Fabio V Lima1, Pratik Manandhar2, Daniel Wojdyla2, Tracy Wang2, Herbert D Aronow1, Vishnu Kadiyala1, E Hope Weissler2, Nidhi Madan3, Ian C Gilchrist4, Cindy Grines5, J Dawn Abbott1. 1. Cardiovascular Institute, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI (F.V.L., H.D.A., V.K., J.D.A.). 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (P.M., D.W., T.W., E.H.W.). 3. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL (N.M.). 4. Penn State Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, PA (I.C.G.). 5. Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Atlanta, GA (C.G.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited contemporary, national data describing diagnostic cardiac catheterization with subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention (ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) performed by an invasive-diagnostic and interventional (Dx/IC) operator team versus solo interventional operator (solo-IC). Using the CathPCI Registry, this study aimed at analyzing trends and outcomes in ad hoc PCI among Dx/IC versus solo-IC operators. METHODS: Quarterly rates (January 2012 to March 2018) of ad hoc PCI cases by Dx/IC and solo-IC operators were obtained. Odds of inhospital major adverse cardiovascular events, net adverse cardiovascular events (ie, composite major adverse cardiovascular event+bleeding), and rarely appropriate PCI were estimated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: From 1077 sites, 1 262 948 patients were included. The number of invasive-diagnostic operators and cases performed by Dx/IC teams decreased from nearly 9% to 5% during the study period. Patients treated by Dx/IC teams were more often White and had fewer comorbidities compared with patients treated by solo-IC operators. Considerable variation existed across sites, and over two-fifths of sites had 0% ad hoc PCI performed by Dx/IC. In adjusted analyses, ad hoc performed by Dx/IC had similar risks of major adverse cardiovascular event (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]) and net adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.94-1.03]) compared with solo-IC. Rarely appropriate PCI, although low overall (2.1% versus 1.9%) occurred more often by Dx/IC compared with solo-IC (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.13-1.26]). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary, nationwide data from the CathPCI Registry demonstrates the number of Dx/IC operator teams and cases has decreased but that case volume is stable among operators. Outcomes were independent of operator type, which supports current practice patterns. The finding of a higher risk of rarely appropriate PCI in Dx/IC teams should be further studied.
BACKGROUND: There are limited contemporary, national data describing diagnostic cardiac catheterization with subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention (ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) performed by an invasive-diagnostic and interventional (Dx/IC) operator team versus solo interventional operator (solo-IC). Using the CathPCI Registry, this study aimed at analyzing trends and outcomes in ad hoc PCI among Dx/IC versus solo-IC operators. METHODS: Quarterly rates (January 2012 to March 2018) of ad hoc PCI cases by Dx/IC and solo-IC operators were obtained. Odds of inhospital major adverse cardiovascular events, net adverse cardiovascular events (ie, composite major adverse cardiovascular event+bleeding), and rarely appropriate PCI were estimated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: From 1077 sites, 1 262 948 patients were included. The number of invasive-diagnostic operators and cases performed by Dx/IC teams decreased from nearly 9% to 5% during the study period. Patients treated by Dx/IC teams were more often White and had fewer comorbidities compared with patients treated by solo-IC operators. Considerable variation existed across sites, and over two-fifths of sites had 0% ad hoc PCI performed by Dx/IC. In adjusted analyses, ad hoc performed by Dx/IC had similar risks of major adverse cardiovascular event (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]) and net adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.94-1.03]) compared with solo-IC. Rarely appropriate PCI, although low overall (2.1% versus 1.9%) occurred more often by Dx/IC compared with solo-IC (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.13-1.26]). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary, nationwide data from the CathPCI Registry demonstrates the number of Dx/IC operator teams and cases has decreased but that case volume is stable among operators. Outcomes were independent of operator type, which supports current practice patterns. The finding of a higher risk of rarely appropriate PCI in Dx/IC teams should be further studied.