Safety of clinical engineer-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention

被引:0
作者
Mitsutoshi Oguri
Hideki Ishii
Takuro Shigematsu
Rin Fujita
Yuichiro Koyama
Takeshi Katagiri
Yoshihiro Ikai
Yusuke Fujikawa
Hiroshi Takahashi
Yoriyasu Suzuki
Toyoaki Murohara
机构
[1] Kasugai Municipal Hospital,Department of Cardiology
[2] Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine,Department of Cardiovascular Medicine
[3] Fujita Health University,Division of Medical Statistics
[4] Nagoya Heart Center,Department of Cardiology
[5] Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine,Department of Cardiology
来源
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics | 2023年 / 38卷
关键词
Clinical engineer; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Safety;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requires multiple staff members, including interventional cardiologists, with the physical burden of heavy protective measures to minimize radiation exposure. Here, we aimed to investigate the safety of task sharing with clinical engineers (CEs) working as 1st assistant during ad hoc PCI. We retrospectively included 286 patients who underwent ad hoc PCI following diagnostic catheterization for coronary artery disease between April 2019 and March 2021. Procedural complications including coronary perforation or rupture, myocardial infarction, cerebral embolism, cardiovascular death, decreased kidney function, and radiation parameters were compared between the two clinical settings [CE group, CEs as the 1st assistant from the beginning of diagnostic coronary angiography to the end of PCI vs. doctor (DR) group, others]. There was no increase in the ratio of procedural complications in the CE group (1.7%) versus the DR group (1.2%). Fluorescence time and radiation exposure dose were significantly reduced in the CE group {25 min [interquartile range (IQR), 19–35 min] vs. 28 min (IQR, 20–39 min), P = 0.036; 908 mGy (IQR, 654–1326 mGy) vs. 1062 mGy (IQR, 732–1594 mGy), P = 0.049}. The median amount of contrast medium was significantly reduced in the CE group [100 mL (IQR, 80–119 mL) vs. 110 mL (IQR 90–140 mL), P < 0.001]. After propensity matching, fluorescence time, radiation exposure dose, and contrast medium amount were similar between groups. Task sharing with CEs as the 1st assistant during ad hoc PCI could contribute to clinical safety in patients with coronary artery disease.
引用
收藏
页码:96 / 103
页数:7
相关论文
共 94 条
  • [1] Ozaki Y(2022)CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) update 2022 Cardiovasc Interv Ther 37 1-34
  • [2] Hara H(2018)2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur Heart J 39 119-177
  • [3] Onuma Y(2013)Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study J Am Coll Cardiol 61 1596-1600
  • [4] Katagiri Y(2022)JCS/JSCVS 2018 Guideline on revascularization of stable coronary artery disease Circ J 86 477-588
  • [5] Amano T(2020)Contemporary use and trends in percutaneous coronary intervention in Japan: an outline of the J-PCI registry Cardiovasc Interv Ther 35 218-226
  • [6] Kobayashi Y(2018)Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018) J Am Coll Cardiol 72 2231-2264
  • [7] Ibanez B(2020)The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon patients, staff, and on the future practices of percutaneous coronary intervention Eur Heart J Suppl 22 P13-P18
  • [8] James S(2021)Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on STEMI care: an expanded analysis from the United States Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 98 217-222
  • [9] Agewall S(2022)Percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: Insights from the nationwide registration data Lancet Reg Health West Pac 22 288-291
  • [10] Antunes MJ(2021)Catheterization laboratory activity before and during COVID-19 spread: a comparative analysis in Piedmont, Italy, by the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (GISE) Int J Cardiol 323 139-144