Outcomes following immediate (ad hoc) versus staged percutaneous coronary interventions (report from the 2000 to 2001 New York State Angioplasty Registry)

Ad Hoc Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Patients With Multivessel or Unprotected Left Main Disease

BACKGROUND

There is very little information about the use of ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable patients with multivessel (MV) disease or unprotected left main (LM) disease patients for whom a heart team approach is recommended.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the extent of ad hoc PCI utilization for patients with multivessel disease or left main disease, and to explore the inter-hospital variation in ad hoc PCI utilization for those patients.

METHODS

New York State's cardiac registries were used to examine the use and variation in use of ad hoc PCI for MV/LM disease as a percentage of all MV/LM PCIs and revascularizations (PCIs plus coronary artery bypass graft procedures) during 2018 to 2019 in New York.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 6,425 of the 8,196 stable PCI patients with MV/LM disease (78.4%) underwent ad hoc PCI, ranging from 58.7% for patients with unprotected LM disease to 85.4% for patients with 2-vessel proximal left anterior descending (PLAD) disease. Ad hoc PCIs comprised 35.1% of all revascularizations, ranging from 11.5% for patients with unprotected LM disease to 63.9% for patients with 2-vessel PLAD disease. The risk-adjusted utilization of ad hoc PCI as a percentage of all revascularizations varied widely among hospitals (eg, from 15% in the first quartile to 46% in the last quartile for 3-vessel disease).

CONCLUSIONS

Ad hoc PCIs occur frequently even among patients with MV/LM disease. This is particularly true among patients with 2-vessel PLAD disease. The frequency of ad hoc PCIs is lower but still high among patients with diabetes and low ejection fraction and higher in hospitals without surgery on-site (SOS). Given the magnitude of hospital- and physician-level variation in the use of ad hoc PCIs for such patients, consideration should be given to a systems approach to achieving heart team consultation and shared decision making that is consistent for SOS and non-SOS hospitals.

In-hospital and 1-Year Outcomes of Repeated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for In-stent Restenosis With Acute Coronary Syndrome Presentation

BACKGROUND

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the Achilles' heel of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There have been controversial data about outcomes of repeated PCI (redo-PCI) for ISR. This study aims to determine the predictors of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients underwent redo-PCI for ISR.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, all patients with acute coronary syndrome who were underwent successful PCI for ISR at Tehran Herat Center (between 2004 and 2019) were eligible for inclusion. Patients with moderate to severe valvular heart disease and/or hematological disorders were excluded. Participants were divided into 2 groups based on the occurrence of the MACE [composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass grafting, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization]; then, the study variables were compared between the 2 groups. Finally, the predictors of MACE were identified using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 748 redo-PCI patients (mean age: 65.2 ± 10.1; 71.0% males), 631 patients had met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-four patients (9.8%) developed MACE within a 1-year follow-up period. Multivessel disease, primary PCI, Ad-hoc PCI, history of non-ST-segment elevation MI, and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors for MACE. In a subgroup analysis, 30 patients who experienced third PCI (target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascularization) were followed more as 1-year MACE. Among these patients, 14 MACEs were observed during the last follow-up (till June 2020).

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel disease, primary PCI, and history of non-ST-segment elevation MI were the predictors of higher 1-year MACE, whereas Ad-hoc PCI and diabetes mellitus had a protective effect on MACE.

Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be performed in the same procedure as diagnostic coronary angiography (ad hoc PCI). This study aimed to evaluate current rates of ad hoc PCI use and associated risks of adverse outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

We identified 550,742 patients with stable CAD who underwent PCI in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from 2009 to 2017. We compared in-hospital bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), and mortality between patients receiving ad hoc versus non-ad hoc PCI using logistic regression with inverse probability weighted propensity adjustment.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2017, 82.9% of patients underwent ad hoc PCI. Patients who did not undergo ad hoc PCI had higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery bypass graft. Ad hoc PCI was associated with lower bleeding risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87) but no differences in risks of AKI (aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.00) or mortality (aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23) compared with non-ad hoc PCI. Ad hoc PCI was associated with AKI risk in patients with glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min (interaction P < .001), mortality risk in multivessel PCI (interaction P = .031), and risks of AKI and mortality in PCI of chronic total occlusions (interaction P = .045 and .002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Ad hoc PCI is extremely common among US patients with stable CAD and is associated with lower bleeding risk but no differences in risks of AKI or mortality compared with non-ad hoc PCI.

Outcomes in patients undergoing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention using sirolimus-eluting stents: a report from the e-SELECT registry

AIMS

Performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to multiple coronary lesions during the same procedure has potential economic and social advantages. However comprehensive outcome data of real world practice in a large population is limited. We aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes between patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who either underwent single- or multivessel PCI within the e-SELECT registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The e-SELECT registry combines data collected at 320 medical centres in 56 countries where patients received CYPHER Select® or CYPHER Select® Plus sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Rates of myocardial infarction and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (defined as any death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation) were compared between patients undergoing single-vessel versus multivessel PCI. A total of 15,147 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the e-SELECT registry. Two thousand two hundred and seventy-eight (2,278) subjects (15%) underwent multivessel PCI and 12,869 (85%) had single-vessel PCI. The mean age was higher in the multivessel PCI group (63 vs. 62 years, p<0.001) and there was a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (32.4 vs. 30.0%, p=0.02). Lesions were more complex in the single-PCI group while pre- and post-dilatation were less common in the multivessel PCI group. Myocardial infarction within the first 30 days post PCI was more common in the multivessel PCI group (1.9 vs. 0.8%, p<0.001) and most of the infarctions were periprocedural (1.3 vs. 0.6%, p=0.001). Mortality and myocardial infarction at one-year were higher in the multivessel PCI group resulting in a significantly higher MACE (6.1 vs. 4.6%, p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall procedural and one year outcomes were excellent for both single- and multivessel procedures. However despite lower lesion complexity, performing multivessel PCI was associated with higher rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction and MACE when compared to single-vessel PCI in the e-SELECT registry.

Clinical implications of the BARI 2D and COURAGE trials: the evolving role of percutaneous coronary intervention

This review outlines the evolving role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable angina in the context of the widely discussed Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) and Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trials. Factors outlined include defining the appropriate patient population, the clinical circumstances, and the technical aspects of the procedure to optimize clinical outcomes and minimize risk. The COURAGE Trial, as others reported earlier, reported no difference in death or myocardial infarction with PCI compared with medical therapy for stable angina. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the BARI 2D Trial, a strategy of revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or PCI resulted in no difference in mortality compared with optimal medical therapy. However, PCI for stable angina was associated with reduced angina and improved quality of life. Procedural aspects of PCI that support its continuing role in the management of patients with stable angina include the frequent advancements in PCI technology that have further enhanced both acute and long-term success. In conclusion, the implications of these findings for clinical practice include evaluating the use of PCI for stable angina in addition to optimal medical therapy to reduce angina and improve quality of life, but individualizing care for higher risk patients with more complex coronary artery disease who were not enrolled in the COURAGE and BARI 2D trials.