Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention during Off-Hours: One-Decade Experience from a High-Volume Cardiovascular Center.

Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia Pub Date : 2024-11-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.36660/abc.20240396
Filipe Cirne, Marcia Moura Schmidt, Cristiano Oliveira Cardoso, Darryl P Leong, Alexandre Schaan de Quadros
{"title":"Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention during Off-Hours: One-Decade Experience from a High-Volume Cardiovascular Center.","authors":"Filipe Cirne, Marcia Moura Schmidt, Cristiano Oliveira Cardoso, Darryl P Leong, Alexandre Schaan de Quadros","doi":"10.36660/abc.20240396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The impact of performing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) off-hours on clinical outcomes is not well established.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare characteristics and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of pPCI off-hours versus on-hours in a high-volume cardiology center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective cohort of patients who underwent pPCI for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from 2009 to 2019. We defined off-hours pPCI as workdays from 8pm to 7:59 am as well as weekends and holidays. We compared patients treated on- and off-hours as to baseline characteristics and 1-year events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,560 patients were treated off-hours and 1,876 patients treated on-hours. The groups were similar for most of the baseline characteristics. A higher thrombus burden was seen in patients treated off-hours (50% x 45%; p < 0.01), and in this group the radial access was more frequently used (62% x 58%; p = 0.01). Procedural success was not statistically different between the groups (95.7% x 96.4%; p = 0.21). MACE rates were higher in patients treated off-hours at 30 days (10.2% x 8.5%; p = 0.04) and at one year of follow-up (15.4% x 13.1%; p = 0.03), driven by higher death rates at 30 days (7.8% x 6.1%; p = 0.03) and at 1 year follow-up (11.1% x 9.0%; p = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a high-volume cardiology center, clinical characteristics, door-to-balloon times, procedural pPCI success and complication rates of STEMI patients treated on and off-hours were similar. However, patients treated off-hours presented higher MACE and mortality rates, in spite of similar MI and stroke rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":93887,"journal":{"name":"Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia","volume":"121 11","pages":"e20240396"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36660/abc.20240396","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The impact of performing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) off-hours on clinical outcomes is not well established.

Objective: Compare characteristics and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of pPCI off-hours versus on-hours in a high-volume cardiology center.

Methods: Prospective cohort of patients who underwent pPCI for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from 2009 to 2019. We defined off-hours pPCI as workdays from 8pm to 7:59 am as well as weekends and holidays. We compared patients treated on- and off-hours as to baseline characteristics and 1-year events.

Results: A total of 2,560 patients were treated off-hours and 1,876 patients treated on-hours. The groups were similar for most of the baseline characteristics. A higher thrombus burden was seen in patients treated off-hours (50% x 45%; p < 0.01), and in this group the radial access was more frequently used (62% x 58%; p = 0.01). Procedural success was not statistically different between the groups (95.7% x 96.4%; p = 0.21). MACE rates were higher in patients treated off-hours at 30 days (10.2% x 8.5%; p = 0.04) and at one year of follow-up (15.4% x 13.1%; p = 0.03), driven by higher death rates at 30 days (7.8% x 6.1%; p = 0.03) and at 1 year follow-up (11.1% x 9.0%; p = 0.02).

Conclusion: In a high-volume cardiology center, clinical characteristics, door-to-balloon times, procedural pPCI success and complication rates of STEMI patients treated on and off-hours were similar. However, patients treated off-hours presented higher MACE and mortality rates, in spite of similar MI and stroke rates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
下班时间的初级经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:一家大容量心血管中心的十年经验。
背景:非工作时间进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(pPCI)对临床结果的影响尚未确定:下班时间进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(pPCI)对临床结果的影响尚未明确:在一个高流量心脏病学中心,比较非工作时间与工作时间进行 pPCI 的特征和主要不良心血管事件 (MACE):2009年至2019年期间因ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)接受pPCI的前瞻性队列患者。我们将非工作时间的 pPCI 定义为晚上 8 点到早上 7 点 59 分的工作日以及周末和节假日。我们比较了在上班时间和下班时间接受治疗的患者的基线特征和 1 年事件:共有 2,560 名患者在非工作时间接受治疗,1,876 名患者在工作时间接受治疗。两组患者的大部分基线特征相似。非工作时间接受治疗的患者血栓负荷较高(50% x 45%; p < 0.01),该组患者更常使用径向入路(62% x 58%; p = 0.01)。两组手术成功率无统计学差异(95.7% x 96.4%;P = 0.21)。30天(10.2% x 8.5%;p = 0.04)和一年随访(15.4% x 13.1%;p = 0.03)时,非工作时间治疗患者的MACE发生率较高,原因是30天(7.8% x 6.1%;p = 0.03)和一年随访(11.1% x 9.0%;p = 0.02)时的死亡率较高:在一家大容量心脏病学中心,在非工作时间接受治疗的 STEMI 患者的临床特征、从门到气球的时间、程序性 pPCI 成功率和并发症发生率相似。然而,尽管心肌梗死和中风的发生率相似,在非工作时间接受治疗的患者的 MACE 和死亡率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention during Off-Hours: One-Decade Experience from a High-Volume Cardiovascular Center. Uncontrolled Cholesterol in Individuals with Severe Hypercholesterolemia in a Health Evaluation Program in Brazil. Sleep Duration, Genetics, and Atherosclerosis: Challenges and Opportunities. Women and Atrial Fibrillation: Is the Disparity in Anticoagulation Just a Question of Gender? In Search of the Brazilian Reality. Determination of Serum Glycogen Synthase 3 Beta Levels in Patients with Heart Failure, a Novel Marker for Diagnosis and Defining Disease Severity?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1