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

IF 1.9 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":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11634306/pdf/","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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
Prevalence of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy in Brazil: What is Our Reality? Impact of Reperfusion Delays and Intersectional Inequalities in the Care of STEMI in Rio de Janeiro. Coffee with Academic Reflections. Diagnostic Value of Serum sCD40L, CCL3, and NT-ProBNP Levels in Detection of Lower Limb Venous Thrombosis among Elderly Patients with Heart Failure. Serum Levels of sCD40L, CCL3, and NT-proBNP in Elderly Patients Admitted to the Hospital with HF.
×
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:604180095
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