title: Percutaneous coronary intervention at centers with and without on-site surgery: a meta-analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Percutaneous coronary interventions are performed at centers without onsite surgery, despite current guidelines discouraging this.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess literature comparing rates of in-hospital mortality and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting surgery at centers with and without on-site surgery.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic search of studies published between January 1990 and May 2010 was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review databases.
  
  
  METHODS
  English-language studies of percutaneous coronary intervention performed at centers with and without on-site surgery providing data on in-hospital mortality and emergency bypass were identified. Two study authors independently reviewed the 1029 articles originally identified and selected 40 for analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Study title, time period, indication for angioplasty, and outcomes were extracted manually from all selected studies, and quality of each study was assessed using the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) checklist.
  
  
  RESULTS
  High-quality studies of percutaneous coronary interventions performed at centers with and without on-site surgery were included. Pooled-effect estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Analyses of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction of 124,074 patients demonstrated no increase in in-hospital mortality (no on-site surgery vs on-site surgery: observed risk, 4.6% vs 7.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05; I(2) = 0%) or emergency bypass (observed risk, 0.22% vs 1.03%; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.79; I(2) = 20%) at centers without on-site surgery. For nonprimary percutaneous coronary interventions (elective and urgent, n = 914,288), the rates of in-hospital mortality (observed risk, 1.4% vs 2.1%; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.93-1.41; I(2) = 46%) and emergency bypass (observed risk, 0.17% vs 0.29%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.52-2.85; I(2) = 5%) were not significantly different at centers without or with on-site surgery.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Percutaneous coronary interventions performed at centers without on-site surgery, compared with centers with on-site surgery, were not associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital mortality or emergency bypass surgery.
authors.affiliation: Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. singh.mandeep@mayo.edu
authors.forename: Mandeep
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Singh
authors.forename: David R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Holmes
authors.forename: Gregory J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Dehmer
authors.forename: Ryan J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Lennon
authors.forename: Thomas P
authors.initials: TP
authors.lastname: Wharton
authors.forename: Michael A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Kutcher
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Aversano
authors.forename: Charanjit S
authors.initials: CS
authors.lastname: Rihal
mesh_terms: D000554:Ambulatory Care Facilities / Q000592:standards*; D017130:Angioplasty / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000592:standards; D006348:Cardiac Surgical Procedures / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D001026:Coronary Artery Bypass / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017558:Elective Surgical Procedures; D004632:Emergency Medical Services / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017052:Hospital Mortality; D006801:Humans; D012449:Safety