Sirolimus-eluting stent treatment at high-volume centers confers lower mortality at 6-month follow-up: results from the prospective multicenter German Cypher Registry

BACKGROUND: Studies continue to identify percutaneous coronary intervention procedural volume both at the institutional level and at the operator level as being strongly correlated with outcome. High-volume centers have been defined as those that perform >400 percutaneous coronary intervention procedures per year. The relationship between drug-eluting stent procedural volume and outcome is unknown. We investigated this relationship in the German Cypher Registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present analysis included 8201 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents between April 2002 and September 2005 in 51 centers. Centers that recruited >400 sirolimus-eluting stent patients in this time period were considered high-volume centers; those with 150 to 400 patients were considered intermediate-volume centers; and those with <150 patients were designated as low-volume centers. The primary end point was all death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization at 6 months. This end point occurred in 11.3%, 12.1%, and 9.0% of patients in the low-, intermediate-, and high-volume center groups, respectively (P=0.0001). There was no difference between groups in the rate of target-vessel revascularization (P=0.2) or cerebrovascular accidents (P=0.5). The difference in death/myocardial infarction remained significant after adjustment for baseline factors (odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 2.59, P<0.001 for low-volume centers; odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 2.21, P<0.001 for intermediate-volume centers). Patient and lesion selection, procedural features, and postprocedural medications differed significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of sirolimus-eluting stent procedures performed on an institutional level was inversely related to death and myocardial infarction but not to target-vessel revascularization at 6-month follow-up. Safety issues are better considered in high-volume centers. These findings have important public health policy implications.

[Neuromonitoring and neuroprotection in cardiac anaesthesia. Nationwide survey conducted by the Cardiac Anaesthesia Working Group of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine]

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this nationwide survey carried out in department of cardiac anesthesia in Germany was to identify current practice with regard to neuromonitoring und neuroprotection. METHODOLOGY: The data are based on a questionnaire sent out to all departments of cardiac anesthesia in Germany between October 2007 und January 2008. The anonymized questionnaire contained 26 questions about the practice of preoperative evaluation of cerebral vessels, intra-operative use of neuromonitoring, the nature und application of cerebral protective measures, perfusion management during cardiopulmonary bypass, postoperative evaluation of neurological status, and training in the field of cerebral monitoring. RESULTS: Of the 80 mailed questionnaires 55% were returned and 90% of department evaluated cerebral vessels preoperatively with duplex ultrasound. The methods used for intra-operative neuromonitoring are electroencephalography (EEG, 60%) for type A dissections (38.1%), for elective surgery on the thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aorta (34.1% and 31.6%, respectively) and in carotid surgery (43.2%) near infrared spectroscopy (40%), evoked potentials (30%) and transcranial Doppler sonography (17.5%), with some centers using combined methods. In most departments the central nervous system is not subjected to monitoring during bypass surgery, heart valve surgery, or minimally invasive surgery. Cerebral protective measures used comprise patient cooling on cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB 100%), extracorporeal cooling of the head (65%) and the administration of corticosteroids (58%), barbiturates (50%) and antiepileptic drugs (10%). Neuroprotective anesthesia consists of administering inhalation anesthetics (32.5%; sevoflurane 76.5%) and intravenous anesthesia (20%; propofol and barbiturates each accounting for 46.2%). Of the departments 72.5% cool patients as a standard procedure for surgery involving cardiovascular arrest and 37.5% during all surgery using CPB. In 84.6% of department CPB flow equals calculated cardiac output (CO) under normothermia, while the desired mean arterial pressure (MAP) varies between 60 and 70 mmHg (43.9%) and between 50 and 60 mmHg (41.5%), respectively. At body temperatures less than 18 degrees C CPB flow is reduced below the calculated CO (70%) while 27% of departments use normothermic flow rates. The preferred MAP under hypothermia is between 50 and 60 mmHg (59%). The results of intra-operative neuromonitoring are documented on the anesthesia record (77%). In 42.5% of the departments postoperative neurological function is estimated by the anesthesiologist. Continuing education sessions pertaining to neuromonitoring are organized on a regular basis in 32.5% of the departments and in 37.5% individual physicians are responsible for their own neuromonitoring education. CONCLUSION: The present survey data indicate that neuromonitoring and neuroprotective therapy during CPB is not standardized in cardiac anesthesiology departments in Germany. The systemic use of available methods to implement multimodal neuromonitoring would be desirable.

[Prioritisation in the German health care system--an issue in ophthalmology?]

At the 111th German Medical Assembly in May 2008 in Ulm, Germany, a public debate on rationing of health care performances was started. Since the money in the German health care system is not enough to provide every diagnostic or therapy for every patient as a coverage of the compulsory medical insurances, a lot of specific health care performances have been rationed during the last years not to be covered by the regular medical insurance any more, such as, e. g., PSA measurements in urology or IOP measurements in ophthalmology. In contrast to the health care system in Scandinavia, where rationing of health care performances is publicly documented by the government, no similar public statements exist in Germany. Due to this, it is left to physicians to explain to their patients the "hidden" rationing of public health care performances, which also leads to an increase in individual health care performances (IGeL in Germany) to be paid for privately by the patient. It is undoubtedly true that not all medically possible performances need to be paid for by the health insurance; however, an official determination of these "out of pocket" health care performances is necessary. Therefore, it was the aim herein to work out possible "stop" criteria--according to the Scandinavian system--for common eye diseases and consecutive therapies, which need not be paid for or only be paid after a delay by the health insurances.