergoing percutaneous or surgical revascularization may benefit from close cooperation between the cardiac surgeon and the interventional cardiologist.
BACKGROUND: Despite decreasing rates of acute and subacute complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), these procedures are generally only performed in centers where it is possible for failed PCI to be treated by rescue coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Case reports and case series have documented successful PCI following failed CABG. We sought to confirm this decrease in the need for rescue CABG following failed PCI and to examine trends in the utilization of rescue PCI following failed CABG. HYPOTHESIS: The interface between interventional cardiologist and cardiac surgeon is characterized by changing practice patterns and resource utilization. METHODS: We examined the medical records of all patients admitted to the Brigham and Women's Hospital over a 7-year period and identified 169 patients who required both PCI and CABG during the same hospital admission. We describe and compare three predetermined groups of patients defined by the sequence of, and indication for, the relevant myocardial revascularization procedures. RESULTS: In all, 100 patients required CABG for failed PCI, 46 patients had planned hybrid procedures involving both CABG and PCI, and 23 patients required PCI following failed CABG. There was a decrease in the need for rescue CABG following failed PCI, both in total numbers and as a percentage of total cases (2.5% in 1994 and 0.22% in 1999). There was a simultaneous increase in the utilization of rescue PCI following failed CABG (0% in 1994 and 1.6% in 2000). Hybrid procedures were identified as a source of innovative solutions to a variety of challenging clinical problems. CONCLUSIONS: Changing patterns of resource utilization should be considered when planning hospital facilities and patient triage, and these patients undergoing percutaneous or surgical revascularization may benefit from close cooperation between the cardiac surgeon and the interventional cardiologist.