Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 9, 2025

Fully Endoscopic Mitral Valve Repair with Percutaneous Cannulation of Groin Vessels
Published on: May 26, 2023
The relationship between procedural volume and patient outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic
Kieran A Walsh1, Thomas Plunkett1, Kirsty K O'Brien1
1Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin 7, Ireland.
Insights
The relationship between percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) procedural volume and patient outcomes is weakening. While high-volume operators and hospitals show benefits for specific PCI types, overall evidence certainty is very low.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Health Services Research
Background:
- The association between procedural volume and outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) remains debated.
- Previous reviews suggested an inverse volume-outcome relationship, necessitating a re-examination of contemporary evidence.
Approach:
- A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on observational studies published between January 2008 and May 2019.
- The review examined the relationship between PCI procedural volume (hospital and operator levels) and patient outcomes, focusing on mortality, complications, and healthcare utilization.
- The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.
Key Points:
- No significant association was found between total PCI hospital volume and mortality (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-1.03).
- High-volume operators demonstrated a significant association with reduced mortality for total PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.94).
- High-volume hospitals showed a significant association with reduced mortality for primary PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.94).
- The certainty of the overall evidence was assessed as 'very low'.
Conclusions:
- A volume-outcome relationship in PCI may exist but appears to be diminishing over time.
- The certainty of evidence is very low, suggesting caution in its interpretation.
- Volume alone should not define PCI service quality; a comprehensive evaluation of quality metrics, including patient experience and clinical outcomes, is recommended.
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, I = 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, I = 93%), and for high-volume hospitals for primary PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.94, I = 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.
More Related Videos
06:10Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
05:41Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Ligation for Ischemia-Reperfusion Research: Model Improvement via Technical Modifications and Quality Control
Published on: December 16, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview