Skip to main content
Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease logoLink to Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
. 2021 Nov 15;10(23):e022131. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.022131

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing High‐Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions by Single or Multiple Operators: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program

Christopher P Kovach 1, Annika Hebbe 2,3, Anna E Barón 2, Aaron Strobel 1, Mary E Plomondon 3, Javier A Valle 1,4, Stephen W Waldo 1,3,
PMCID: PMC9075385  PMID: 34775783

Abstract

Background

High‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR‐PCI) is increasingly common among contemporary patients with coronary artery disease. Experts have advocated for a collaborative 2‐operator approach to support intraprocedural decision‐making for these complex interventions. The impact of a second operator on patient and procedural outcomes is unknown.

Methods and Results

Patients who underwent HR‐PCI from 2015 to 2018 within the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System were identified. Propensity‐matched cohorts were generated to compare the outcomes following HR‐PCI performed by a single or multiple (≥2) operators. The primary end point was the 12‐month rate of major adverse cardiovascular events. We identified 6672 patients who underwent HR‐PCI during the study period; 6211 (93%) were treated by a single operator, and 461 (7%) were treated by multiple operators, with a nonsignificant trend toward increased multioperator procedures over time. A higher proportion of patients treated by multiple operators underwent left main (10% versus 7%, P=0.045) or chronic total occlusion intervention (11% versus 5%, P<0.001). Lead interventionalists participating in multioperator procedures practiced at centers with higher annual HR‐PCI volumes (124±71.3 versus 111±69.2; standardized mean difference, 0.197; P<0.001) but otherwise performed a similar number of HR‐PCI procedures per year (34.4±35.3 versus 34.7±30.7; standardized mean difference, 0.388; P=0.841) compared with their peers performing single‐operator interventions. In a propensity‐matched cohort, there was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (32% versus 30%, P=0.444) between patients who underwent single‐operator versus multioperator HR‐PCI. Adjusted analyses accounting for site‐level variance showed no significant differences in outcomes.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent multioperator HR‐PCI had similar outcomes compared with single‐operator procedures. Further studies are needed to determine if the addition of a second operator offers clinical benefits to a subset of HR‐PCI patients undergoing left main or chronic total occlusion intervention.

Keywords: high risk, multiple operator, outcomes research, percutaneous coronary intervention

Subject Categories: Catheter-Based Coronary and Valvular Interventions, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Quality and Outcomes


Nonstandard Abbreviations and Acronyms

CTO

chronic total occlusion

HR‐PCI

high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention

MACE

major adverse clinical events

SMD

standardized mean difference

VA

Veterans Affairs

Clinical Perspective

What Is New?

  • This is the first study to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who underwent high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR‐PCI) by single or multiple operators in a national, integrated healthcare system.

  • Patients undergoing multioperator HR‐PCI had similar outcomes compared with single‐operator procedures.

  • A higher proportion of patients treated by multiple operators underwent left main or chronic total occlusion intervention at centers with higher annual HR‐PCI volumes, suggesting selection bias.

What Are the Clinical Implications?

  • Randomized studies are needed to determine if the addition of a second operator offers clinical benefits to a subset of HR‐PCI patients undergoing left main or chronic total occlusion intervention.

  • A more precise definition of HR‐PCI is needed to appropriately stratify risk and describe outcomes of HR‐PCI.

The management of coronary artery disease (CAD) has evolved over time to account for an increasingly medically and anatomically complex patient population. 1 , 2 , 3 Although coronary artery bypass grafting is traditionally associated with improved long‐term mortality and reductions in cardiovascular events, contemporary patients with CAD with multiple comorbidities are not well represented in the landmark trials and are increasingly referred for high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR‐PCI) after being declined for surgical revascularization. 4 , 5 , 6 Advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) techniques and the advent of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support have provided new avenues to treat these challenging patients, at the price of increased procedural complexity and cost. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 Although the overall morbidity and complexity of patients referred for percutaneous intervention has increased, there has been a concomitant decrease in PCI volumes, creating a challenge for today’s operators. PCI is becoming more and more complex to treat a sicker population, but there is less case volume to support the development of operators’ technical skills and experience. 14 , 15 , 16

As a response to this dilemma, experts have advocated for a collaborative 2‐operator approach, as pioneered in structural heart intervention, to provide technical support and augment real‐time intraprocedural decision‐making for these high‐risk cases. 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 This team‐based approach offers many potential advantages, including discussions of alternative approaches and techniques to achieve procedural success, assistance in operating complex devices, and management of unexpected complications. However, the potential impact of a second operator on clinical outcomes is unknown, and concerns about cost and reimbursement remain. 6 Here, we describe and compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who underwent HR‐PCI performed by a single versus multiple (≥2) operators within the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States.

Methods

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, though they will be subject to the stringent data privacy rules of the VA Healthcare Systema and US government.

Population

The VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program is a national quality and safety oversight organization for invasive cardiac procedures performed within the VA Healthcare System. As described previously, this mandatory program captures and compiles standardized patient and procedural data elements for invasive cardiac procedures. 21 The data elements surveyed are derived from previously established definitions from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, and the data set is independently assessed for accuracy and validity on a routine basis. 22 , 23 This study identified all patients aged ≥18 years who underwent HR‐PCI between 2015 and 2018. Prior studies have defined HR‐PCI as a combination of patient comorbidities, adverse hemodynamics or depressed left ventricular function, and complex coronary anatomy, yet no formal consensus definition exists. Accordingly, HR‐PCI was defined as the presence of at least 1 of the following criteria: (1) medical comorbidities resulting in >1.1% estimated periprocedural mortality by the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI mortality model, (2) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, or (3) VA synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) score ≥15, as previously published. 3 , 10 , 24 A multioperator procedure was defined as the participation of ≥2 attending operators. Patients undergoing PCI for cardiac arrest, ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction, or other emergent indications were excluded to focus the analysis on cases with a conscious, premeditated decision for multioperator intervention. This analysis was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent.

Data Collection

Patient characteristics, laboratory studies, procedural details, and outcomes were obtained from the VA electronic health record. Angiographic severity of coronary stenoses was determined by the performing angiographer and recorded as previously described. 23 Mortality was ascertained from the VA Information Resource Center Vital Status File, which includes vital data from the Beneficiary Identification Record Locator Subsystem Death File, VA Medicare Vital Status File, and the Social Security Administration Death Master File. One year of follow‐up data for the primary composite outcome was available for all subjects in the cohort.

Statistical Analysis

The cohort was divided into 2 groups based on treatment by a single or multiple (≥2) operators at the time of HR‐PCI. Propensity‐score matching was used to address differences between these groups. Variables used for matching included demographic information, comorbidities, laboratory studies, procedural indication and degree of urgency, coronary artery bypass grafting eligibility, National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI mortality risk, and VA SYNTAX score. Using these variables for adjustment, a multivariable logistic regression was created to identify the propensity of a patient being treated by single or multiple operators at the time of intervention. The results of this model were used for 2‐to‐1 matching by a greedy matching algorithm with a caliper of >0.1. 25 Covariate balance of the matched cohort was assessed using standardized mean difference (SMD). 26

Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between treatment by single or multiple operators at the time of HR‐PCI and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke) in the matched cohort. The proportional hazards assumption was violated for the outcome of 12‐month mortality, and thus, secondary nonproportional hazards analyses using period‐specific hazard ratios and a parametric accelerated failure time model were performed. 27 , 28 Period‐specific hazard ratios for increasingly longer periods of follow‐up of 0 to 4, 0 to 8, and 0 to 12 months were provided for each outcome. Accelerated failure time models using exponential, Weibull, log‐logistic, log‐normal, and generalized gamma distributions were compared using Akaike Information Criteria or likelihood ratio tests to identify the most accurate model. 29 For the outcomes of 12‐month myocardial infarction and 12‐month revascularization, the competing risk of mortality was accounted for by cause‐specific Cox proportional hazards models and cause‐specific accelerated failure time models. All models were adjusted for unbalanced covariates after matching. An adjusted analysis was performed to assess for the potential influence of clinical site on outcomes. Finally, to explore the potential impact of multioperator HR‐PCI on the highest‐risk patients, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by restricting the analysis to patients with 2 or more HR‐PCI criteria. Data preparation, Cox regression models, and accelerated failure time models were generated using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Descriptive and graphical analysis was performed with R version 3.5.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient Characteristics

A total of 6672 patients who underwent HR‐PCI were included in the analysis (Figure 1). Of these, 6211 patients (93%) were treated by a single operator, and 461 patients (7%) were treated by multiple operators. Baseline characteristics and medical comorbidities were similar between the 2 subpopulations (Table 1).

Figure 1. Eligible patient population and exclusion criteria.

Figure 1

BMI indicates body mass index; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; STEMI, ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction; and VA SYNTAX, Veterans Affairs SYNTAX score.

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics

Unmatched Matched
1 operator, n=6211 2+ operators, n=461 SMD P value 1 operator, n=920 2+ operators, n=460 SMD P value
Demographics
Age, y 70.1±8.9 70.6±8.7 0.055 0.261 70.4±9.1 70.6±8.7 0.022 0.699
Male sex 6135 (99) 457 (99) 0.035 0.649 914 (99) 456 (99) 0.025 0.911
Race/ethnicity
White 5198 (84) 398 (86) 0.074 0.287 781 (85) 398 (87) 0.047 0.600
Black 901 (15) 58 (13) 0.056 131 (14) 57 (12) 0.054
Other 112 (2) 5 (1) 0.060 8 (1) 5 (1) 0.022
Non‐Hispanic 5888 (95) 438 (95) 0.010 0.929 882 (96) 437 (95) 0.042 0.547
BMI 30.3±5.9 29.7±6.1 0.088 0.066 29.7±5.8 29.7±6.1 0.006 0.922
Comorbidities
CVD 1660 (27) 120 (26) 0.016 0.786 239 (26) 120 (26) 0.002 1.00
Prior CVA 887 (14) 62 (13) 0.024 0.671 118 (13) 62 (13) 0.019 0.799
CAD
1 vessel 1406 (23) 71 (15) 0.185 0.003 129 (14) 71 (15) 0.040 0.847
2 vessels 1916 (31) 145 (31) 0.013 298 (32) 144 (31) 0.023
3 vessels 2805 (45) 238 (52) 0.120 482 (52) 238 (52) 0.013
Nonobstructive 84 (1) 7 (2) 0.014 11 (1) 7 (2) 0.028
Prior MI 3622 (58) 273 (59) 0.018 0.741 561 (61) 273 (59) 0.033 0.599
Prior PCI 3625 (58) 262 (57) 0.031 0.552 542 (59) 262 (57) 0.040 0.524
Prior CABG 2917 (47) 216 (47) 0.002 1.000 447 (49) 216 (47) 0.033 0.607
CHF 3284 (53) 249 (54) 0.023 0.671 464 (50) 248 (54) 0.070 0.245
LVEF 44.4±15.8 43.8±16.8 0.038 0.423 44.9±15.5 43.9±16.8 0.062 0.272
LVEF ≤35% 1609 (26) 125 (27) 0.027 0.606 223 (24) 124 (27) 0.062 0.303
NYHA class
I 672 (11) 38 (8) 0.088 0.090 78 (8) 38 (8) 0.008 0.948
II 2285 (37) 167 (36) 0.012 348 (38) 167 (36) 0.031
III 1317 (21) 94 (20) 0.020 191 (21) 94 (20) 0.008
IV 169 (3) 8 (2) 0.067 13 (1) 8 (2) 0.026
Unknown 1768 (28) 154 (33) 0.107 290 (32) 153 (33) 0.037
Valvular disease 920 (15) 88 (19) 0.114 0.016 170 (18) 88 (19) 0.017 0.826
Prior valve surgery 230 (4) 17 (4) 0.001 1.00 32 (3) 17 (4) 0.012 0.959
PAD 2022 (33) 158 (34) 0.036 0.479 321 (35) 158 (34) 0.011 0.889
Hypertension 5942 (96) 444 (96) 0.033 0.590 891 (97) 443 (96) 0.030 0.711
Hyperlipidemia 5884 (95) 430 (93) 0.062 0.217 863 (94) 429 (93) 0.022 0.785
Atrial fibrillation 1402 (23) 115 (25) 0.056 0.265 211 (23) 115 (25) 0.048 0.433
Pulmonary hypertension 64 (1) 5 (1) 0.005 0.812 13 (1) 5 (1) 0.029 0.802
COPD 1978 (32) 143 (31) 0.018 0.752 281 (31) 142 (31) 0.007 0.951
OSA 2105 (34) 144 (31) 0.038 0.266 301 (33) 144 (31) 0.030 0.640
Obesity 2939 (47) 212 (46) 0.027 0.614 404 (44) 212 (46) 0.044 0.479
Diabetes 3798 (61) 278 (60) 0.017 0.757 554 (60) 278 (60) 0.004 0.984
Insulin therapy 1355 (22) 91 (20) 0.051 0.324 185 (20) 91 (20) 0.008 0.943
CKD 2312 (37) 159 (34) 0.057 0.261 332 (36) 159 (35) 0.032 0.691
Hemodialysis 392 (6) 29 (6) 0.001 1.00 71 (8) 29 (6) 0.055 0.398
Anemia 595 (10) 60 (13) 0.109 0.021 129 (14) 60 (13) 0.029 0.678
Tobacco use
Never 990 (16) 67 (15) 0.038 0.006 134 (15) 67 (15) <0.001 0.329
Current 1529 (25) 93 (20) <0.001 215 (23) 92 (20) <0.001
Former 2363 (38) 172 (37) 0.015 349 (38) 172 (37) 0.011
Unknown 1331 (21) 129 (28) 0.152 222 (24) 129 (28) 0.089
Alcohol use 243 (4) 15 (3) 0.035 0.560 26 (3) 14 (3) 0.013 0.955
Substance use 283 (5) 15 (3) 0.067 0.234 24 (3) 15 (3) 0.039 0.605
Laboratory values
Creatinine 2.83±14.7 1.73±5.47 0.100 0.108 1.69±2.84 1.73±5.48 0.008 0.869
GFR 67.6±27.2 68.1±27.4 0.010 0.684 67.6±28.0 68.1±27.4 0.016 0.778
Hemoglobin 12.9±2.1 12.7±2.1 0.085 0.075 12.6±2.2 12.7±2.1 0.043 0.454
INR 1.12±0.36 1.16±0.45 0.079 0.067 1.14±0.47 1.16±0.45 0.027 0.636

Numbers are presented as n (%) or mean±SD with standardized mean difference (SMD) and P values. BMI indicates body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; CKD, chronic kidney disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; CVD, cerebrovascular disease; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; INR, international normalized ratio; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; PAD, peripheral artery disease; and PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

The participants self‐identified as Other.

Operator and Site Characteristics

Three hundred four operators from 68 clinical sites were included in the analysis. There were significant differences in operator and site characteristics between groups (Table 2). In multioperator procedures, lead operators had more experience (7.8±5.1 versus 4.5±5.9; SMD, 0.601; P<0.001) and higher annual PCI (71.8±66.1 versus 29.8±35.1; SMD, 0.976; P<0.001) and HR‐PCI volumes (34.4±35.3 versus 14.2±17.2; SMD, 0.919; P<0.001) compared with junior operators. Lead operators had similar annual HR‐PCI volumes (34.4±35.3 versus 34.7±30.7; SMD, 0.388; P=0.841) and fewer years of experience (7.8±5.1 versus 8.9±5.7; SMD, 0.574; P<0.001) compared with single operators. Clinical sites hosting multioperator interventions had significantly higher HR‐PCI volumes as compared with single‐operator clinical sites (124±71.3 versus 111±69.2; SMD, 0.197; P<0.001). The system‐wide proportion of HR‐PCI procedures performed by multiple operators ranged from 5% to 10% during the study period, and there was a nonsignificant trend of increasing odds of multioperator procedures over time (Table S1).

Table 2.

Operator and Site Characteristics

1 operator, n=6211 2+ operators, n=461 SMD P value 1 operator, n=920 2+ operators, n=460 SMD P value
Operator
Annual PCI 74.2±58.5 50.8±37.9 0.468 <0.001 76.3±61.1 50.8±35 0.509 <0.001
Annual HR‐PCI 34.7±30.7 24.2±20.9 0.388 <0.001 35.7±31.8 24.3±20.9 0.415 <0.001
Experience, y 8.9±5.7 6.2±3.6 0.574 <0.001 8.9±5.7 6.2±3.6 0.565 <0.001
Site
Annual PCI 240±119 267±131 0.216 <0.001 246±125 267±131 0.162 0.004
Annual HR‐PCI 111±69.2 124±71.3 0.197 <0.001 113±70.2 125±71.4 0.159 0.005

Numbers are presented as mean±SD with standardized mean difference (SMD) and P values. Operator experience for 2+ operator procedures is presented as the mean of the participants. HR indicates high‐risk; and PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

Procedural Characteristics

Procedural indication and degree of procedural urgency were similar between groups (Table 3). A greater proportion of patients treated by multiple operators underwent left main intervention (10% versus 6%; SMD, 0.144; P<0.001), had calcific stenoses (36% versus 27%; SMD, 0.204; P<0.001), or chronic total occlusions (CTO) (11% versus 5%; SMD, 0.198; P<0.001). Procedures involving multiple arterial access (21% versus 6%; SMD, 0.422; P<0.001), intravascular imaging (17% versus 13%; SMD, 0.102; P=0.033), or atherectomy (9% versus 5%; SMD, 0.155; P<0.001) were more frequently associated with treatment by multiple operators as compared with a single operator. There was no significant difference in the prescription of dual antiplatelet therapy following single‐operator or multioperator HR‐PCI (94% versus 93%; SMD, 0.066; P=0.151).

Table 3.

Procedural Indications, Anatomic Characteristics, and Intervention Details

Unmatched Matched
1 operator, n=6211 2+ operators, n=461 SMD P value 1 operator, n=920 2+ operators, n=460 SMD P value
Indication
Stable angina 1721 (28) 140 (30) 0.018 0.349 281 (31) 140 (30) <0.001 0.750
Unstable angina 1468 (24) 115 (25) 0.018 226 (25) 115 (25) <0.001
NSTEMI 1927 (31) 125 (27) 0.086 262 (28) 125 (27) 0.029
Other 1065 (17) 81 (18) 0.020 170 (19) 80 (17) 0.030
Urgency
Elective 3660 (59) 276 (60) 0.019 0.050 563 (61) 275 (60) 0.029 0.23
Urgent 2543 (41) 182 (39) 0.030 335 (39) 182 (40) 0.020
Salvage 8 (0) 3 (1) 0.083 2 (0) 3 (1) 0.066
CABG eligible 37 (1) 3 (1) 0.007 0.754 4 (0) 3 (1) 0.030 0.692
NCDR CathPCI risk score 22.8 (11.0) 23.4 (12.2) 0.056 0.222 23.1 (11.6) 23.4 (12.3) 0.025 0.664
Anatomy
VA SYNTAX score 19.9±11.4 20.9±10.4 0.087 0.082 21.1±10.9 20.9±10.4 0.016 0.783
Multivessel CAD 4911 (79) 372 (81) 0.041 0.442 750 (82) 371 (81) 0.076 0.662
Left main disease 982 (16) 87 (19) 0.081 0.096 150 (16) 86 (19) 0.062 0.312
In‐stent restenosis 801 (13) 52 (11) 0.049 0.357 110 (12) 52 (11) 0.020 0.790
Calcification 1653 (27) 166 (36) 0.204 <0.001 261 (28) 166 (36) 0.166 0.004
Bifurcation 789 (13) 70 (16) 0.072 0.144 116 (13) 70 (15) 0.075 0.210
CTO 329 (5) 49 (11) 0.198 <0.001 46 (5) 49 (11) 0.212 <0.001
SVG disease 788 (13) 54 (12) 0.030 0.593 132 (14) 54 (12) 0.078 0.210
PCI details
Primary access
Radial 2078 (33) 143 (31) 0.054 0.294 291 (32) 142 (31) 0.017 0.811
Femoral 4054 (65) 313 (68) 0.054 618 (67) 313 (68) 0.017
Multiple access 393 (6) 94 (21) 0.422 <0.001 67 (7) 94 (20) 0.388 <0.001
Vessels treated
LM 377 (6) 46 (10) 0.144 0.001 62 (7) 46 (10) 0.117 0.045
LAD 2435 (39) 189 (41) 0.037 0.477 355 (39) 189 (41) 0.048 0.429
LCx 1900 (31) 162 (35) 0.097 0.047 280 (31) 162 (35) 0.100 0.090
RI 209 (3) 15 (3) 0.006 1.000 30 (3) 15 (3) 0.001 1.000
RCA 1710 (28) 113 (25) 0.069 0.177 254 (28) 113 (25) 0.071 0.240
No. of vessels treated 1.56±0.839 1.66±0.912 0.010 1.59±0.848 1.66±0.913 0.086 0.126
No. of stents placed 1.57±1.07 1.87±1.37 0.239 <0.001 1.58±1.12 1.87±1.37 0.228 <0.001
Stent length 23.5±41.3 24.4±8.69 0.031 0.643 23.3±15.3 24.4±8.70 0.087 0.175
FFR/iFR use 498 (8) 27 (6) 0.085 0.116 60 (7) 27 (6) 0.027 0.725
IVUS/OCT use 837 (13) 79 (17) 0.102 0.033 126 (14) 79 (17) 0.096 0.103
Atherectomy 319 (5) 42 (9) 0.155 <0.001 51 (6) 42 (9) 0.138 0.017
MCS use 73 (1) 10 (2) 0.078 0.101 20 (2) 10 (2) <0.001 1.00
Contrast, mL 155±139 164±130 0.106 0.172 109±90.3 116±83.4 0.107 0.191
Radiation
mGy cm2 43.8±79.3 61.6±96.3 0.202 0.055 31.7±49.3 61.6±96.3 0.391 0.004
Air kerma, mGy 1790±3340 2310±1780 0.193 0.275 1600±1390 2310±1780 0.443 0.014
Duration, min 36.9±123 23.9±83.8 0.123 0.026 31.2±106 24.0±83.9 0.076 0.200
DAPT 5866 (94) 428 (93) 0.066< 0.151 854 (90) 427 (93) <0.001 1.000

Numbers are presented as n (%) or mean±SD with standardized mean difference (SMD) and P values. CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; CTO, chronic total occlusion; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; FFR, fractional flow reserve; iFR, instantaneous wave‐free ratio; IVUS, intravascular ultrasound; LAD, left anterior descending; LCx, left circumflex; LM, left main; MCS, mechanical circulatory support; NCDR, National Cardiovascular Data Registry; NSTEMI, non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction; OCT, optical coherence tomography; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; RCA, right coronary artery; RI, ramus intermedius; SVG, saphenous vein graft; and VA, Veterans Affairs.

Propensity Matching

A propensity‐matched cohort was developed using 20% of the entire population. A total of 460 patients treated by multiple operators were successfully matched with 920 patients treated by a single operator (Table S2). Matching between groups was balanced, but significant differences in operator experience and operator and site annual HR‐PCI volumes persisted (Tables 1 and 2). Intervention upon the left main coronary artery (10% versus 7%; SMD, 0.117; P=0.045), CTO interventions (11% versus 5%; SMD, 0.212; P<0.001), and calcific stenoses (36% versus 28%; SMD, 0.166; P=0.004), as well as the use of atherectomy (9% versus 6%; SMD, 0.138; P=0.017) and multiple arterial access (20% versus 7%; SMD, 0.388; P<0.001) continued to be more frequently associated with multioperator procedures after matching (Table 3). Radiation exposure was significantly higher in patients treated by 2 or more operators (61.6±96.3 versus 31.7±49.3 mGy cm2; SMD, 0.391; P=0.004), but there were no significant differences in contrast use (116±83.4 versus 109±90 mL; SMD, 0.107; P=0.191) or procedural time (24±83.9 versus 31.2±106 minutes; SMD, 0.076; P=0.2).

Outcomes

In the propensity‐matched analysis, there was no significant difference in MACE (32% versus 30%; SMD, 0.047; P=0.444) or their components between multioperator and single operator HR‐PCI at 12 months (Figure 2, Table 4). There were no significant differences in acute kidney injury (6% versus 5%; SMD, 0.37; P=0.594), hospital length of stay (2.70±4.58 versus 2.41±5.16 days; SMD, 0.043; P=0.307), or 30‐day readmission (28% versus 25%; SMD, 0.061; P=0.298) between multioperator and single‐operator procedures. The proportional hazards assumption was violated for the outcome of 12‐month mortality (Figure S1). Period‐specific Cox proportional hazards models showed no significant difference in MACE or their components at 4, 8, or 12 months (Table 5). Accelerated failure time models for 12‐month MACE and their components showed no differences between multioperator and single‐operator procedures (Table S3). There were no interactions between outcomes and procedural duration by period‐specific Cox proportional hazards or accelerated failure time models (Tables S4 and S5). No significant differences in outcomes were observed in adjusted analyses performed to account for variation by clinical site (Table S6).

Figure 2. Kaplan‐Meier analysis of major adverse cardiac events in the matched cohort.

Figure 2

 

Table 4.

Clinical Outcomes at 12 Months

Unmatched Matched
1 operator, n=6211 2+ operators, n=461 SMD P value 1 operator, n=920 2+ operators, n=460 SMD P value
MACE 1716 (28) 147 (32) 0.093 0.056 274 (30) 147 (32) 0.047 0.444
Death 682 (11) 59 (13) 0.056 0.262 105 (11) 59 (13) 0.043 0.499
MI 373 (6) 19 (4) 0.095 0.119 58 (6) 19 (4) 0.036 0.125
Revascularization 963 (16) 88 (19) 0.086 0.049 163 (18) 88 (19) 0.098 0.570
Stroke 51 (1) 4 (1) 0.005 0.790 3 (0) 4 (1) 0.071 0.231

Numbers are presented as n (%) with standardized mean difference (SMD) and P values. MACE indicates major adverse cardiovascular events; and MI, myocardial infarction.

Table 5.

Cox Proportional Hazards Analysis of Outcomes in the Propensity‐Matched Cohort

0–4 mo 0–8 mo 0–12 mo
1 OP 2+ OP HR (95% CI) 1 OP 2+ OP HR (95% CI) 1 OP 2+ OP HR (95% CI)
MACE 157 89 1.15 (0.89–1.40) 226 121 1.09 (0.87–1.34) 274 147 1.09 (0.90–1.34)
Death 53 27 1.03 (0.65–1.63) 83 42 1.02 (0.70–1.48) 105 59 1.13 (0.82–1.56)
MI 22 8 0.73 (0.33–1.64) 39 16 0.82 (0.46–1.47) 58 19 0.66 (0.39–1.10)
Revascularization 98 60 1.25 (0.91–1.73) 137 79 1.18 (0.89–1.55) 163 88 1.11 (0.85–1.43)
Stroke 1 0 3 2 3 4

HR indicates hazard ratio; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; MI, myocardial infarction; and OP, operator.

Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients who had 2 or more high‐risk criteria was performed, whereby 148 patients who underwent multioperator HR‐PCI were successfully matched with 296 patients who underwent a single‐operator procedure (Table S7). Baseline and procedural characteristics are listed in Table S8. Compared with the primary analysis, this subgroup had higher mean National Cardiovascular Data Registry mortality risk (30±12 versus 23±12) and VA SYNTAX scores (23±10 versus 21±11), and a greater proportion of patients had left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (57% versus 28%). Rates of left main (11% versus 8%) and CTO interventions (9% versus 7%) and the use of intravascular imaging (18% versus 15%), atherectomy (7% versus 7%), and mechanical circulatory support (4% versus 2%) were similar between the sensitivity cohort and the primary cohort. Within this subgroup, no significant difference in MACE or their components at 4, 8, or 12 months was observed after adjusting for VA SYNTAX score, 3‐vessel CAD, 2‐vessel CAD, tobacco use, substance use, and depression (Table 6, Figure S2). Additionally, there were no significant differences in acute kidney injury (12% versus 6%; SMD, 0.12; P=0.281), hospital length of stay (2.02±6.35 versus 2.38±5.91 days; SMD, 0.104; P=0.296), or 30‐day readmission (32% versus 26%; SMD, 0.135; P=0.216) between multioperator and single‐operator procedures within this subgroup.

Table 6.

Cox Proportional Hazards Analysis of Outcomes in the Propensity‐Matched Cohort Restricted to Patients With Multiple High‐Risk Criteria (Sensitivity Analysis)

0–4 mo 0–8 mo 0–12 mo
1 OP 2+ OP HR (95% CI) 1 OP 2+ OP HR (95% CI) 1 OP 2+ OP HR (95% CI)
MACE 69 33 0.94 (0.62–1.42) 100 45 0.90 (0.63–1.28) 114 53 0.93 (0.67–1.28)
Death 36 10 0.54 (0.27–1.09) 56 17 1.03 (1.01–1.06) 65 26 1.03 (1.01–1.06)
MI 8 5 15 8 21 9
Revascularization 29 21 1.41 (0.80–2.48) 39 26 1.34 (0.81–2.21) 46 26 1.13 (0.70–1.84)
Stroke 2 0 3 2 3 2

HR indicates hazard ratio; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; MI, myocardial infarction; and OP, operator.

Discussion

Here, we report the first study to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who underwent HR‐PCI by single or multiple operators in a national, integrated healthcare system. In a propensity‐matched analysis, we found no significant differences in MACE or their components between the single or multiple operator groups at 4, 8, or 12 months. No significant differences in postprocedural acute kidney injury, hospital length of stay, or 30‐day readmission between groups was observed. The results of a sensitivity analysis restricted to patients with multiple high‐risk criteria were unchanged.

Contemporary CAD patients with multiple comorbidities and complex anatomy referred for HR‐PCI using advanced PCI adjuncts represent a unique challenge for interventional cardiologists. 2 , 3 , 6 The demands imposed by complex procedural tasks, such as HR‐PCI, may strain the cognitive and technical capacity of operators, leading to conditions that may negatively impact procedural safety and increase the risk of patient harm. 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 Experts at high‐volume HR‐PCI centers have advocated for a 2‐operator approach to support dynamic intraprocedural decision‐making and early recognition and management of complications during these high‐risk procedures to avoid negative patient outcomes and reduce costs. 17 , 18 , 34 , 35 Patients included in this analysis were representative of contemporary patients with CAD referred for HR‐PCI; they had significant medical comorbidities, complex coronary anatomy as reflected by high VA SYNTAX scores, and prevalence of prior coronary artery bypass grafting, and a substantial proportion had left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%. The analysis observed a trend toward increased multioperator HR‐PCI over time, and found that a significantly higher proportion of patients treated by multiple operators underwent left main intervention, CTO intervention, or had calcific stenoses. Notably, interventionalists participating in multioperator procedures worked at centers with higher annual PCI and HR‐PCI volumes compared with their peers performing single‐operator interventions. However, an adjusted analysis accounting for site‐level variance showed no significant differences in outcomes.

There are several potential explanations for the lack of observed benefit for multioperator HR‐PCI in this analysis. First, although the definition of HR‐PCI has not been formally defined, the patients included in our study had significant medical comorbidities, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and/or anatomically complex disease that correlated with a 28% incidence of MACE and an 11% mortality rate over 12 months of follow‐up. 6 However, the rates of left main intervention, CTO intervention, and use of intravascular imaging, atherectomy, and/or mechanical circulatory support in this study were relatively low. Thus, it could be argued that the analyzed cohort is not representative of the patients treated by high‐volume HR‐PCI programs advocating for multioperator intervention. 17 , 36 Second, patients who underwent multioperator HR‐PCI in the propensity‐matched cohort had higher rates of left main intervention, CTO intervention, calcific disease, and use of atherectomy and multiple arterial access compared with single‐operator procedures, and there was a trend toward increased multioperator procedures over time. These observations suggest a selection bias for a multioperator treatment paradigm based on these factors, which may have contributed to different baseline risk of MACE between the analyzed cohorts that was not captured by this analysis. Third, the rates of left main and CTO intervention have increased over time. 37 , 38 Recent studies have shown that a hybrid antegrade/retrograde approach to CTO intervention, a mainstay of HR‐PCI operators, can be successfully adopted by a single operator with excellent early procedural success despite a lack of prior CTO‐PCI experience. 39 , 40 Moreover, studies of operator volumes and long‐term outcomes in the United Kingdom have shown conflicting results for HR‐PCI overall as compared with a smaller subset of left main intervention procedures. 41 , 42 Physicians performing HR‐PCI in this study had an average of 9 years of experience after fellowship, and although interventionalists using a multioperator strategy worked at centers with higher annual HR‐PCI volumes, lead operators performed a similar number of HR‐PCI procedures per year compared with their single‐operator peers. These observations suggest that operators in this study may have developed a substantial body of experience with complex PCI, potentially negating the benefits of a second operator. 15 Lastly, lead interventionalists in multioperator procedures had significantly more experience and higher volumes compared with junior operators, suggesting that in some cases a multioperator approach may have been chosen to support the development of a junior operator’s technical skills and experience rather than to meet the procedural challenges presented by the patient.

These results do not support the routine use of multiple operators for HR‐PCI as defined in the present study. However, this analysis does not address whether the addition of a second operator improves procedural outcomes for patients undergoing procedures in the highest stratum of complexity such as coronary atherectomy, left main intervention, and CTO‐PCI with mechanical circulatory support. Multioperator HR‐PCI may also offer benefits for the operators, such as reduced cognitive burden and intraprocedural stress, which are not readily quantifiable. The finding that patients with the highest complexity of disease underwent multioperator intervention at sites with higher clinical volumes suggests that interventionalists at lower volume centers may select a lower risk subset within the overall population of HR‐PCI and refer their most complex patients to more experienced centers. These findings underscore a growing sentiment that HR‐PCI may be defined too broadly in current practice and that a more precise definition is needed to appropriately stratify risk and describe outcomes in this uniquely challenging patient population. 41

The results must be interpreted in the context of the study’s limitations. This study benefits from its large size and detailed patient data derived from a nationally integrated medical system. However, this study depends on accurate data entry by treating physicians across the VA Healthcare System. In cases of improper or inadequate documentation, the fidelity of the analysis may be compromised. The possibility of residual or unmeasured confounding is inherent to the study’s observational design. Robust statistical methodologies, including propensity matching, were used to limit these potential influences. However, after matching, there were significant differences in the complexity of interventions performed and the use of PCI adjuncts between groups that may have impacted the observed results. Although this analysis reflects the largest comparison of multioperator and single‐operator HR‐PCI to date, the study is limited by moderate sample size and may not be powered to detect small, yet clinically relevant, differences between the 2 treatment strategies. Some secondary outcomes, such as myocardial infarction and stroke, occurred infrequently and were not amenable to statistical analysis. Significant variation in institutional HR‐PCI volumes could explain discrepancies in clinical outcomes, but a site‐adjusted secondary analysis was consistent with our primary results. This study cannot comment on the potential impact of a second operator in emergent procedures or ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction, which were intentionally excluded to focus the analysis on a premeditated decision for multiple operators. Moreover, it is possible that some procedures included in this study were performed ad hoc by a single operator despite a preference for multioperator intervention in settings where a second interventionalist was not available, but we suspect this to be a rare circumstance that would not significantly influence the results. There were no differences in the prescription of dual antiplatelet therapy following HR‐PCI, but we did not incorporate data on other postprocedure therapies, and thus, unmeasured differences in the quality of follow‐up medical care may have impacted the results. Finally, this analysis is limited to the VA Healthcare System and may not be representative of other centers’ clinical volumes or expertise.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent multioperator HR‐PCI had similar outcomes compared with single‐operator procedures. There was a nonsignificant trend toward increased multioperator procedures over time, and a higher proportion of patients treated by multiple operators underwent left main or chronic total occlusion intervention by interventionalists at centers with higher annual HR‐PCI volumes compared with their peers. The analysis may have been limited by residual confounding, and thus, randomized studies are needed to determine if the addition of a second operator offers clinical benefits to a subset of HR‐PCI patients undergoing left main or chronic total occlusion intervention.

Sources of Funding

None.

Disclosures

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government. Dr Waldo has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and VA Health Services Research and investigator‐initiated research support to the Denver Research Institute from Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporated, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and serves as the National Director of the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program, the national quality and safety oversight organization for invasive cardiac procedures within the VA Healthcare System. Dr Valle has received unrelated consulting fees from Philips Medical, Medtronic, and Cardiovascular Systems Incorporated. Dr Barón has received grants from VA Health Services Research. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.

Supporting information

Tables S1–S8

Figures S1–S2

Supplementary Material for this article is available at https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/JAHA.121.022131

For Sources of Funding and Disclosures, see page 11.

See Editorial by Lee et al.

References

  • 1. Huang HW, Brent BN, Shaw RE. Trends in percutaneous versus surgical revascularization of unprotected left main coronary stenosis in the drug‐eluting stent era: a report from the American College of Cardiology‐National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC‐NCDR). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:867–872. doi: 10.1002/ccd.20886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Waldo SW, Gokhale M, O'Donnell CI, Plomondon ME, Valle JA, Armstrong EJ, Schofield R, Fihn SD, Maddox TM. Temporal trends in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the VA clinical assessment, reporting, and tracking program. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:879–888. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.02.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Valle JA, Glorioso TJ, Bricker R, Barón AE, Armstrong EJ, Bhatt DL, Rao SV, Plomondon ME, Serruys PW, Keppetein AP, et al. Association of coronary anatomical complexity with clinical outcomes after percutaneous or surgical revascularization in the veterans affairs clinical assessment reporting and tracking program. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4:727–735. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Garcia S, Sandoval Y, Roukoz H, Adabag S, Canoniero M, Yannopoulos D, Brilakis ES. Outcomes after complete versus incomplete revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta‐analysis of 89,883 patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1421–1431. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Waldo SW, Secemsky EA, O'Brien C, Kennedy KF, Pomerantsev E, Sundt TM III, McNulty EJ, Scirica BM, Yeh RW. Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2014;130:2295–2301. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.011541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Kirtane AJ, Doshi D, Leon MB, Lasala JM, Ohman EM, O’Neill WW, Shroff A, Cohen MG, Palacios IF, Beohar N, et al. Treatment of higher‐risk patients with an indication for revascularization: evolution within the field of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2016;134:422–431. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Riley RF, Henry TD, Mahmud E, Kirtane AJ, Brilakis ES, Goyal A, Grines CL, Lombardi WL, Maran A, Rab T, et al. SCAI position statement on optimal percutaneous coronary interventional therapy for complex coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:346–362. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PAL, Barbato E, Baumbach A, Engstrøm T, Klauss V, MacCarthy PA, Manoharan G, Oldroyd KG, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5‐year follow‐up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:1853–1860. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00057-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Riley RF, McCabe JM, Kalra S, Lazkani M, Pershad A, Doshi D, Kirtane AJ, Nicholson W, Kearney K, Demartini T, et al. Impella‐assisted chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary interventions: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92:1261–1267. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Bricker RS, Glorioso TJ, Jawaid O, Plomondon ME, Valle JA, Armstrong EJ, Waldo SW. Temporal trends and site variation in high‐risk coronary intervention and the use of mechanical circulatory support: insights from the Veterans Affairs clinical assessment reporting and tracking (CART) program. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e014906. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Barrett C, Warsavage T, Kovach C, McGuinn E, Plomondon ME, Armstrong EJ, Waldo SW. Comparison of rotational and orbital atherectomy for the treatment of calcific coronary lesions: insights from the VA clinical assessment reporting and tracking (CART) program. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97:E219–E226. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Gada H, Whitlow PL, Marwick TH. Establishing the cost‐effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion in stable angina: a decision‐analytic model. Heart. 2012;98:1790–1797. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Fearon WF, Shilane D, Pijls NH, Boothroyd DB, Tonino PA, Barbato E, Jüni P, De Bruyne B, Hlatky MA. Cost‐effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease and abnormal fractional flow reserve. Circulation. 2013;128:1335–1340. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Fanaroff AC, Zakroysky P, Dai D, Wojdyla D, Sherwood MW, Roe MT, Wang TY, Peterson ED, Gurm HS, Cohen MG, et al. Outcomes of PCI in relation to procedural characteristics and operator volumes in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2913–2924. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Fanaroff AC, Zakroysky P, Wojdyla D, Kaltenbach LA, Sherwood MW, Roe MT, Wang TY, Peterson ED, Gurm HS, Cohen MG, et al. Relationship between operator volume and long‐term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2019;139:458–472. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.033325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, Delling FN, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics‐2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e139–e596. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Karmpaliotis D, Lembo N, Kalynych A, Carlson H, Lombardi WL, Anderson CN, Rinehart S, Kirkland B, Shemwell KC, Kandzari DE. Development of a high‐volume, multiple‐operator program for percutaneous chronic total coronary occlusion revascularization: procedural, clinical, and cost‐utilization outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:1–8. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Riley RF. Complex, higher‐risk, and indicated PCI (CHIP) fellowship: putting training into practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:980–984. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.01.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Bavaria JE, Prager RL, Naunheim KS, Allen MS, Higgins RSD, Thourani VH, MacGillivray TE, Boden N, Sabik JF III. Surgeon involvement in transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States: a 2016 Society of Thoracic Surgeons Survey. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104:1088–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.03.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Kirtane AJ. RESPONSE: CHIP training: thinking beyond the numbers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:983–984. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.01.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Maddox TM, Plomondon ME, Petrich M, Tsai TT, Gethoffer H, Noonan G, Gillespie B, Box T, Fihn SD, Jesse RL, et al. A national clinical quality program for Veterans Affairs catheterization laboratories (from the Veterans Affairs clinical assessment, reporting, and tracking program). Am J Cardiol. 2014;114:1750–1757. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.08.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Brindis RG, Fitzgerald S, Anderson HV, Shaw RE, Weintraub WS, Williams JF. The American College of Cardiology‐National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC‐NCDR): building a national clinical data repository. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:2240–2245. doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01372-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Byrd JB, Vigen R, Plomondon ME, Rumsfeld JS, Box TL, Fihn SD, Maddox TM. Data quality of an electronic health record tool to support VA cardiac catheterization laboratory quality improvement: the VA clinical assessment, reporting, and tracking system for cath labs (CART) program. Am Heart J. 2013;165:434–440. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Peterson ED, Dai D, DeLong ER, Brennan JM, Singh M, Rao SV, Shaw RE, Roe MT, Ho KKL, Klein LW, et al. Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1923–1932. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Rosenbaum PR. Overt bias in observational studies. Observational Studies: Springer Series in Statistics. Springer; 2002:71–104. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3692-2_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Greenland S, Rothman KJ, Lash TL. Measures of effect and measures of association. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008:51–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Gregson J, Sharples L, Stone GW, Burman CF, Öhrn F, Pocock S. Nonproportional hazards for time‐to‐event outcomes in clinical trials: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:2102–2112. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.1034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Hernán MA. The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology. 2010;21:13–15. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Moghimi‐Dehkordi B, Safaee A, Pourhoseingholi MA, Fatemi R, Tabeie Z, Zali MR. Statistical comparison of survival models for analysis of cancer data. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008;9:417–420. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Shappell S, Detwiler C, Holcomb K, Hackworth C, Boquet A, Wiegmann DA. Human error and commercial aviation accidents: an analysis using the human factors analysis and classification system. Hum Factors. 2007;49:227–242. doi: 10.1518/001872007X312469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Chrouser KL, Xu J, Hallbeck S, Weinger MB, Partin MR. The influence of stress responses on surgical performance and outcomes: literature review and the development of the surgical stress effects (SSE) framework. Am J Surg. 2018;216:573–584. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Merkle F, Kurtovic D, Starck C, Pawelke C, Gierig S, Falk V. Evaluation of attention, perception, and stress levels of clinical cardiovascular perfusionists during cardiac operations: a pilot study. Perfusion. 2019;34:544–551. doi: 10.1177/0267659119828563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Suliburk JW, Buck QM, Pirko CJ, Massarweh NN, Barshes NR, Singh H, Rosengart TK. Analysis of human performance deficiencies associated with surgical adverse events. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e198067. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Doll JA, Hira RS, Kearney KE, Kandzari DE, Riley RF, Marso SP, Grantham JA, Thompson CA, McCabe JM, Karmpaliotis D, et al. Management of percutaneous coronary intervention complications: algorithms from the 2018 and 2019 Seattle percutaneous coronary intervention complications conference. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e008962. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.008962 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Salisbury AC, Karmpaliotis D, Grantham JA, Sapontis J, Meng Q, Magnuson EA, Gada H, Lombardi W, Moses J, Li H, et al. In‐hospital costs and costs of complications of chronic total occlusion angioplasty: insights from the OPEN‐CTO registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:323–331. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Konstantinidis NV, Werner GS, Deftereos S, Di Mario C, Galassi AR, Buettner JH, Avran A, Reifart N, Goktekin O, Garbo R, et al. Temporal trends in chronic total occlusion interventions in Europe. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e006229. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006229 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Valle JA, Tamez H, Abbott JD, Moussa ID, Messenger JC, Waldo SW, Kennedy KF, Masoudi FA, Yeh RW. Contemporary use and trends in unprotected left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: an analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Research to Practice Initiative. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4:100–109. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.4376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Othman H, Seth M, Zein R, Rosman H, Lalonde T, Yamasaki H, Alaswad K, Menees D, Mehta RH, Gurm H, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion‐the Michigan experience: insights from the BMC2 registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:1357–1368. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.02.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Vo MN, McCabe JM, Lombardi WL, Ducas J, Ravandi A, Brilakis ES. Adoption of the hybrid CTO approach by a single non‐CTO operator: procedural and clinical outcomes. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27:139–144. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Shammas NW, Shammas GA, Robken J, Harris T, Madison A, Dinklenburg C, Shammas AN, Harb C, Jerin M. The learning curve in treating coronary chronic total occlusion early in the experience of an operator at a tertiary medical center: the role of the hybrid approach. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2016;17:15–18. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2015.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Kinnaird T, Gallagher S, Spratt JC, Ludman P, de Belder M, Copt S, Anderson R, Walsh S, Hanratty C, Curzen N, et al. Complex high‐risk and indicated percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina: does operator volume influence patient outcome? Am Heart J. 2020;222:15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.12.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Kinnaird T, Gallagher S, Anderson R, Sharp A, Farooq V, Ludman P, Copt S, Curzen N, Banning A, Mamas M. Are higher operator volumes for unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention associated with improved patient outcomes? A survival analysis of 6724 procedures from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society national database. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e008782. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008782 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Tables S1–S8

Figures S1–S2


Articles from Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES