The relationship between procedural volume and patient outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

• Main Authors: Kieran A. Walsh, Thomas Plunkett, Kirsty K. O'Brien, Conor Teljeur, Susan M. Smith, Patricia Harrington, Máirín Ryan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: F1000 Research Ltd 2021-01-01
• Series: HRB Open Research
• Online Access: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/4-10/v1

Background: The relationship between procedural volume and outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is contentious, with previous reviews suggesting an inverse volume-outcome relationship. The aim of this study was to systematically review contemporary evidence to re-examine this relationship. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the relationship between PCI procedural volume (both at hospital- and operator-levels) and outcomes in adults. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were complications, healthcare utilisation and process outcomes. Searches were conducted from 1 January 2008 to 28 May 2019. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using ‘Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations’ (GRADE). Screening, data extraction, quality appraisal and GRADE assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results: Of 1,154 unique records retrieved, 22 observational studies with 6,432,265 patients were included. No significant association was found between total PCI hospital volume and mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-1.03, I2 = 86%). A temporal trend from significant to non-significant pooled effect estimates was observed. The pooled effect estimate for mortality was found to be significantly in favour of high-volume operators for total PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.94, I2 = 93%), and for high-volume hospitals for primary PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.94, I2 = 78%). Overall, GRADE certainty of evidence was ‘very low’. There were mixed findings for secondary outcomes. Conclusions: A volume-outcome relationship may exist in certain situations, although this relationship appears to be attenuating with time, and there is ‘very low’ certainty of evidence. While volume might be important, it should not be the only standard used to define an acceptable PCI service and a broader evaluation of quality metrics should be considered that encompass patient experience and clinical outcomes. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42019125288