Crusan, Daniel

Background: We aim to study the incidence of major complications related to procedure defined as in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, stroke, pericardial effusion or tamponade, percutaneous coronary intervention due to iatrogenic coronary dissection, or unplanned bypass surgery within 72 hours after diagnostic left heart catheterization (LHC; primary end point). Furthermore, all causes of in-hospital death after LHC were adjudicated and reported (secondary end point). Methods and Results: Diagnostic LHC procedures (aortic angiography; coronary, including graft, angiography; and left ventricular angiography) from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2013, were identified using the clinical scheduling system at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, and complications were identified through electronic records. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision billing codes were used. Registration was queried to identify all-cause mortality. All events were reviewed and adjudicated. There were 43 786 diagnostic LHC procedures; 97.3% were coronary angiograms. The mean age of patients was 64.5 years (13.6), and the majority were male (61.5%). Primary end point was seen in 36 (0.082%) procedures or 8.2 of 10 000 LHCs. Combined right sided procedures with LHC did not increase the risk of major complications. Cardiogenic and septic shock, cardiac arrhythmia, and postsurgical complication were the most common causes of in-hospital death after LHC. Conclusions: The overall rates of major complications related to diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures are extremely rare. The majority of the deaths occurring post-diagnostic LHC procedures were secondary to acute illness rather than directly related to diagnostic procedure.

Background— Women have higher rates of all-cause mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. Whether this is because of greater age and comorbidity burden or a sex-specific factor remains unclear. Methods and Results— We retrospectively assessed cause-specific long-term mortality after index percutaneous coronary intervention over 3 time periods (1991–1997, 1998–2005, and 2006–2012). Cause of death was determined using telephone interviews, medical records, and death certificates. We performed competing risks analyses of cause-specific mortality. A total of 6847 women and 16 280 men survived index percutaneous coronary intervention hospitalization 1991 to 2012. Women were older (mean±SD: 69.4±12 versus 64.8±11.7 years; P <0.001) with more comorbidities (mean±SD: Charlson index 2.1±2.1 versus 1.9±2.1; P <0.001). Across the 3 time periods, both sexes exhibited a decline in cardiac deaths at 5 years (26% relative decrease in women, 17% in men, trend P <0.001 for each). Although women had higher all-cause mortality compared with men in all eras, the excess mortality was because of noncardiac deaths. In the contemporary era, only a minority of deaths were cardiac (33.8% in women, 38.0% in men). After adjustment, there was no evidence for a sex-specific excess of risk for cardiac or noncardiac mortality. The commonest causes of death were chronic diseases and heart failure in women (5-year cumulative mortality, 5.4% and 3.9%) but cancer and myocardial infarction/sudden death in men (5.4% and 4.3%). Conclusions— The higher mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention in women is because of death from noncardiac causes. This is accounted for by baseline age and comorbidities rather than an additional sex-specific factor. These findings have implications for sex-specific clinical care and trial design.

Background Participation in cardiac rehabilitation ( CR ) is an essential component of care for patients with coronary artery disease. However, little is known about its benefit on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus ( DM ) who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of CR in this high‐risk group of patients. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with DM who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in Olmsted County (Minnesota) between 1994 and 2010, assessing the impact of CR participation on clinical outcomes. CR participation was significantly lower in patients with DM (38%, 263/700) compared with those who did not have DM (45%, 1071/2379; P =0.004). Using propensity score adjustment, we found that in patients with DM , CR participation was associated with significantly reduced all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.80; P =0.002) and composite end point of mortality, myocardial infarction, or revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.98; P =0.037), during a median follow‐up of 8.1 years. In patients without DM , CR participation was associated with a significant reduction in all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.55–0.82; P <0.001) and cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47–0.95; P =0.024). Conclusions CR participation after percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower all‐cause mortality rates in patients with DM , to a similar degree as for those without DM . However, CR participation was lower in patients with DM , suggesting the need to identify and correct the barriers to CR participation for this higher‐risk group of patients.

Background— Little is known about the clinical value of stress imaging studies in asymptomatic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and Results— Residents of Olmsted County, MN, who underwent PCI were followed up for the occurrence of stress imaging (stress nuclear or stress echocardiography), coronary angiography, or coronary artery bypass grafting (without angiography) as initial procedures after PCI. Patients whose first follow-up procedure was a stress imaging test were evaluated for their symptom status at the time of the study and whether they underwent angiography or revascularization (PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting) within 90 days. Of 1848 patients who underwent PCI during the study period, 710 (38%) had stress imaging as their initial procedure after PCI, and 241 (13% of the entire cohort) were asymptomatic at the time of testing. The majority (86%) of these 241 patients underwent PCI for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina. Within 90 days of stress imaging, 16 of the 241 asymptomatic patients underwent angiography, and 2 patients were revascularized. Stratified by timing after PCI, none of 138 asymptomatic patients tested within 2 years of PCI underwent revascularization. Two of 103 asymptomatic patients tested after 2 years from PCI underwent revascularization. Compared with patients who were asymptomatic at the time of stress imaging, patients who did not undergo any follow-up procedures (stress imaging, angiography, or coronary artery bypass grafting) after the index PCI were older, were more likely to have comorbidities, and had significantly greater all-cause mortality ( P <0.001). Conclusions— In a population-based sample of patients undergoing PCI primarily for acute coronary syndromes, 1 in 8 had subsequent stress imaging when they were asymptomatic. These stress imaging tests resulted in further revascularization in <1% of patients. The low rate of downstream revascularization suggests that stress imaging in asymptomatic patients after PCI has low value.