Retrospective analysis reveals comparable outcomes for mobile and stationary cardiac catheterization units, suggesting feasible deployment during crises.
Introduction Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention are essential for managing coronary artery disease, particularly in acute settings such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Mobile cardiac catheterization laboratories provide a potential solution for maintaining interventional cardiology services during hospital renovations, disasters, or in resource-limited settings. This study aimed to evaluate feasibility, safety, and quality of care of a mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory compared to a stationary facility. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted, comparing 1454 patients treated between 2016 and 2019 at either an interim mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory or a stationary facility. Key endpoints included door-to-ballon time, radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, contrast medium usage, and major adverse cardiac events. Results The door-to-balloon time was comparable between mobile and stationary facility (29 vs. 33 minutes, p = 0.143). Although fluoroscopy time and radiation dose were significantly higher in the mobile unit (p < 0.001), no differences in major adverse cardiac events were observed. The mobile unit demonstrated feasibility and safety for both routine and emergency interventions. Conclusion Mobile cardiac catheterization laboratories are a viable alternative for providing interventional cardiology services in various scenarios, including renovations, crises, and underserved regions. Optimizing equipment and workflows could further enhance their performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Resch et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: