Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Relationship Between Procedural Volume and Outcomes

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an integral treatment modality for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) as well as chronic stable coronary artery disease (CAD) not responsive to optimal medical therapy. This coupled with studies on the feasibility and safety of performing PCI in centers without on-site surgical backup led to widespread growth of PCI centers. However, this has been accompanied by a recent steep decline in the volume of PCIs at both the operator and hospital level, which raises concerns regarding minimal procedural volumes required to maintain necessary skills and favorable clinical outcomes. The 2011 ACC/AHA/SCAI competency statement required PCI be performed by operators with a minimal procedural volume of >75 PCIs annually at high-volume centers with >400 PCIs per year, a number which was relaxed in the 2013 ACC/AHA/SCAI update to >50 PCIs/operator/year in hospitals with >200 PCIs annually to coincide with reduction in national PCI volume. Recent data suggests that many hospitals do not meet these thresholds. We review data on the importance of volume as a vital quality metric at both an operator and hospital level in determining procedural outcomes following PCI

Diagnosis and Treatment of Arterial Dissections

Dissections of the cervical and intracranial vessels represent an important source of stroke in those less than 50 years of age. This can occur spontaneously or following trauma, minor or major. Rapid diagnosis is essential to limit subsequent sequelae and modern computed tomographic angiography represents an appropriately sensitive modality. Treatment must be individualized to the patient and can consist of an antiplatelet regimen, anticoagulation, or endovascular intervention. No evidence demonstrates superiority of either medical modality and even aspirin alone may be efficacious. Consideration should be given to this in the multi-trauma population in which more aggressive anticoagulation is contraindicated. In addition, thrombolytic administration should not be withheld would it otherwise be indicated. Endovascular intervention is reserved for those with hemodynamically significant narrowing, enlarging pseudoaneurysms, fistulas formation, or subarachnoid hemorrhage