两名操作员是否改善了左主干经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的结果?ORPKI注册表的见解。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-23 DOI:10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06364-0
Gemina Doolub, Mamas A Mamas, Artur Dziewierz, Krzysztof P Malinowski, Izabela Oleś, Martyna Kuleta, Barbara Zdzierak, Zbigniew Siudak
{"title":"两名操作员是否改善了左主干经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的结果?ORPKI注册表的见解。","authors":"Gemina Doolub, Mamas A Mamas, Artur Dziewierz, Krzysztof P Malinowski, Izabela Oleś, Martyna Kuleta, Barbara Zdzierak, Zbigniew Siudak","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06364-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is prevalent in 7% of patients undergoing angiography. Limited data exists on the impact of double scrubbing in LMCA PCI. We sought to assess periprocedural outcomes in two-operator LMCA percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the Polish National Registry of PCI (ORPKI), we collected data on 28,745 patients undergoing LMCA PCI from 154 centers. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of operators performing PCI (one vs. two operators).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LMCA PCI was performed by a single operator in 86% of the cases and by two operators in 14% of cases. Patients treated by two operators had a greater comorbidity burden including diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, and previous revascularization. In addition, these were more likely to be treated in high-volume centers, by operators with higher volume of LMCA PCIs. The risk of periprocedural death (2.37% vs. 2.44%; P=0.78), as well as cardiac arrest, coronary artery perforation, no-reflow, and puncture site bleeding was comparable between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, we found that a two-operator strategy was an independent predictor of periprocedural death, with this effect being much more profound in an elective setting (OR=5.13 [1.37-19.26]; P=0.015), compared to an urgent (ACS) setting (OR=1.32 [1.00-1.73]; P=0.047).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study suggests that a two-operator approach is not necessarily routinely recommended for LMCA interventions, although it can be considered for more complex cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do two operators improve outcomes in left main percutaneous coronary intervention? Insights from the ORPKI Registry.\",\"authors\":\"Gemina Doolub, Mamas A Mamas, Artur Dziewierz, Krzysztof P Malinowski, Izabela Oleś, Martyna Kuleta, Barbara Zdzierak, Zbigniew Siudak\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06364-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is prevalent in 7% of patients undergoing angiography. Limited data exists on the impact of double scrubbing in LMCA PCI. We sought to assess periprocedural outcomes in two-operator LMCA percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the Polish National Registry of PCI (ORPKI), we collected data on 28,745 patients undergoing LMCA PCI from 154 centers. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of operators performing PCI (one vs. two operators).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LMCA PCI was performed by a single operator in 86% of the cases and by two operators in 14% of cases. Patients treated by two operators had a greater comorbidity burden including diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, and previous revascularization. In addition, these were more likely to be treated in high-volume centers, by operators with higher volume of LMCA PCIs. The risk of periprocedural death (2.37% vs. 2.44%; P=0.78), as well as cardiac arrest, coronary artery perforation, no-reflow, and puncture site bleeding was comparable between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, we found that a two-operator strategy was an independent predictor of periprocedural death, with this effect being much more profound in an elective setting (OR=5.13 [1.37-19.26]; P=0.015), compared to an urgent (ACS) setting (OR=1.32 [1.00-1.73]; P=0.047).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study suggests that a two-operator approach is not necessarily routinely recommended for LMCA interventions, although it can be considered for more complex cases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06364-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06364-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在接受血管造影术的患者中,7%的患者患有严重的左主干冠状动脉(LMCA)疾病。LMCA PCI中存在关于双重清理影响的有限数据。我们试图评估两名操作员LMCA经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的围手术期结果。方法:使用波兰国家PCI登记处(ORPKI)的数据,我们收集了来自154个中心的28745名接受LMCA PCI的患者的数据。根据施行PCI的手术人数将患者分为两组(一名和两名)。结果:86%的病例由一名手术员施行LMCA PCI,14%的病例由两名手术员实施LMCA PCI。接受两名手术治疗的患者合并症负担更大,包括糖尿病、动脉高压、既往心肌梗死和既往血运重建。此外,这些患者更有可能在大容量中心接受治疗,由LMCA PCI容量较大的运营商进行治疗。两组围手术期死亡的风险(2.37%对2.44%;P=0.78)以及心脏骤停、冠状动脉穿孔、无回流和穿刺部位出血的风险具有可比性。在多变量分析中,我们发现双操作员策略是围手术期死亡的独立预测因素,在选择性环境中这种影响要深远得多(OR=5.13[1.37-19.26];P=0.015),与紧急(ACS)情况相比(OR=1.32[1.00-1.73];P=0.047)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Do two operators improve outcomes in left main percutaneous coronary intervention? Insights from the ORPKI Registry.

Background: Significant left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is prevalent in 7% of patients undergoing angiography. Limited data exists on the impact of double scrubbing in LMCA PCI. We sought to assess periprocedural outcomes in two-operator LMCA percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: Using data from the Polish National Registry of PCI (ORPKI), we collected data on 28,745 patients undergoing LMCA PCI from 154 centers. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of operators performing PCI (one vs. two operators).

Results: LMCA PCI was performed by a single operator in 86% of the cases and by two operators in 14% of cases. Patients treated by two operators had a greater comorbidity burden including diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, and previous revascularization. In addition, these were more likely to be treated in high-volume centers, by operators with higher volume of LMCA PCIs. The risk of periprocedural death (2.37% vs. 2.44%; P=0.78), as well as cardiac arrest, coronary artery perforation, no-reflow, and puncture site bleeding was comparable between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, we found that a two-operator strategy was an independent predictor of periprocedural death, with this effect being much more profound in an elective setting (OR=5.13 [1.37-19.26]; P=0.015), compared to an urgent (ACS) setting (OR=1.32 [1.00-1.73]; P=0.047).

Conclusions: Our study suggests that a two-operator approach is not necessarily routinely recommended for LMCA interventions, although it can be considered for more complex cases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families. Does Resilience Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Self-Image and Psychological Distress in Middle-Aged and Older Gay and Bisexual Men? Intergenerational Relations and Well-being Among Older Middle Eastern/Arab American Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Caregiving Appraisals and Emotional Valence: Moderating Effects of Activity Participation.
×
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