Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention performed at offsite versus onsite surgical centers in the United Kingdom

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly being performed at centers with offsite surgical support. Strong guideline endorsement of this practice has been lacking, in part because outcome data are limited to modest-size populations with short-term follow-up. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of PCI performed at centers with and without surgical support in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2012. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of centrally tracked outcomes from index PCI procedures entered in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database between 2006 and 2012, stratified according to whether procedures were performed at centers with onsite or offsite surgical support. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality, with secondary endpoints of mortality at 1 and 5 years. Results: Outcomes at a median of 3.4 years follow-up were available for 384,013 patients, of whom 31% (n = 119,096) were treated at offsite surgical centers. In an unadjusted analysis, crude mortality rates were lower in patients treated at centers with offsite versus onsite surgical coverage (2.0% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001). On multivariate adjustment, there were no between-group differences in survival between the naive and imputed populations at 30 days (naive population hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 1.06; p = 0.16; imputed population HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.09; p = 0.82), 1 year (naive population HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.07; p = 0.26; imputed population HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06; p = 0.78), or 5 years (naive population HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.01; p = 0.10; imputed population HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.03; p = 0.29). Results were consistent irrespective of procedural indication. No differences in mortality were seen in sensitivity analyses performed using a propensity-matched population of 74,001 patients. Conclusions: PCI performed at centers without onsite surgical backup is not associated with any mortality hazard

Assessing the cardiology community position on transradial intervention and the use of bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: results of an EAPCI survey.

AIMS: Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) collecting the opinion of the cardiology community on the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), before and after the MATRIX trial presentation at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2015 Scientific Sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered on the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200). A total of 572 and 763 physicians responded to the pre- and post-ACC survey, respectively. The radial approach emerged as the preferable access site for ACS patients undergoing invasive management with roughly every other responder interpreting the evidence for mortality benefit as definitive and calling for a guidelines upgrade to class I. The most frequently preferred anticoagulant in ACS patients remains unfractionated heparin (UFH), due to higher costs and greater perceived thrombotic risks associated with bivalirudin. However, more than a quarter of participants declared the use of bivalirudin would increase after MATRIX. CONCLUSIONS: The MATRIX trial reinforced the evidence for a causal association between bleeding and mortality and triggered consensus on the superiority of the radial versus femoral approach. The belief that bivalirudin mitigates bleeding risk is common, but UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant based on lower costs and thrombotic risks

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration after coronary stenting in clinical practice: results of an EAPCI survey

Aims: Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the EuropeanAssociation of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) concerning opinion on the evidence relating to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after coronary stenting.Methods and results: Results from three randomised clinical trials were scheduled to be presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2014 (ARIA 2014). A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered in the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200) both before and after ARIA 2014. A total of 1,134 physicians responded to the first (i.e., before AHA 2014) and 542 to the second (i.e., after ARIA 2014) survey. The majority of respondents interpreted trial results consistent with a substantial equipoise regarding the benefits and risks of an extended versus a standard DAPT strategy. Two respondents out of ten believed extended DAFT should be implemented in selected patients. After ARIA 2014, 46.1% of participants expressed uncertainty about the available evidence on DAFT duration, and 40.0% the need for clinical guidance.Conclusions: This EAPCI survey highlights considerable uncertainty within the medical community with regard to the optimal duration of DAFT after coronary stenting in the light of recent reported trial results. Updated recommendations for practising physicians to guide treatment decisions in routine clinical practice should be provided by international societies