March 9, 2014
Notes: Gucuk Ipek, Esra
Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2013 Apr;41(3):218-24. doi: 10.5543/tkda.2013.15146.
Author Address: Clinic of Cardiology, Polatli State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. email@example.com
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 816Author: Gudnason, T., Gudnadottir, G. S., Lagerqvist, B., Eyjolfsson, K., Nilsson, T., Thorgeirsson, G., Thorgeirsson, G., Andersen, K. and James, S.
Title: Comparison of interventional cardiology in two European countries: a nationwide internet based registry study
Journal: Int J Cardiol
Date: Sep 30
Short Title: Comparison of interventional cardiology in two European countries: a nationwide internet based registry study
Alternate Journal: International journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1874-1754 (Electronic)
Accession Number: 23232456
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The practice of interventional cardiology differs between countries and regions. In this study we report the results of the first nation-wide long-term comparison of interventional cardiology in two countries using a common web-based registry. METHODS: The Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) was used to prospectively and continuously collect background-, quality-, and outcome parameters for all coronary angiographies (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed in Iceland and Sweden during one year. RESULTS: The rate of CA per million inhabitants was higher in Iceland than in Sweden. A higher proportion of patients had CA for stable angina in Iceland than in Sweden, while the opposite was true for ST elevation myocardial infarction. Left main stem stenosis was more commonly found in Iceland than in Sweden. The PCI rate was similar in the two countries as was the general success rate of PCI, achievement of complete revascularisation and the overall stent use. Drug eluting stents were more commonly used in Iceland (23% vs. 19%). The use of fractional flow reserve (0.2% vs. 10%) and the radial approach (0.6% vs. 33%) was more frequent in Sweden than in Iceland. Serious complications and death were very rare in both countries. CONCLUSION: By prospectively comparing interventional cardiology in two countries, using a common web based registry online, we have discovered important differences in technique and indications. A discovery such as this can lead to a change in clinical practice and inspire prospective multinational randomised registry trials in unselected, real world populations.