Skip to main content
Log in

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Facilities Without Cardiac Surgery on Site

  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior to the widespread adoption of intracoronary stent implantation, potential complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) necessitated the presence of backup cardiac surgery. However, as stent implantation has become the predominant form of PCI, the incidence of emergent cardiac surgery has declined exponentially. Despite this, current guidelines recommend against the performance of elective PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery and recommend that primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) might be considered at hospitals without backup cardiac surgery. These recommendations are based predominantly on two principles: (1) hospital volume for PCI is strongly associated with clinical outcomes, and (2) results from a large registry study, in which the authors reported a substantial increase in mortality among patients undergoing non-primary/rescue PCI at hospitals without backup cardiac surgery. Since that time, evidence from multiple studies has suggested that performance of PCI at hospitals without backup cardiac surgery is feasible, safe, and both clinically and cost effective. Among STEMI patients, in particular, performance of primary PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery reduces time to reperfusion and subsequent adverse cardiovascular events as well as likely reducing infarct size. In this review, we will examine the evidence surrounding the performance of PCI for stable and unstable coronary disease at hospitals without on-site backup cardiac surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Smith Jr SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld Jr JW, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Circulation. 2006;113(7):e166–286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stone GW, Brodie BR, Griffin JJ, et al. Prospective, multicenter study of the safety and feasibility of primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: in-hospital and 30-day results of the PAMI stent pilot trial. Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Stent Pilot Trial Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31(1):23–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. The EPILOG Investigators. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade and low-dose heparin during percutaneous coronary revascularization. New Engl J Med. 1997;336(24):1689–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jaber WA, Lennon RJ, Mathew V, et al. Application of evidence-based medical therapy is associated with improved outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and is a valid quality indicator. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(8):1473–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shubrooks Jr SJ, Nesto RW, Leeman D, et al. Urgent coronary bypass surgery for failed percutaneous coronary intervention in the stent era: is backup still necessary? Am Heart J. 2001;142(1):190–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh M, Rihal CS, Gersh BJ, et al. Twenty-five-year trends in in-hospital and long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a single-institution experience. Circulation. 2007;115(22):2835–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yang EH, Gumina RJ, Lennon RJ, et al. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery for percutaneous coronary interventions: changes in the incidence, clinical characteristics, and indications from 1979 to 2003. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(11):2004–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Altmann DB, Racz M, Battleman DS, et al. Reduction in angioplasty complications after the introduction of coronary stents: results from a consecutive series of 2,242 patients. Am Heart J. 1996;132(3):503–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Haan CK, O’Brien S, Edwards FH, et al. Trends in emergency coronary artery bypass grafting after percutaneous coronary intervention, 1994–2003. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81(5):1658–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Talley JD, Weintraub WS, Roubin GS, et al. Failed elective percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty requiring coronary artery bypass surgery. In-hospital and late clinical outcome at 5 years. Circulation. 1990;82(4):1203–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vogt A, Bonzel T, Harmjanz D, et al. PTCA registry of German community hospitals. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender Kardiologischer Krankenhausarzte (ALKK) Study Group. Eur Heart J. 1997;18(7):1110–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. • Pride YB, Canto JG, Frederick PD, Gibson CM. Outcomes among patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presenting to interventional hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(10):944–52. Only study comparing outcomes exclusively among patients with NSTEMI presenting to hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. • Pride YB, Canto JG, Frederick PD, Gibson CM. Outcomes among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction presenting to interventional hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2(6):574–82. Study of large MI registry evaluating outcomes of STEMI patients presenting to hospitals with and without backup cardiac surgery.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith Jr SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld Jr JW, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention—summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Circulation. 2006;113(1):156–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction). Circulation. 2004;110(9):e82–e292.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. • Kumbhani DJ, Cannon CP, Fonarow GC, et al. Association of hospital primary angioplasty volume in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with quality and outcomes. JAMA. 2009;302(20):2207–13. Large registry evaluating outcomes among STEMI patients presenting to hospitals with high and low volume of PCI.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Canto JG, Every NR, Magid DJ, et al. The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. New Engl J Med. 2000;342(21):1573–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Magid DJ, Calonge BN, Rumsfeld JS, et al. Relation between hospital primary angioplasty volume and mortality for patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty vs thrombolytic therapy. JAMA. 2000;284(24):3131–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Srinivas VS, Hailpern SM, Koss E, et al. Effect of physician volume on the relationship between hospital volume and mortality during primary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(7):574–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, Dickens Jr JD, et al. Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent. JAMA. 2000;284(24):3139–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wennberg DE, Lucas FL, Siewers AE, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions performed at centers without and with onsite coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 2004;292(16):1961–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gruentzig AR. Transluminal dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis. Lancet. 1978;1:1.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gruentzig AR, Senning A, Siegenthaler WE. Nonoperative dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. New Engl J Med. 1979;301:8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sinclair IN, McCabe CH, Sipperly ME, Baim DS. Predictors, therapeutic options and long-term outcome of abrupt reclosure. Am J Cardiol. 1988;61(14):61G–6G.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. de Feyter PJ, van den Brand M, Laarman GJ, et al. Acute coronary artery occlusion during and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Frequency, prediction, clinical course, management, and follow-up. Circulation. 1991;83(3):927–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hannan EL, Arani DT, Johnson LW, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State. Risk factors and outcomes. JAMA. 1992;268(21):3092–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sigwart U, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, et al. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis after transluminal angioplasty. New Engl J Med. 1987;316(12):701–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Seshadri N, Whitlow PL, Acharya N, et al. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention era. Circulation. 2002;106(18):2346–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ting HH, Garratt KN, Singh M, et al. Low-risk percutaneous coronary interventions without on-site cardiac surgery: 2 years’ observational experience and follow-up. Am Heart J. 2003;145(2):278–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Long KH, McMurtry EK, Lennon RJ, et al. Elective percutaneous coronary intervention without on-site cardiac surgery: clinical and economic implications. Med Care. 2006;44(5):406–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. • Frutkin AD, Mehta SK, Patel T, et al. Outcomes of 1,090 consecutive, elective, nonselected percutaneous coronary interventions at a community hospital without onsite cardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(1):53–7. Largest series of patients undergoing PCI at a community hospital.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Melberg T, Nordrehaug JE, Nilsen DW. A comparison of the health status after percutaneous coronary intervention at a hospital with and without on-site cardiac surgical backup: a randomized trial in nonemergent patients. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010;17(2):235–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Melberg T, Nilsen DW, Larsen AI, et al. Nonemergent coronary angioplasty without on-site surgical backup: a randomized study evaluating outcomes in low-risk patients. Am Heart J. 2006;152(5):888–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Roussanov O, Estacio G, Capuno M, et al. Nonemergent percutaneous coronary interventions in a veterans affairs medical center without onsite cardiac surgery. Am Heart J. 2006;152(5):909–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. The TIMI IIIB Investigators. Effects of tissue plasminogen activator and a comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results of the TIMI IIIB Trial. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Ischemia. Circulation 1994;89(4):1545–56.

  36. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Crawford MH, et al. Outcomes in patients with acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarction randomly assigned to an invasive as compared with a conservative management strategy. Veterans Affairs Non-Q-Wave Infarction Strategies in Hospital (VANQWISH) Trial Investigators. New Engl J Med. 1998;338(25):1785–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. The FRISC II Investigators. Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease Investigators. Lancet 1999;354(9180):708–15.

  38. Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, et al. Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. FRISC II Investigators. Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary artery disease. Lancet. 2000;356(9223):9–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fox KA, Poole-Wilson PA, Henderson RA, et al. Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina. Lancet. 2002;360(9335):743–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. New Engl J Med. 2009;360(21):2165–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Weaver WD, Simes RJ, Betriu A, et al. Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review. JAMA. 1997;278(23):2093–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Nordmann AJ, Bucher H, Hengstler P, et al. Primary stenting versus primary balloon angioplasty for treating acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;18(2):CD 005313.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Aversano T, Aversano LT, Passamani E, et al. Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;287(15):1943–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wharton Jr TP, McNamara NS, Fedele FA, et al. Primary angioplasty for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: experience at two community hospitals without cardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(5):1257–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Singh M, Ting HH, Gersh BJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction at hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgical capability. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79(6):738–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Weaver WD, Litwin PE, Martin JS. Use of direct angioplasty for treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction in hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery. The Myocardial Infarction, Triage, and Intervention Project Investigators. Circulation. 1993;88(5 Pt 1):2067–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Brush Jr JE, Thompson S, Ciuffo AA, et al. Retrospective comparison of a strategy of primary coronary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction in a community hospital without cardiac surgical backup. J Invasive Cardiol. 1996;8(2):91–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wharton Jr TP, Grines LL, Turco MA, et al. Primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction at hospitals with no surgery on-site (the PAMI-No SOS study) versus transfer to surgical centers for primary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(11):1943–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shiraishi J, Kohno Y, Sawada T, et al. In-hospital outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary interventions performed at hospitals with and without on-site coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circ J. 2007;71(8):1208–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. • Hannan EL, Zhong Y, Racz M, et al. Outcomes for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction in hospitals with and without onsite coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the New York State experience. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(6):519–27. Large state registry evaluating STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI at hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Michael Gibson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pride, Y.B., Gibson, C.M. Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Facilities Without Cardiac Surgery on Site. Curr Cardiol Rep 13, 432–438 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-011-0197-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-011-0197-y

Keywords

Navigation