Perceived and objective neighborhood environment attributes and health related quality of life among the elderly in Bogotá, Colombia.

D. Parra,L. Gómez,O. Sarmiento,D. Buchner,R. Brownson,Thomas Schimd,Viviola Gómez,F. Lobelo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.024

2010-04-01

Social Science & Medicine (1967)

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Variation in patients' perceptions of elective percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease: cross sectional study

F. Kureshi,P. G. Jones,D. M. Buchanan,M. S. Abdallah,J. A. Spertus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5309

2014-09-08

BMJ

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: To assess the perceptions of patients with stable coronary artery disease of the urgency and benefits of elective percutaneous coronary intervention and to examine how they vary across centers and by providers.DESIGN: Cross sectional study.SETTING: 10 US academic and community hospitals performing percutaneous coronary interventions between 2009 and 2011.PARTICIPANTS: 991 patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' perceptions of the urgency and benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention, assessed by interview. Multilevel hierarchical logistic regression models examined the variation in patients' understanding across centers and operators after adjusting for patient characteristics, using median odds ratios.RESULTS: The most common reported benefits from percutaneous coronary intervention were to extend life (90%, n=892; site range 80-97%) and to prevent future heart attacks (88%, n=872; site range 79-97%). Although nearly two thirds of patients (n=661) reported improvement of symptoms as a benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (site range 52-87%), only 1% (n=9) identified this as the only benefit. Substantial variability was noted in the ways informed consent was obtained at each site. After adjusting for patient and operator characteristics, the median odds ratios showed significant variation in patients' perceptions of percutaneous coronary intervention across sites (range 1.4-3.1) but not across operators within a site.CONCLUSION: Patients have a poor understanding of the benefits of elective percutaneous coronary intervention, with significant variation across sites. No sites had a high proportion of patients accurately understanding the benefits. Coupled with the wide variability in the ways in which hospitals obtain informed consent, these findings suggest that hospital level interventions into the structure and processes of obtaining informed consent for percutaneous coronary intervention might improve patient comprehension and understanding.

English Else
A Targeted Approach to Reducing Overutilization: Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Lisa M. Behnke,Amanda Solis,Stephanie A. Shulman,Alexis Skoufalos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2012.0019

2013-06-01

Population Health Management

Abstract:Overutilization, defined as use of unnecessary care when alternatives may produce similar outcomes, results in higher cost without increased value. Overutilization can be understood by focusing on settings where overuse is obvious. One example is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic stable angina. PCI is a potentially lifesaving procedure in an acute setting, but current practice guidelines indicate low-risk patients with chronic stable angina should be treated initially with optimal medical therapy (OMT) and lifestyle modification. A decision to move from this approach to PCI should be based on severity of symptoms and degree of risk. Over the last 30 years, advances in equipment, adjunctive medical treatments, and safety have made PCI more common. Recent evidence questions the benefit of PCI in stable coronary artery disease demonstrating no reduction in overall mortality or major cardiac events compared to OMT. Despite these findings, some continue to favor aggressive PCI interventions over conservative management in low-risk situations. Patients who undergo PCI without understanding the evidence may be inappropriately reassured that PCI will reduce the need for OMT and the risk of heart attack and death. Research shows shared decision-making can result in more conservative care, particularly when patients are assessed for health literacy and counseled on clinical evidence. Overutilization of PCI can be addressed by promoting active participation in an evidence-based decision-making process, allowing the opportunity to understand the expected value of invasive procedures over OMT alone through processes that encourage physicians to incorporate shared decision making prior to PCI in non-acute situations.

health care sciences & services
A Meta-Analysis of 17 Randomized Trials of a Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Based Strategy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Albert Schömig,Julinda Mehilli,Antoinette de Waha,Melchior Seyfarth,Jürgen Pache,Adnan Kastrati

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.051

IF: 24

2008-09-01

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the impact on long-term mortality of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus medical treatment in patients with symptoms or signs of myocardial ischemia but no acute coronary syndrome.BACKGROUND: The impact of PCI on the long-term prognosis of patients with stable coronary artery disease has not been established.METHODS: We identified 17 randomized trials comparing a PCI-based invasive treatment strategy with medical treatment in 7,513 patients with symptoms or signs of myocardial ischemia but no acute coronary syndrome. Of these patients, 3,675 were assigned to the PCI group and 3,838 to the medical treatment group. The primary end point was all-cause death. The length of follow-up was in the range between 12 and 122 months, 51 months on average.RESULTS: In the PCI group, 271 patients died compared with 335 patients in the medical treatment group, which corresponds to a 20% reduction in the odds ratio (OR) of all-cause death (OR: 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64 to 0.99, p = 0.263 for heterogeneity across the trials). Allocation to the PCI group was associated with a nonsignificant 26% reduction in the OR of cardiac death (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.06). In the PCI group, 319 patients had a nonfatal myocardial infarction after randomization compared with 357 patients in the medical treatment group (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.23).CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a PCI-based invasive strategy may improve long-term survival compared with a medical treatment-only strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Association of PCI with outcomes in stable coronary artery disease

J Price,M Tao,S Gupta,C Gier,P Pastena,I Ibtida,A Sharma,N Mann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1442

IF: 39.3

2024-10-28

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background The utility of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) remains unclear. Although there has been recent literature to suggest that PCI may improve anginal symptoms, studies evaluating the association of PCI with clinical outcomes compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) has yielded conflicting results. Purpose We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association of PCI compared to OMT with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable CAD. Methods A literature search was performed using the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, identifying studies that evaluated the association of PCI with clinical endpoints in patients with symptomatic stable CAD. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were recurrent acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and unplanned coronary revascularization. The search was not restricted to time or publication status. Results A total of 17 studies with 20,389 patients (11,294 PCI, 9095 OMT) met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up duration was 3.98 years (ranging from 1 year to 6.5 years), mean age was 63.8, mean ejection fraction was 59%. All patients had symptomatic CAD with lesion severity >50%. Compared to OMT, PCI was associated with lower risk of mortality on short-term (≤1 year) but not long-term (>1 year) follow-up (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.29-0.86; p=0.01; OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.42-1.12; p=0.88). PCI was not associated with lower risk of AMI or need for unplanned coronary revascularization (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.73-1.44; p=0.90; OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.51-1.49; p=0.61). There was a trend toward lower risk of CVA in patients treated with OMT compared to PCI, however this was not statistically significant (OR 1.46; 95% CI 0.96-2.22; p=0.07). Conclusions The use of PCI in patients with stable CAD is associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality on short-term follow-up, however this association was not seen on long-term follow-up >1 year. PCI was not associated with lower risk of AMI or unplanned revascularization and may be associated with increased risk of CVA compared to OMT. Additional high-quality studies are needed to further associate the utility of PCI in this patient population.Figure 1Figure 2

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus the optimal drug therapy (ODT) for stable coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiaodong Qian,Haoze Deng,Jiamin Yuan,Junting Hu,Lujia Dai,Tingbo Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-22-222

2022-04-01

Journal of Thoracic Disease

Abstract:Background: Many studies have reported potential benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal drug therapy (ODT) for patients with stable coronary heart disease but with inconsistent results. To examine this, an explicit systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compared the clinical outcomes of PCI and ODT in these patients.Methods: The following terms were combined to search relative articles through databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Web of Science published from January 2010 to November 2021 according to Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study (PICOS) criteria: "coronary heart disease", "stable coronary heart disease", "stable angina pectoris", "percutaneous coronary intervention", "PCI", "percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty", "drug therapy", "optimized drug treatment", and "optimized drug therapy". The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.2, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.Results: A total of 12 articles were included in the final analysis. There were 4,288 cases of PCI patients and 4,261 cases of ODT patients. The results showed that, when comparing PCI with ODT, there was a significant difference in the probability of myocardial infarction [relative risk (RR) =0.63; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.45-0.90] and the patient mortality (RR =0.51; 95% CI: 0.40-0.64). However, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of stroke (RR =1.33; 95% CI: 0.82-2.17), revascularization (RR =0.86; 95% CI: 0.46-1.62) and patient quality of life (MD =10.44; 95% CI: -1.84 to 22.73). Performance bias and detection bias were all unclear in the included studies and should be warned.Discussion: Compared with ODT, PCI reduced the mortality and myocardial infarction rate of patients with CTO or severe coronary artery stenosis. However, the incidence of stroke, revascularization, and quality of life of patients were not significant different between PCI and ODT. Performance bias and detection bias should be cautioned.

respiratory system
Role of percutaneous coronary intervention in the modern-day management of chronic coronary syndrome

Timothy Cartlidge,Mila Kovacevic,Eliano Pio Navarese,Gerald Werner,Vijay Kunadian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321870

IF: 5.7

2023-03-16

Heart

Abstract:Contemporary randomised trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) demonstrate no difference between patients treated with a conservative or invasive strategy with respect to all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction, although trials lack power to test for individual endpoints and long-term follow-up data are needed. Open-label trials consistently show greater improvement in symptoms and quality of life among patients with stable angina treated with PCI. Further studies are awaited to clarify this finding. In patients with severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and obstructive coronary artery disease in the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction trial, PCI has not been found to improve all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation or recovery of LV function when compared with medical therapy. PCI was, however, performed without additional hazard and so remains a treatment option when there are favourable patient characteristics. The majority of patients reported no angina, and the low burden of angina in many of the randomised PCI trials is a widely cited limitation. Despite contentious evidence, elective PCI for CCS continues to play a significant role in UK clinical practice. While PCI for urgent indications has more than doubled since 2006, the rate of elective PCI remains unchanged. PCI remains an important strategy when symptoms are not well controlled, and we should maximise its value with appropriate patient selection. In this review, we provide a framework to assist in critical interpretation of findings from most recent trials and meta-analysis evidence.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Lipid-lowering therapy and percutaneous coronary interventions

Konstantinos C Koskinas,François Mach,Lorenz Räber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00999

2021-04-20

EuroIntervention

Abstract:Although technological and procedural advances have resulted in substantial improvements in clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), recurrent coronary events may occur despite achieving optimal procedural results. Beyond myocardial revascularisation failure related to anatomical or stent-related factors, adverse cardiovascular events post PCI often arise from non-culprit lesions not treated during index interventions. While stenting treats a focal manifestation of a systemic, progressive disease, the residual risk following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or elective PCI is largely related to the systemic pro-atherogenic effects of suboptimally controlled cardiovascular risk factors. Lowering atherogenic lipid levels, in particular low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), can halt the progression of coronary atherosclerosis and improve cardiovascular outcomes to an extent that is proportional to the magnitude of LDL-C reduction. Early (in-hospital) initiation of intensive statin therapy leads to a very early clinical benefit following ACS, and prolonged adherence to optimised lipid-lowering treatment effectively reduces longer-term cardiovascular events following PCI. Therefore, achieving guideline-recommended treatment goals for LDL-C with statins and, if indicated, with the addition of non-statin lipid-lowering drugs should become a priority for all physicians involved in the treatment of patients with coronary heart disease, including comprehensive strategies initiated during the in-hospital care of patients undergoing coronary interventions. This review article summarises current evidence on the role of LDL-C in the development and progression of coronary atherosclerosis, discusses the clinical benefits of intensive lipid-lowering treatments, and presents current guideline recommendations, with emphasis on patients undergoing PCI.
When Stable Coronary Heart Disease Needs PCI:Implied from COURAGE Study

Mao Yuan-jie

2008-01-01

Abstract:In recent,stable coronary heart disease patients are routinely applied coronary artery angiographies along with medicine treatment.Percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) is recommended when vessel stenosis was severe.However newly published COURAGE study confirmed PCI may alleviate the patients' symptoms,but not improve prognosis.Therefore,we should consider the status over again of PCI in the treatment of stable coronary heart disease.
[The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Three case reports]

Sigmund Silber,Barbara M Richartz,Matthias Brilmayer,European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-006-2939-y

Herz

Abstract:The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the first time issued guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in spring 2005. The strengths of recommendations stated in the ESC guidelines (as in those of the AHA/ACC [American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology]) are traditionally a combination of recommendation classes (I, IIa, and IIb) and a level of evidence (A, B, or C). This paper explains and discusses selected focal points of the ESC PCI guidelines based on three representative cases from daily practice. 1. Stable coronary artery disease (CAD): PCI in a 53-year-old patient without angina pectoris and proof of myocardial ischemia. With a clear indication of ischemia in the anterior myocardial wall, the ESC PCI guidelines indicated coronary angiography with possible PCI, even without angina pectoris symptoms. Cardiac catheterization showed a 99% proximal LAD stenosis, which was immediately dilated and stented based on the indicated ischemia. According to the ESC PCI guidelines, an intervention is indicated for CAD when a larger ischemic area is clearly evident even in the absence of typical angina (recommendation class I A). 2. ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): PCI even after successful thrombolysis. A 70-year-old patient experienced acute substernal pain and immediately went to his nearby hospital. The ECG clearly showed anterior myocardial wall STEMI, which in this hospital without a cardiac cath lab indicated thrombolysis, since it could be initiated within 3 h after the onset of chest pain. Pain relief was evident soon after thrombolysis, combined with a resolution of the ST segment elevations. As suggested by the ESC PCI guidelines, a transfer to a cardiac cath lab took place the next day, where the 50% residual stenosis of the LAD was stented. The ESC PCI guidelines suggest coronary angiography with possible PCI within 1-2 days following successful thrombolysis (recommendation class I A). Thus, even "successful" thrombolysis is not regarded as the final treatment for STEMI. 3. Premature termination of clopidogrel after stent implantation: stent thrombosis with acute myocardial infarction. A 46-year-old patient visited the practice due to increasing dyspnea. 4 months earlier, a Taxus stent had been implanted at a heart center into the second RPLS of the RCX; 3 days later, a Cypher stent was implanted in the LAD. Upon being discharged on a Friday at noon, the patient was advised to see his general practitioner soon to attain a prescription for clopidogrel. The patient was given an appointment at his general practitioner for the following Wednesday afternoon. But on that Wednesday morning the patient went into cardiogenic shock. Although the occluded LAD (stent thrombosis) could be quickly reopened, left ventricular myocardium became severely damaged. Until a cardiac transplantation will be performed, a defibrillator was implanted. This "organizational" gap in clopidogrel administration did not conform to the ESC PCI guidelines: after implantation of any coronary stent, dual antiplatelet treatment (acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel) must be consistently administered for at least 4 weeks. After implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES), the ESC PCI guidelines call for clopidogrel administration for at least 6 months; when small vessels, long lesions or a complex anatomy (e. g., bifurcation stenting) are involved, a duration of 1 year or even longer is recommended. The optimal duration of platelet aggregation inhibition following PCI with DES of unprotected left main stem stenoses is unknown at this time. The traditional levels of evidence according to ESC, AHA and ACC criteria (levels A, B, or C) do no longer meet the actual requirements to assess the scientific evidence of randomized PCI trials and registry studies. For example, only two small randomized studies with few patients and insufficient statistical power utilizing a clinically insignificant surrogate endpoint would be enough to attain level of evidence A. Consequently, a new scoring system will be proposed, which considers criteria such as the importance of a primary clinical endpoint, the statistical power achieved, and the presence of an independent external data review and safety monitoring board.
In-Hospital Mortality of Index Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With and Without Prior Percutaneous Revascularization: A Single-Institution Analysis

Pankil Desai,Terence J Sacchi,Manish A Parikh,Sorin J Brener

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2022.07.022

Abstract:Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly performed for symptom relief and survival benefit, particularly in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes. It remains controversial whether prior PCI, and specifically when index PCI is performed on previously treated lesion(s), affects peri-procedural and in-hospital mortality. We queried an institutional PCI registry for all unique patients undergoing PCI during a 4-year period and classified them as having had or not prior PCI. If prior PCI had occurred, we further defined index PCI as a target lesion (TLR) PCI or non-TLR PCI, according to lesion(s) treated during the prior PCI. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Prior PCI was an independent predictor of in-hospital survival or lower mortality (HR 0.41 [0.22-0.76], P = 0.004), together with lower age (per 5 years, HR 0.73 [0.66-0.82], P < 0.001) and elective PCI (HR 0.63 [0.58-0.70], P < 0.0001). Among prior PCI patients, TLR PCI was associated with higher mortality (HR 3.03 [1.05-8.33]. P = 0.045), while elective PCI status was associated with lower mortality (HR 0.10 [0.01-0.80], P = 0.03). This excess mortality was only present in non-elective PCI cases (PINT = 0.02). We conclude that PCI mortality risk is decreased in patients with prior PCI, particularly when index PCI is performed electively on a lesion not previously treated.
A contemporary review of clinical significances of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions, with some Japanese insights

Yoshihiro Morino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-021-00766-7

2021-03-03

Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics

Abstract:The clinical "significance" of percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO-PCI) has been evaluated. In the beginning, the effects on clinical endpoints were investigated by comparisons between cases of success and failure of CTO-PCI, which mostly demonstrated better long-term outcomes in the successful cases. Similarly, improvement of cardiac function or wall motion was proven by serial observational studies. Accordingly, several prospective randomized trials (RCTs), which should confirm such accumulated potential benefits, were recently conducted by comparison with studies of patients that had received optical medical therapy (OMT) alone. While they mostly demonstrated significant improvement of angina symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in the CTO-PCI group, they failed to prove a reduction of clinical events or improvement of left ventricle wall motion, compared with OMT. Concurrent guidelines or consensus documents emphasize that the principal indication for CTO-PCI is to improve symptoms. To determine strategy, the following must be discussed in each individual case: the probability of procedural success, the expectation of long-term patency, and an assessment of the balance between procedure-related complications and overall benefits. In essence, we believe the following facts to be the current sincere appraisal of CTO-PCI: (1) improvements of symptoms and QOL are established, but the others remain inconclusive, and; (2) their margins for improvement are narrowing and numbers of candidates are shrinking. Precision medicine or individualization may be the right directions to take, to enhance the potential of this treatment. This course of action demands discrimination of those candidates who will truly receive benefits from invasive treatment, and that still requires further clinical studies or actions.
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Daniele Giacoppo,Roisin Colleran,Salvatore Cassese,Antonio H Frangieh,Jens Wiebe,Michael Joner,Heribert Schunkert,Adnan Kastrati,Robert A Byrne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2895

2017-10-01

Abstract:Importance: In patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the standard therapy for several decades. However, some studies suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative. Objective: To compare the long-term safety of PCI with drug-eluting stent vs CABG in patients with LMCA stenosis. Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and ScienceDirect databases were searched from December 18, 2001, to February 1, 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trial, patients with LMCA stenosis, PCI vs CABG, exclusive use of drug-eluting stents, and clinical follow-up of 3 or more years. Data extraction and synthesis: Trial-level hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled by fixed-effect and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting. Time-to-event individual patient data for the primary end point were reconstructed. Sensitivity analyses according to drug-eluting stent generation and coronary artery disease complexity were performed. Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at long-term follow-up. Secondary end points included repeat revascularization and a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at long-term follow-up. Results: A total of 4 randomized clinical trials were pooled; 4394 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 3371 (76.7%) were men; pooled mean age was 65.4 years. According to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, evidence quality with respect to the primary composite end point was high. Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG were associated with a comparable risk of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke both by fixed-effect (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.24; P = .48) and random-effects (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.32; P = .60) analysis. Sensitivity analyses according to low to intermediate Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (random-effects: HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.74-1.41; P = .89) and drug-eluting stent generation (first generation: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.20; P = .49; second generation: HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.73; P = .36) were consistent. Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction did not show significant variations over time between the techniques, with a 5-year incidence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke of 18.3% (319 events) in patients treated with PCI and 16.9% (292 events) in patients treated with CABG. However, repeat revascularization after PCI was increased (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.42-2.05; P < .001). Other individual secondary end points did not differ significantly between groups. Finally, pooled estimates of trials with LMCA stenosis tended overall to differ significantly from those of trials with multivessel coronary artery disease without left main LMCA stenosis. Conclusions and relevance: Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG show comparable safety in patients with LMCA stenosis and low to intermediate-complexity coronary artery disease. However, repeat revascularization is more common after PCI.
Comparison of Angiographic Success and Clinical Outcomes Based on Different Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Techniques

Sadam Hussain,Said Zaman,Muhammad Abbas Khan,Imran Khan,Malik Faisal Iftekhar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.69342

2024-09-13

Cureus

Abstract:Introduction Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the standard treatment for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Various PCI techniques exist, including balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-eluting stents (DES), thrombus aspiration, direct stenting, rotational atherectomy (Rotablation), and cutting balloon angioplasty. Specific approaches for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease may involve: 1) culprit vessel-only (CVO) primary PCI, 2) primary PCI followed by multivessel intervention of additional noninfarct lesions at the same procedure, or 3) CVO primary PCI followed by staged PCI of noninfarct lesions later during the index hospitalization or after discharge. However, their impact on angiographic success and clinical outcomes remains unclear. Methodology A retrospective study (n=90) evaluated the effectiveness of various PCI techniques during primary PCI. Data included demographics, clinical profiles, PCI strategies, and outcomes. Techniques such as thrombus aspiration, direct stenting, balloon angioplasty, and DES deployment were assessed. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were employed, with logistic regression for adjustment. Results The comparison of angiographic success and clinical outcomes based on different PCI strategies during primary PCI (n=90) revealed distinct differences. Successful procedures were associated with lower mean values for age (56.00 vs. 60.20), hypertension (165.50 vs. 170.30), weight (74.00 vs. 77.50), BMI, 26.80 vs. 28.70, KILLIP class (1.30 vs. 1.50), ejection fraction (45.80 vs. 47.90), creatinine (0.95 vs. 1.00), creatinine clearance (83.50 vs. 86.70), pulse rate (84.00 vs. 87.50), oxygen saturation (95.80 vs. 94.50), and blood sugar (170.00 vs. 182.00). Risk factors like hypertension (mean = 1.40 vs. 1.60), diabetes (mean = 1.60 vs. 1.70), and hyperlipidemia (mean = 1.85 vs. 1.95) also showed differences between successful and failed procedures. Significant variations were observed across PCI strategies for outcomes including angina within 30 days (Chi square = 18.75, p < 0.001), cerebrovascular accident (CVA, Chi square = 15.42, p = 0.001), acute left ventricular failure (LVF, Chi square = 12.67, p = 0.005), and cardiogenic shock (Chi square = 8.93, p = 0.029). Conclusion Patient demographics and clinical profiles influence PCI success. Techniques such as thrombus aspiration, direct stenting, balloon angioplasty, and DES have varied impacts on clinical outcomes. While conventional balloon angioplasty remains a viable option, newer techniques such as DES and mechanical thrombectomy demonstrate superior angiographic success rates and improved clinical outcomes, particularly in complex lesion subsets. However, the selection of PCI technique should be guided by careful consideration of patient-specific factors, lesion characteristics, and procedural feasibility.
Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in View of Long-Term Outcomes among Diabetic Patients?

A. F. Musa

Abstract:Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) is the preferred revascularization modality among diabetic patients due to extensive coronary involvement and elevated risk of restenosis. Since drug-eluting stent significantly reduces restenosis, we expect it to narrow down the long-term benefit-gap between these two revascularization strategies. In our review, we compare the long-term outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) to CABG in diabetic patients. While PCI can be a reasonable alternative to CABG at a low SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score, an intermediate-high SYNTAX score makes CABG necessary. In left main stem occlusion, PCI and CABG demonstrated similar long-term outcomes. However, in cases of bifurcation or unprotected left main stem disease, revascularization is best done via CABG. Indeed, CABG is the main revascularization therapy in multivessel involvement— it lowers the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization at the expense of increasessd stroke. Glycaemic control, use of antiplatelet agents and feelings of disability are all factors that can potentially affect long-term outcomes. We expect hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involving both robotic surgery and PCI to be the future trend in treating diabetic patients with multivessel disease, although its clinical use needs further studies.

Medicine
Is Knowledge Level of Coronary Heart Disease and Risk Factors Among Post–Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Patients Adequate?

Mary T. Nolan,Gabrielle McKee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/jcn.0000000000000291

2016-05-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is now commonly used in the treatment of coronary heart disease. However, shorter hospital stays after intervention may affect patients' knowledge and subsequent required lifestyle changes.OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate participants' risk factor profile, knowledge of coronary heart disease, and the influence of demographic and risk factors on this knowledge.METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional 1-site study recruited both elective and emergency PCI patients postdischarge. The questionnaire collected data on demographics, risk factor profile, and coronary heart disease knowledge as measured on the Bergman Heart Disease Knowledge Questionnaire. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to analyze the influence of 11 risk and sociodemographic factors on knowledge.RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (n = 84). The sample was mostly male and aged 65.79 ± 9.9 years, and 59% had an elective PCI. Risk factor burden was high; 2 or more risk factors were seen in 66% of participants. Mean knowledge score overall was 51%, with the highest score achieved in the risk factor domain (61%). Lowest scores were in the medical and symptoms domains (both 46%). Neither the bivariate nor the multivariate analyses were significant. A large proportion of patients believed that coronary heart disease was no longer a concern for them after PCI.CONCLUSIONS: As expected, the risk factor profile of post-PCI patients was high. However, their knowledge levels and awareness were unrelated to risk factor profile and poor in comparison with studies in other cardiac patients. This, in addition to the short stay in hospital and the low attendance of this cohort at cardiac rehabilitation, identifies this group of patients as a priority for further targeted education. Innovations are needed to increase knowledge and begin behavioral change predischarge after PCI. This should include target and goal setting for lifestyle change to avail of this critical education opportunity.

nursing,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary bypass surgery for coronary artery disease: a Bayesian perspective

Michal J Kawczynski,Andrea Gabrio,Jos G Maessen,Arnoud W J van 't Hof,James M Brophy,Can Gollmann-Tepeköylü,Peyman Sardari Nia,Pieter A Vriesendorp,Samuel Heuts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.08.017

2024-08-20

Abstract:Objectives: Coronary revascularization is frequently performed for coronary artery disease (CAD). This study aims to assess the totality of randomized evidence comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI) to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for CAD. Methods: A systematic search was applied to three electronic databases, including randomized trials comparing DES-PCI to CABG for CAD with 5-year follow-up. A Bayesian hierarchical meta-analytic model was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at five years; secondary outcomes were stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Endpoints were reported in median relative risks (RR) and absolute risk differences (ARD), with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to reconstruct individual patient data. Results: Six studies comprising 8269 patients (DES-PCI n=4134, CABG n=4135) were included. All-cause mortality at 5 years was increased with DES-PCI (median RR 1.23 (95%CrI 1.01-1.45), with a median ARD of +2.3% (95%CrI 0.1-4.5%). For stroke, MI, and repeat revascularization, the median RRs were 0.79 (95%CrI 0.54-1.25), 1.84 (95%CrI 1.23-2.75), and 1.80 (95%CrI 1.51-2.16) for DES-PCI, respectively. In a sample of 1000 patients undergoing DES-PCI instead of CABG for CAD, a median of 23 additional deaths, 46 myocardial infarctions and 85 repeat revascularizations occurred at five years, while 10 strokes were prevented. Conclusion: The current data suggests a clinically relevant benefit of CABG over DES-PCI at five years, in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, despite an increased risk of stroke. These findings may guide the heart-team and the shared decision-making process.
Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials

Jordan Llerena-Velastegui,Kristina Zumbana-Podaneva,Sebastian Velastegui-Zurita,Melany Mejia-Mora,Juan Perez-Tomassetti,Allison Cabrera-Cruz,Pablo Haro-Arteaga,Ana Clara Fonseca Souza de Jesus,Pedro Moraes Coelho,Cristian Sanahuja-Montiel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1638

Abstract:Background: Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major global health issue and a leading cause of death. This study compares the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the management of IHD, focusing on their impact on revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and post-procedural stroke. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of PCI and CABG in treating IHD based on an exhaustive literature review of the past 5 years, emphasizing recent advancements and outcomes in IHD management. Methods: A comprehensive literature review analyzed 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The study specifically assessed the incidences of revascularization, stroke, and MI in patients treated with either PCI or CABG. The comparison between CABG and PCI exclusively focused on lesions with a SYNTAX score exceeding 32. Results: Our findings highlight CABG's significant efficacy over PCI in reducing revascularization and MI. The aggregated Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) value for revascularization was 1.85 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.65 - 2.07), signifying CABG's advantage. Additionally, CABG demonstrated superior performance in diminishing MI occurrences (M-H = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.13 - 6.53). In contrast, PCI was more effective in reducing stroke (M-H = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.10). Conclusion: The study confirms CABG's superiority in reducing revascularization and MI in IHD patients, highlighting PCI's effectiveness in reducing stroke risk. These findings underscore the importance of personalized treatment strategies in IHD management and emphasize the need for ongoing research and evidence-based guidelines to aid in treatment selection for IHD patients.
Percutaneous coronary revascularization versus medical therapy in chronic coronary syndromes: An updated meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Giuseppe Panuccio,Nicole Carabetta,Daniele Torella,Salvatore De Rosa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.14303

2024-08-24

European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract:Introduction Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a main cause of morbidity and mortality. The effectiveness of coronary revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is still debated. Our recent study showed the superiority of coronary revascularization over optimal medical therapy (OMT) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The recent publication of the ORBITA‐2 trial suggested superiority of percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) in reducing angina and improving quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to provide an updated meta‐analysis evaluating the impact of PCI on both clinical outcomes and angina in CCS. Methods Relevant studies were screened in PubMed/Medline until 08/01/2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCI to OMT in CCS were selected. The primary outcome was CV death. Secondary outcomes were MI, all‐cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding and angina severity. Results Nineteen RCTs involving 8616 patients were included. Median follow‐up duration was 3.3 years. Revascularization significantly reduced CV death (4.2% vs. 5.5%; OR = .77; 95% CI .62–.96, p = .02). Subgroup analyses favoured revascularization in patients without chronic total occlusions (CTOs) (p = .052) and those aged <65 years (p = .02). Finally, a follow‐up duration beyond 3 years showed increased benefit of coronary revascularization (p = .04). Secondary outcomes analyses showed no significant differences, except for a lower angina severity in the revascularization group according to the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (p = .04) and to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification (p = .005). Conclusions PCI compared to OMT significantly reduces CV mortality and angina severity, improving quality of life in CCS patients. This benefit was larger without CTOs, in patients aged <65 years and with follow‐up duration beyond 3 years.

medicine, general & internal, research & experimental
Influence of Previous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of 250 684 Patients

Muhammad Omar Larik,Ayesha Ahmed,Abdul Rehman Shahid,Hamza Irfan,Areeka Irfan,Muhammad Jibran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/11795468241274588

2024-08-30

Abstract:Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), also known as coronary angioplasty, is the preferred strategy for treating obstructive coronary artery disease. Existing literature suggests the worsening of clinical outcomes in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) history. In light of this, a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect were utilized for the inclusive systematic search dating from inception to September 01, 2023. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials. Results: Ultimately, there were 16 eligible studies pooled together, involving a total of 250 684 patients, including 231 552 CABG-naïve patients, and 19 132 patients with a prior history of CABG. Overall, patients with CABG history were associated with significantly greater short-term mortality (P = .004), long-term mortality (P = .005), myocardial infarction (P < .00001), major adverse cardiovascular events (P = .0001), and procedural perforation (P < .00001). Contrastingly, CABG-naïve patients were associated with significantly greater risk of cardiac tamponade (P = .02) and repeat CABG (P = .03). No significant differences in stroke, bleeding, revascularization, or repeat PCI were observed. Conclusion: Comparatively worsened clinical outcomes were observed, as patients with prior CABG history typically exhibit complex coronary anatomy, and have higher rates of comorbidities in comparison to their CABG-naïve counterparts. The refinement of current procedural and surgical techniques, in conjunction with continued research endeavors, are needed in order to effectively address this trend.
Influencing factors on informed consent for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Man-yan WU,Hong CHEN,Jun-xian SONG,Zhong-you LI,Su-fang LI,Li-na WANG,Jun LIU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-8812.2017.04.001

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective To determine the influencing factors on informed consent associated with decline or delay of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction(STEMI).Methods This study was conducted in Peking University People′s Hospital from 1 August, 2014 to 31 March, 2016, with 229 consecutive cases of acute STEMI enrolled in the study.Data were collected by reviewing medical records and STEMI treatment time records.180 patients with ischemic symptoms ≤12 hours were included in the final analysis.Patients were divided into the consent group and the refusal group according to the final decision.For patients who received primary PCI, they were further categorized into two groups based on the 30min cut-off time.Results Among the 180 STEMI patients reviewed, 139 patients agreed to primary PCI and the remaining 41 patients refused primary PCI.Multivariate logistic analysis showed that symptom relief (OR 5.532, 95% CI 1.165-26.278, P=0.031) and history of chronic kidney disease (OR 4.786, 95% CI 1.346-17.011, P=0.016) were predictors of dissent of primary PCI.Self-rated symptoms severity (OR 0.094, 95% CI 0.034-0.260, P<0.001)was predictor of consent to primary PCI.106 patients had complete time point records of informed consent in the consent group (n=139).Among these patients, the median informed consent delay was 24 min.64 patients made a decision within 30 minutes, and the other 42 patients had their decision made beyond 30 minutes.Symptom-to-door time ≥4 hours (OR 4.563,95% CI 1.682-12.385, P=0.003) was independent predictor of informed consent delay.Conclusions Patients with resolved symptoms, self-rated mild symptoms or renal insufficiency were more inclined to refuse primary PCI.For patients who eventually received primary PCI, symptom-to-door time ≥4 hours was the independent predictor of informed consent delay.

Perceived and objective neighborhood environment attributes and health related quality of life among the elderly in Bogotá, Colombia.

Variation in patients' perceptions of elective percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease: cross sectional study

A Targeted Approach to Reducing Overutilization: Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

A Meta-Analysis of 17 Randomized Trials of a Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Based Strategy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Association of PCI with outcomes in stable coronary artery disease

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus the optimal drug therapy (ODT) for stable coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Role of percutaneous coronary intervention in the modern-day management of chronic coronary syndrome

Lipid-lowering therapy and percutaneous coronary interventions

When Stable Coronary Heart Disease Needs PCI:Implied from COURAGE Study

[The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Three case reports]

In-Hospital Mortality of Index Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With and Without Prior Percutaneous Revascularization: A Single-Institution Analysis

A contemporary review of clinical significances of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions, with some Japanese insights

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Comparison of Angiographic Success and Clinical Outcomes Based on Different Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Techniques

Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) Surgery Still Preferable to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in View of Long-Term Outcomes among Diabetic Patients?

Is Knowledge Level of Coronary Heart Disease and Risk Factors Among Post–Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Patients Adequate?

Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary bypass surgery for coronary artery disease: a Bayesian perspective

Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials

Percutaneous coronary revascularization versus medical therapy in chronic coronary syndromes: An updated meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Influence of Previous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of 250 684 Patients

Influencing factors on informed consent for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction