ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2016
Off-site primary percutaneous coronary intervention in a new centre is safe: comparing clinical outcomes with a hospital with surgical backup.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expansion of off-site percutaneous coronary intervention centres significantly reduces ambulance driving time to primary PCI in the Netherlands.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020Article
- Article
- SCAI Expert Consensus Statement on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Without On-Site Surgical Backup.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the procedural and clinical outcomes of a new primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) centre without surgical back-up (off-site PCI) and to investigate whether these results are comparable with a high volume on-site PCI centre in the Netherlands.
backgroundControversy remains about the safety and efficacy of PPCI in off-site PCI centres.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed clinical and procedural data as well as 6‑month follow-up of 226 patients diagnosed with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent PPCI at VieCuri Medical Centre Venlo and 115 STEMI patients who underwent PPCI at Catharina Hospital Eindhoven.
resultsPPCI patients in VieCuri Medical Centre had similar procedural and clinical outcomes to those in Catharina Hospital. Overall there were no significant differences. The occurrence of procedural complications was low in both groups (8.4 % VieCuri vs. 12.3 % Catharina Hospital). In the VieCuri group there was one procedural-related death. No patients in either group needed emergency surgery. At 30 days, 17 (7.9 %) patients in the VieCuri group and 9 (8.1 %) in the Catharina Hospital group had a major adverse cardiac event.
conclusionPerforming PPCI in an off-site PCI centre is safe and effective. The study results show that the procedural and clinical outcomes of an off-site PPCI centre are comparable with an on-site high-volume PPCI centre.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.