Sorajja, Paul

Background— Little is known about the impact of technological and pharmacological advances on long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in general clinical practice. Methods and Results— We analyzed in-hospital and long-term outcome of 24 410 percutaneous coronary interventions among 18 575 unique patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at Mayo Clinic over 25 years. The study population was divided into group 1 (n=3708), coronary interventions from 1979 to 1989; group 2 (n=7020), interventions from 1990 to 1996; group 3 (n=10 952), interventions from 1996 to 2003; and group 4 (n=2730), interventions from 2003 to 2004. Despite the fact that patients in groups 3 and 4 were significantly older, sicker, and had greater prevalence of comorbid conditions, heart failure, and previous revascularization than those in groups 1 and 2, procedural success in groups 3 and 4 improved significantly (94%) versus groups 2 (89%) and 1 (78%) ( P <0.001). Significant reduction in in-hospital mortality (groups 4 to 1: 1.8%, 1.7%, 2.6%, 3.0%; P <0.001) and need for emergency bypass surgery (groups 4 to 1: 0.4%, 0.5%, 1.6%, 5%; P <0.001) was noted in groups 3 and 4 compared with groups 1 and 2. Better adherence to currently recommended evidence-based medications for secondary prevention was seen in the recent time periods. After adjustment, significant reduction in follow-up mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81 and 0.74 for groups 3 and 4, respectively); death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.75 for groups 3 and 4, respectively); death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.76 and 0.58 for groups 3 and 4, respectively) was noted in recent time periods. Conclusions— Despite higher-risk profiles of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in recent time periods, procedural success as well as in-hospital and long-term outcomes improved significantly over the last 25 years.

Background— Adult patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) may develop concomitant atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD). There is a paucity of data on the clinical outcomes of HCM patients who have CAD. Methods and Results— We examined the outcome of 433 adult patients with HCM according to the presence and severity of CAD. All patients were aged ≥21 years, had a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50%, and were without a history of prior surgical revascularization (mean age, 63 years; 212 men). Compared with HCM patients with mild-to-moderate or no CAD, those with severe CAD demonstrated markedly reduced survival. Ten-year overall survival was 46.1%, 70.5%, and 77.1% for patients with severe, mild-to-moderate, and no CAD, respectively (unadjusted P =0.0001; adjusted P =0.0006). For the end point of cardiac death, this survival was 62.3%, 81.0%, and 80.9% (unadjusted P =0.009; adjusted P =0.004). For the end point of sudden cardiac death, this survival was 77.4%, 93.2%, and 90.3% (unadjusted P =0.01; adjusted P =0.01). The presence of severe CAD also was highly predictive of these events (risk ratio for respective event: 2.31, 2.15, and 2.77) in multivariate models that additionally identified age, prior stroke, hyperlipidemia, and atrial fibrillation as significant covariates. Conclusions— Among adult patients with HCM who undergo coronary angiography, those who have concomitant severe CAD are at increased risk of death. This risk far exceeds historical death rates of CAD patients with normal left ventricular function.