Racz, Michael

Background— The benefit of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (P-PCI) for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been well documented. However, controversy still exists as to whether PCI should be expanded to hospitals without coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Methods and Results— Patients who were discharged after PCI for STEMI between January 1, 2003, and December 12, 2006, in P-PCI centers (hospitals with no coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and PCI only for patients with STEMI) were propensity matched with patients in full service centers, and mortality and subsequent revascularization rates were compared. For patients undergoing PCI, there were no differences for in-hospital/30-day mortality (2.3% for P-PCI centers versus 1.9% for full service centers [ P =0.40]), emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery immediately after PCI (0.06% versus 0.35%, P =0.06), 3-year mortality (7.1% versus 5.9%, P =0.07), or 3-year subsequent revascularization (23.8% versus 21.5%, P =0.52). P-PCI centers had a lower same/next day coronary artery bypass graft rate (0.23% versus 0.69%, P =0.046) and higher repeat target vessel PCI rates (12.1% versus 9.0%, P =0.003). For patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI, P-PCI centers had higher in-hospital mortality (28.5% versus 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.75). Conclusions— No differences between P-PCI centers and full service centers were found in in-hospital/30-day mortality, the need for emergency surgery, 3-year mortality or subsequent revascularization, but P-PCI centers had higher repeat target vessel PCI rates and higher mortality rates for patients who did not undergo PCI. P-PCI centers should be monitored closely, including the monitoring of patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI.

Background— Few studies have compared medium-term outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents, and most are relatively small randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, since the introduction of DES, there has been increased use and duration of use of clopidogrel, statins, and other evidence-based therapies. The purpose of the present study was to compare outcomes for patients who underwent stenting in the eras before and after the introduction of DES. Methods and Results— New York state patients undergoing stenting in all nonfederal hospitals in the state were studied. Patients were excluded if they had a previous revascularization. Risk factors that were significant predictors of adverse outcomes were used to adjust adverse outcome rates. The study included 11 436 patients who received stents between October 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003, and 12 926 patients who underwent stenting between October 1, 2003, and March 31, 2004. Death rates, the combined end point of death and myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal MI requiring readmission, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization were compared at 2 years. Patients in the DES era had significantly better risk-adjusted outcomes for death/MI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 0.97), 9.9% versus 10.8%; nonfatal MI requiring readmission (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.97); target vessel revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.64), 11.2% versus 17.9%; and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.59), 8.4% versus 14.7%. Conclusions— Patients in the DES era experienced lower rates of death/MI, nonfatal MI, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization, but there were no differences in the rates of death. These improvements are likely a result of increased use of clopidogrel, statins, and dual antiplatelet therapy, in addition to the introduction of DES.

Background— The importance of completeness of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease is unclear in that there is little information on the impact of incomplete revascularization outside of randomized trials. The objective of this study is to compare long-term mortality and subsequent revascularization for percutaneous coronary intervention patients receiving stents who were completely revascularized (CR) with those who were incompletely revascularized (IR). Methods and Results— Patients from New York State’s Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Reporting System were subdivided into patients who were CR and IR. Then subsets of IR patients were contrasted with CR patients. Differences in long-term survival and subsequent revascularization for CR and IR patients were compared after adjustment for differences in preprocedural risk. A total of 68.9% of all stent patients with multivessel disease who were studied were IR, and 30.1% of all patients had total occlusions and/or ≥2 IR vessels. At baseline, the following patients were at higher risk: those who were older and those with more comorbid conditions, worse ejection fraction, and more renal disease and stroke. After adjustment for these baseline differences, IR patients were significantly more likely to die at any time (adjusted hazard ratio=1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.30) than CR patients. IR patients with total occlusions and a total of ≥2 IR vessels were at the highest risk compared with CR patients (hazard ratio=1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.66). Conclusions— IR with stenting is associated with an adverse impact on long-term mortality, and consideration should be given to either achieving CR, opting for surgery, or monitoring percutaneous coronary intervention patients with IR more closely after discharge.