Key result
Day case coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention were associated with a similar incidence of vascular complications compared to inpatient procedures (1.3% vs 1.8%).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the incidence and risk factors of vascular complications between day case and inpatient CAG/PCI procedures.
Does day case observation reduce or maintain similar rates of vascular complications compared to inpatient observation in patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention?
Cohort (n=784)
No
Does day case observation reduce or maintain similar rates of vascular complications compared to inpatient observation in patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.3% vs 1.8%
p-value: p=0.805
Performing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention as a day case procedure does not significantly increase the risk of vascular complications compared to inpatient observation.
Day-case angiography/PCI may carry similar vascular risk to inpatient observation; leaves open confirmation by randomized trials before practice change.
Objective: To compare the incidence along with risk factors of vascular complications between patients having undergone Coronary angiography/Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (CAG/PCIs); as day cases and those as inpatients. Material and Methods: Our study is a retrospective cohort study. We performed a retrospective chart review of the patients, visiting a heart center of the hospital from October, 2014 to September, 2018. We included patients of a minimum 18 years of age, who had undergone CAG/PCIs. Excluded patients were those who had been referred from other hospitals. The main outcomes were vascular complications defined as: (1) bleeding with significant blood loss during the procedure. (2) Hematoma within 1 month after the procedure. Wilcoxon’s rank sum and chi-squared test were used to assess the risk factors. Results: Of all 784 patients having undergone CAG/PCI, 387 were day cases and 397 were inpatients. Only 12 cases developed vascular complications. The incidence of vascular complications was not significantly different between either day case; whose incidence was 1.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.87), and inpatients; whose incidence was 1.8% (95% CI, 1.10-2.42). We found that the risk factors of vascular complications were percutaneous coronary intervention, and using a vascular closure device to remove the introducer sheath. Conclusion: Performing CAG/PCI as day cases did not increase the risks of complications post-procedure, as compare to the inpatients. However, due to the small numbers of patients with complications future studies with more patients are needed to ensure the safety of day case CAG/PCI. Patients undergoing PCI, or patients with vascular closure devices used should be closely observed before discharge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Charoensin et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=784). Day case procedure vs. Inpatient procedure was evaluated on Vascular complications (bleeding with significant blood loss or hematoma >5 cm within 1 month) (p=0.805). Day case coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention were associated with a similar incidence of vascular complications compared to inpatient procedures (1.3% vs 1.8%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: