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
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2010
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
Background Prospective randomized trials comparing the coronary artery disease-related health status outcomes (changes in symptom grade, physical functional capacity and health-related quality of life) after percutaneous coronary intervention at hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgical backup have not been reported earlier.
Methods We randomly assigned 609 consecutive patients fulfilling pre-specified procedural low-risk criteria to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention at either a community hospital without or a regional hospital with on-site surgical backup. Five hundred and seventy-six patients completed the health status evaluation at baseline and at 6 months follow-up.
Results At baseline, 91.4% had symptoms, and the mean (standard deviation) Canadian Cardiovascular Society's classification was 2.5 (0.9). The procedural success rates and the changes in health status measures were similar at the two hospitals. Overall there was a substantial relief of symptoms with a reduction in Canadian Cardiovascular Society's classification of 1.9 (1.2), increase in exercise time [1.4 (1.9) min] and reduction in use of antianginal drugs [0.6 (0.9) less drugs] at follow-up compared with baseline (all P >0.001). Health-related quality of life was evaluated with the Short-Form 36 health survey. There were significant and similar improvements in nearly all multi-item and summary scores from baseline to follow-up at the two hospitals. The largest improvements were seen in items related to physical functioning [overall change in Physical Component Score from baseline to follow-up 6.9 (9.1) points, P >0.001] and lowest in the mental health domains [change in Mental Component Score 3.3 (10.7) points, P >0.001].
Interpretation This study shows that a substantial and comparable gain in coronary artery disease-related health status can be achieved at hospitals both with and without surgical backup.
DehmerGJBlankenshipJWhartonTPJrSethAMorrisonDADimarioCThe current status and future direction of percutaneous coronary intervention without on-site surgical backup: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2007; 69:471–478.
2.
SpertusJAConardMW. Health status assessment. In: WeintraubWS, editor. Cardiovascular health care economicsNew Jersey: Humana Press; 2003. pp. 81–99.
3.
SpertusJA. Evolving application for patient-centered health status measurements. Circulation2008; 118:2103–2110.
4.
CurtisJPKrumholzHM. Keeping the patient in view: defining the appropriateness of percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation2004; 110:3746–3748.
5.
AlterDAAustinPCTuJV. Community factors, hospital characteristics and interregional outcome variations following acute myocardial infarction in Canada. Can J Cardiol2005; 21:247–255.
6.
GottwikMZahnRSchieleRSchielebRSchneiderbRGittbAKDifferences in treatment and outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to hospitals with compared to without departments of cardiology. Eur Heart J2001; 22:1784–1801.
7.
SmetanaGWBruceELandonBEBindmanABBurstinHDavisRBA comparison of outcomes resulting from generalist vs specialist care for a single discrete medical condition. A systematic review and methodologic critique. Arch Intern Med2007; 167:10–20.
8.
MortensenOSBjornerJBNewmanBOldenburgBGroenvoldMMadsenJKAndersenHR, on behalf of the DANAMI-2 Study Group. Gender differences in health-related quality of life following ST-elevation myocardial infarction: women and men do not benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention to the same degreeEur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2007; 14:37–43.
9.
NashISCurtisLHRubinH. Predictors of patient-reported physical and mental health 6 months after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Am Heart J1999; 138:422–429.
10.
HoferSDoeringSRumpoldGOldridgeNBenzerW. Determinants of health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2006; 13:398–406.
11.
MarkDBNaylorDHlatkyMACaliffRMTopolEJGrangerCBUse of medical resources and quality of life after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. N Engl J Med331:1130–1135.
12.
PiloteLLauzonCHuynhTDionDRouxRRacineNQuality of life after acute myocardial infarction among patients treated at sites with and without on-site availability of angiography. Arch Intern Med2002; 162:553–559.
13.
PetersonEDOhmnaMBrindisRGCohenDJMagidDJ. Development of systems of care for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients: evaluation and outcomesCirculation2007; 116:e64–e67.
14.
BeinartSCSalesAESpertusJAPlomondonMEEveryNRRumsfeldJS. Impact of angina burden and other factors on treatment satisfaction after acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J2003; 146:646–652.
15.
MelbergTNilsenDWTLarsenAIBarvikSBonarjeeVKuiperKKJNordrehaugJE. Nonemergent coronary angioplasty without on-site surgical backup: a randomized study evaluating outcomes in low-risk patients. Am Heart J2006; 152:888–895.
16.
WareJEShelbourneCD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care1992; 30:473–483.
17.
LogeJHKaasaSHjermstadMJKvienTK. Translation and performance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. I. Data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity. J Clin Epidemiol1998; 51:1069–1076.
18.
MesbahMColeBFTing LeeM-L. Statistical methods for quality of life studies: design, measures and analysisBoston: Kluwer Academic Press; 2002.
19.
CurranDMolenberghsGFayersPMMachinD. Incomplete quality of life data in randomized trials: missing forms. Statist Med1998; 17:697–709.
20.
VeenstraMPettersenKIRollagAStavemK. Association of the changes in health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease with coronary procedures and sociodemographic characteristics. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes2004; 2:56.
21.
NormanGRSloanJAWyrwichKW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care2003; 41:582–592.
McGeeHMOldridgeNHellemansIM. Quality of life evaluation in cardiovascular disease: a role for the European Society of Cardiology?Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2005; 12:191–192.
24.
MarkDBWenqinPClapp-ChanningCEAnstromKJRossRJFoxRSQuality of life after late invasive therapy for occluded arteries. N Engl J Med2009; 360:774–783.
25.
WennbergDELucasFLSiewersAEKellettMAMalenkaDJ. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions performed at centers without and with onsite coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA2004; 292:1961–1968.
KrumholzHM. Outcomes research. Generating evidence for best practice and policies. Circulation2008; 118:309–318.
28.
OldridgeNSanerHMcGeeHM, for the HeartQoL Study Investigators. The Euro Cardio-QoL Project. An international study to develop a core heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire, the HeartQoLEur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2005; 12:87–94.
