Asunto(s)
Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Humanos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Catéteres Cardíacos , Diseño de Equipo , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagenAsunto(s)
Revascularización Miocárdica , Humanos , Revascularización Miocárdica/efectos adversos , Revascularización Miocárdica/normas , Resultado del Tratamiento , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/cirugíaRESUMEN
Risk models and risk scores derived from those models require periodic updating to account for changes in procedural performance, patient mix, and new risk factors added to existing systems. No risk model or risk score exists for predicting in-hospital/30-day mortality for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) using contemporary data. This study develops an updated risk model and simplified risk score for in-hospital/30-day mortality following PCI. To accomplish this, New York's Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reporting System was used to develop a logistic regression model and a simplified risk score model for predicting in-hospital/30-day mortality and to validate both models based on New York data from the previous year. A total of 54,770 PCI patients from 2019 were used to develop the models. Twelve different risk factors and 27 risk factor categories were used in the models. Both models displayed excellent discrimination for the development and validation samples (range from 0.894 to 0.896) and acceptable calibration, but the full logistic model had superior calibration, particularly among higher-risk patients. In conclusion, both the PCI risk model and its simplified risk score model provide excellent discrimination and although the full risk model requires the use of a hand-held device for estimating individual patient risk, it provides somewhat better calibration, especially among higher-risk patients.
Asunto(s)
Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Humanos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , New York/epidemiología , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , HospitalesRESUMEN
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.