Cardiology · 2025
Mobile Cardiac Catheterization for Critical Cardiovascular Disease: A Feasibility and Applicability Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Resch Markus, Breyer Johannes, Maier Lars, Duschner Michael, Endemann Dierk, Sossalla Samuel
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention are essential for managing coronary artery disease, particularly in acute settings such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Mobile cardiac catheterization laboratories provide a potential solution for maintaining interventional cardiology services during hospital renovations, disasters, or in resource-limited settings. This study aimed to evaluate feasibility, safety, and quality of care of a mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory compared to a stationary facility.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted, comparing 1,454 patients treated between 2016 and 2019 at either an interim mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory or a stationary facility. Key endpoints included door-to-balloon time, radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, contrast medium usage, and major adverse cardiac events.
RESULTS: The door-to-balloon time was comparable between mobile and stationary facility (29 vs. 33 min, p = 0.143). Although fluoroscopy time and radiation dose were significantly higher in the mobile unit (p < 0.001), no differences in major adverse cardiac events were observed. The mobile unit demonstrated feasibility and safety for both routine and emergency interventions.
CONCLUSION: Mobile cardiac catheterization laboratories are a viable alternative for providing interventional cardiology services in various scenarios, including renovations, crises, and underserved regions. Optimizing equipment and workflows could further enhance their performance.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted, comparing 1,454 patients treated between 2016 and 2019 at either an interim mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory or a stationary facility. Key endpoints included door-to-balloon time, radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, contrast medium usage, and major adverse cardiac events.
RESULTS: The door-to-balloon time was comparable between mobile and stationary facility (29 vs. 33 min, p = 0.143). Although fluoroscopy time and radiation dose were significantly higher in the mobile unit (p < 0.001), no differences in major adverse cardiac events were observed. The mobile unit demonstrated feasibility and safety for both routine and emergency interventions.
CONCLUSION: Mobile cardiac catheterization laboratories are a viable alternative for providing interventional cardiology services in various scenarios, including renovations, crises, and underserved regions. Optimizing equipment and workflows could further enhance their performance.