Main Article Content
Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stands as the most employed coronary revascularization technique today. By the year 2020, more than 965,000 PCI procedures were performed in the United States. However, the growing demand for this procedure poses several challenges. It leads to a substantial occupancy of hospital beds, extended waiting times, increased procedural costs, and a heightened demand for healthcare personnel, all of which contribute to a reduction in the quality of care for patients with medical emergencies. Therefore, this research aims to assess the short-term safety of ambulatory percutaneous coronary intervention in carefully selected patients.
Aims: The primary objective of this study is to determine the short-term safety of implementing ambulatory percutaneous coronary intervention in a middle-income country.
Methods: This retrospective, single-center study was conducted in Santiago, Dominican Republic. The study population consisted of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary angioplasties between January and December 2022. Seventy patients who met the predefined inclusion criteria were included in the final sample. These patients were discharged within 24 hours of the procedure and subsequently contacted at 24-48 hours and 7-14 days post-procedure by the healthcare staff to monitor for any signs or symptoms of complications stemming from the intervention.
Results: The study identified a few complications, with no abnormalities reported in 98.6% of patients. Hematoma emerged as the most observed alteration, and no major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were recorded. From the patient's perspective, individuals expressed satisfaction with the same-day discharge throughout the follow-up period, which extended to 7-14 days post-procedure.
Conclusion: Ambulatory percutaneous coronary angioplasty was found to be a safe procedure, particularly in patients meeting specific low-case complexity criteria.
Keywords: percutaneous coronary intervention, ambulatory procedure, safety, Dominican Republic, ambulatory percutaneous coronary.
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
https://idataresearch.com/product/interventional-cardiology-market/ (Accessed: 22 September 2023).
2. Le Corvoisier P, Gellen B, Lesault P-F, et al. Ambulatory transradial percutaneous coronary intervention: A safe, effective, and cost-saving strategy. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2012;81(1):15-23. doi:10.1002/ccd.24545
3. Rinfret S, Kennedy WA, Lachaine J, et al. Economic impact of same-day home discharge after uncomplicated transradial percutaneous coronary intervention and bolus-only abciximab regimen. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2010;3(10):1011-1019. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2010.07.011
4. Hauck K, Zhao X. How dangerous is a day in hospital? Medical Care. 2011;49(12):1068-1075. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e31822efb09
5. Chambers CE, Dehmer GJ, Cox DA, et al. Defining the length of stay following percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2009;73(7):847-858. doi:10.1002/ccd.22100
6. Bertrand OF, De Larochellière R, Rodés-Cabau J, et al. A randomized study comparing sameday home discharge and abciximab bolus only to overnight hospitalization and abciximab bolus and infusion after transradial coronary stent implantation. Circulation. 2006;114(24):2636- 2643. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.638627
7. Heyde GS, Koch KT, de Winter RJ, et al. Randomized trial comparing same-day discharge with overnight hospital stay after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2007;115(17):2299-2306. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.591495
8. Córdoba-Soriano JG, Jiménez-Mazuecos J, et al. Seguridad y factibilidad de la Intervención Coronaria Percutánea Ambulatoria en pacientes seleccionados:Datos de un registro multicéntrico español. Revista Española de Cardiología. November 25, 2016. Accessed September 22,
9. Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice
Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(1):e1-e121. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.12.001
10. Box LC, Blankenship JC, Henry TD, et al. SCAI position statement on the performance of
percutaneous coronary intervention in ambulatory surgical centers. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020;96(4):862-870. doi:10.1002/ccd.28991
11. Li K, Kalwani NM, Heidenreich PA, Fearon WF. Elective percutaneous coronary intervention
in ambulatory surgery centers. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021;14(3):292-300. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.015
12. Ramsingh R, Maharaj D, Angelini G, Rampersad RD. Safety and cost-savings of sameday discharge trans-radial percutaneous coronary intervention in Trinidad and Tobago. Cureus. Published online 2020.
13. Samaniego Lampon B. Implantación de un programa ambulatorio de angioplastia coronaria
percutánea. Universidad de Oviedo. Published online 2015.
14. Godino C, Colombo A. Complications of percutaneous coronary intervention. PanVascular
Medicine. Published online 2014:1-30. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37393-0_78-1
15. Madan M, Bagai A, Overgaard CB, et al. Same‐day discharge after elective percutaneous
coronary interventions in Ontario, Canada. Journal of the American Heart Association.
16. Moscucci M, Fox KA, Cannon CP, et al. Moscucci M. Predictors of major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes: The global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE). European Heart Journal. 2003;24(20):1815-1823. doi:10.1016/s0195-668x(03)00485-8
17. Saraceno B, van Ommeren M, Batniji R, et al. Barriers to improvement of mental health
services in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet. 2007;370(9593):1164-1174. doi:10.1016/s0140-
18. Rodriguez-Osorio CA, Dominguez-Cherit G. Medical decision making: Paternalism versus
patient-centered (autonomous) care. Current Opinion in Critical Care. 2008;14(6):708-713.
19. Kardas P, Lewek P, Matyjaszczyk M. Determinants of patient adherence: A review of Systematic Reviews. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2013;4. doi:10.3389/fphar.2013.00091