Background Heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Although there are clear indications for revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes, there is debate regarding the benefits of revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease. We sought to perform a comprehensive meta‐analysis to assess the role of revascularization compared to conservative medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Hypothesis There is no significant difference in all‐cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality between invasive and medical arms. Methods We performed a systematic literature search from January 2000 to June 2020. Our literature search yielded seven randomized controlled trials. We analyzed a total of 12 013 patients (6109 in revascularization arm and 5904 in conservative medical therapy arm). Primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke), cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke. Additional subgroup analysis for all‐cause mortality was performed comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent versus conservative therapy; and PCI with drug eluting stent versus conservative therapy. Results There was no statistically significant difference in primary outcome of all‐cause mortality between either arm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.83 to 1.08; p = .84). There were statistically significant lower rates of MACE (death, MI or stroke) in the revascularization arm when compared to conservative arm. Conclusions Our analysis did not show any survival advantage of an initial invasive strategy over conservative medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

Despite major advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) techniques, the current guidelines recommend against elective PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery backup. Nonetheless, an increasing number of hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery in the United States have developed programs for elective PCI. Studies evaluating outcome in this setting have yielded mixed results, leaving the question unanswered. Hence, a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of nonemergent PCI in hospitals with and without on-site surgical backup was performed. A systematic review of literature identified four studies involving 6817 patients. Three clinical end points were extracted from each study and included in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, and the need for emergency coronary artery bypass grafting. The studies were homogenous for each outcome studied. Therefore, the combined relative risks (RRs) across all the studies and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. A two-sided alpha error less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Compared with facilities with on-site surgical backup, the risk of in-hospital death (RR, 2.7; CI, 0.6-12.9; P = 0.18), nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR, 1.3; CI, 0.7- 2.2; P = 0.29), and need of emergent coronary artery bypass grafting (RR, 0.46; CI, 0.06- 3.1; P = 0.43) was similar in those lacking on-site surgical backup. The present meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference in the outcome with regard to risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, and the risk of death in patients undergoing elective PCI in hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery backup.

Background: National registries have provided data on in-hospital outcomes for several cardiac procedures. The available data on in-hospital outcomes and its predictors after pericardiocentesis are mostly derived from single center studies.Furthermore, the outcomes after pericardiocentesis for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and the impact of procedural volume on in-hospital outcomes in the United States are largely unknown.Methods: We used national inpatient database files for the years 2009-2013 to estimate the inpatient outcomes after pericardiocentesis in all-comers and in the subgroups with iatrogenic effusion. We also studied the impact of hospital procedural volume, among other predictors, on inpatient mortality.Results: About 64,070 (95%CI 61 008-67 051) pericardiocentesis were performed in the United States during 2009-2013. Of these, 57.15% (56.02-58.26%) of the pericardiocentesis were in hemodynamically unstable patients. Percutaneous cardiac procedures were performed in 17.7% of patients (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 4.02%, electrophysiologic procedures 13.58%, and structural heart intervention (SHI) 0.76%). Overall inpatient mortality was 12.30% (95%CI 11.66-12.96%). Inpatient mortality after PCI, electrophysiologic procedures, SHI and cardiac surgery were 27.67% (95%CI 24-31.67%), 7.8% (95%CI 6.67-9.31%), 22.36% (95%CI 15.06-31.85%) and 18.97% (95%CI 15.84-22.57%), respectively. There was an inverse association between hospital procedural volume and inpatient mortality, with a mortality of 14.01% (12.84-15.26%) at the lowest and 10.82% (9.44-12.37%) at highest quartile hospitals by procedure volume (p trend = 0.001). Conclusion:The inpatient mortality after pericardiocentesis is high, particularly when associated with PCI and SHI. K E Y W O R D S iatrogenic effusion, inpatient mortality, pericardiocentesis 1 | BACKGROUND Pericardiocentesis, the percutaneous drainage of the pericardial sac, is a procedure performed in contemporary cardiovascular practice in both the elective and emergent setting. A timely pericardiocentesis can be lifesaving in tamponade; else, a pericardiocentesis is done for large effusions for diagnostic and therapeutic reasons. The current European Society of Cardiology guidelines gives pericardiocentesis a J Interv Cardiol. 2018;31:815-825.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joic

No abstract

No abstract