Impact of cardiac catheterization-percutaneous coronary intervention timing on inhospital mortality

Background. It is more convenient and less costly to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCls) in the catheterization laboratory after catheterization, but there is some doubt as to whether it is harmful to patients. Other studies on this topic have been hampered by small sample sizes and an inability to separate patients who underwent PCl after catheterization in the same admission from patients who underwent PCl in a subsequent admission. Methods. Data from New York's PCl registry-were used to develop a statistical model that predicted inhospital mortality based on preprocedural patient characteristics and the timing of the PCl (at same time as catheterization [combined procedure] or in the same admission as catheterization, but not at the same time [staged procedure]). The difference in mortality for the timing options was compared after adjusting for patient risk factors. Results. Patients undergoing combined catheterization and PCl were more likely to have undergone a previous PCl and less likely to have had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, a history of congestive heart failure, carotid disease, or diabetes than patients who underwent a staged procedure. After adjustment for patient risk, there were no significant differences in mortality for the 2 timing options (OR 1.14, P = .38 for combined vs staged procedures). However, patients who underwent combined procedures who had congestive heart failure in the same admission or who had Canadian Cardiovascular Society class IV had odds ratios significantly higher than congestive heart failure patients who underwent staged procedures (OR = 1.59, P = .04 and OR = 1.64, P = .04, respectively). Conclusions. Combined procedures appear to have mortality as low as' staged procedures on average, but are less effective for some groups of high-risk patients.