Impact of operator volume on overall major adverse cardiac events following direct coronary stent implantation versus stenting after predilatation

References

• Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med 1979; 301: 1364–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunker JP, Luft HS, Enthoven A. Should surgery be regionalized? Surg Clin North Am 1982; 62: 657–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Showstack JA, Rosenfeld KE, Garnick DW, Luft HS, Schaffarzick RW, Fowles J. Association of volume with outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery: scheduled vs nonscheduled operations. JAMA 1987; 257: 785–789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannan EL, O'Donnell JF, Kilburn H, Bernard HR, Yazici A. Investigation of the relationship between volume and mortality for surgical procedures performed in New York State hospitals. JAMA 1989; 262: 503–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelen J, Bilfinger TV, Anagnostopoulos CE. Coronary artery bypass grafting: the relationship of surgical volume, hospital location, and outcome. NY State J Med 1991; 91: 290–292.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bon Tempo CP, Sherber HS, Sheridan M. Relation of low, moderate, high volume PTCA operations and outcomes. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1995; 35: 79.
   Google Scholar
• Shook TL, Sun GW, Burstein S, Eisenhauer AC, Mattehews RV. Comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty outcome and hospital costs for low-volume and high-volume operators. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77: 331- JO.
   Google Scholar
• O'Neill WW, Griffin JJ, Stone G et al. Operator and institutional volume do not affect the procedural outcome of primary angioplasty therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27 (suppl A): 13A.
   Google Scholar
• Jollis JG, Peterson ED, Nelson CL et al. Relationship between physician and hospital coronary angioplasty volume and outcome in elderly patients. Circulation 1997; 96: 2485–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hannan EL, Racz M, Ryan TJ et al. Coronary angioplasty volume outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiol- ogists. JAMA 1997; 279: 892–98.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis SG, Weintraub W, Holmes D, Shaw R, Block PC, King SB III. Relation of operator volume and experience to procedural outcome of percutaneous coronary revascular- ization at hospitals with high interventional volumes. Circulation 1997; 96: 2479–84.
   Google Scholar
• Klein LW, Schaer GL, Calvin JE et al. Does low individual operator coronary interventional procedural volume cor- relate with worse institutional procedural outcome? J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30: 870–77.
   Google Scholar
• McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, Malenka DJ et al. Operator volume and outcomes in 12 988 percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 570–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roubin GS, Cannon AD, Agrawal SK et al. Intracoronary stenting for acute and threatened closure complicating percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circula- tion 1992; 85: 916–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoff AM, Topol EJ, Chapekis AT et al. Intracoronary stenting compared with conventional therapy for abrupt vessel closure complicating coronary angioplasty: a matched case-control study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 21: 866–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hermann HC, Buchbinder M, Clemen MW et al. Emergent use of balloon-expandable coronary artery stenting for failed percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1992; 86: 812–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• George BS, Noorhees WD, Roubin GS et al. Multicenter investigation of coronary stenting to treat acute or threatened closure after percutaneous transluminal cor- onary angioplasty: clinical and angiographic outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22: 135–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Muinck ED, den Jeijer P, van Dijk RB et al. Autoperfu- sion balloon versus stent for acute or threatened closure during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74: 1002–1005.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Figulla HR, Mudra H, Reifart N, Werner GS. Direct coronary stenting without predilatation: a new therapeutic approach with a special balloon catheter design. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1998; 43: 245–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Briguori C, Sheiban I, De Gregorio J et al. Direct coronary stenting without predilation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 1910–15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chan AW, Carere RG, Solankhi N, Dodek A, Webb JG. Coronary stenting without predilatation in a broad spectrum of clinical and angiographic situations. J Invas Cardiol 2000; 12: 75–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor AJ, Broughton A, Federman J et al. Efficacy and safety of direct stenting in coronary angioplasty. J Invas Cardiol 2000; 12: 560–65.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stys T, Lawson WE, Liuzzo JP, Hanif B, Bragg L, Cohn PF. Direct coronary stenting without balloon or device pretreatment: acute success and long-term results. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2001; 54: 158–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ormiston JA, Webster MW, Ruygrok PN et al. A random- ized study of direct coronary stent delivery compared with stenting after predilatation: the NIR future trial. On behalf of the NIR Future Trial Investigators. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2000; 50: 377–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kovar LI, Monrad ES, Sherman W et al. A randomized trial of stenting with or without balloon predilation for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 2001; 142: E9.
   Google Scholar
• Brito FS, Jr, Caixeta AM, Perin MA et al, The DIRECT Study Investigators. Comparison of direct stenting versus stenting with predilation for the treatment of selected coronary narrowings. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89: 115–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bairn DS, Flatley M, Caputo R et al. Comparison of PRE- dilatation vs direct stenting in coronary treatment using the Medtronic AVE S670 Coronary Stent System (the PREDICT trial). Am J Cardiol 2001; 88: 1364–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrie D, Khalife K, Citron B et al. Comparison of direct coronary stenting with and without balloon predilatation in patients with stable angina pectoris. BET (Benefit Evaluation of Direct Coronary Stenting) Study Group. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87: 693–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Breton H, Boschat J, Commeau P et al, Stent Without Balloon Predilation (SWIBAP) Study Group. Randomised comparison of coronary stenting with and without balloon predilatation in selected patients. Heart 2001; 86: 302–308.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hirshfeld JW, Ellis SG, Faxon DP, for the Technology and Practice Executive Committee of the American College of Cardiology. Recommendations for the assessment and maintenance of proficiency in coronary interventional procedures: statement of the American College of Cardiol- ogy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 722–743.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial. Phase I findings. TIMI Study Group. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 932–36.
   Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Kay IP, Disco C, Deshpande NV, de Feyter PJ. Periprocedural quantitative coronary angiography after Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation predicts the restenosis rate at six months: result of a meta-analysis of the Belgian Netherlands Stent study (BENESTENT) I, BENESTENT II Pilot, BENESTENT II and MUSIC trials. Multicenter Ulstrasaound Stent In Coronaries. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34(4): 1067–74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malenka DJ, McGrath PD, Wennberg DE et al. The relationship between operator volume and outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions in high volume hospitals in 1994-1996. JACC 1999; 34: 1471–80.
   Google Scholar
• Hannan EL. Percutaneous coronary interventions: heed the American College of Cardiology volume recommenda- tions, but strive to improve quality. JACC 1999; 34: 1481–83.
   Google Scholar
• McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, Dickens JD et al. Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent. JAMA 2000; 284: 3139–71.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jollis JG, Peterson ED, Nelson CL et al. Relationship between physician and hospital coronary angioplasty volume and outcome in elderly patients. Circulation 1997; 95: 2485–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maynard C, Every NR, Chapko MK, Ritchie JL. Institutional volumes and coronary angioplasty outcomes before and after the introduction of stenting. Effect Clin Pract 1999; 2: 108–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hannan EL, Racz M, Ryan TJ et al. Coronary angioplasty volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiolo- gists. JAMA 1997; 277: 892–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay J, Pinnow EE, Pichard AD. Benchmarking operator performance in percutaneous coronary intervention: a novel approach using 30-day events. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent [2001]; 52: 139–45.
   Google Scholar