Three-year survival after percutaneous coronary intervention according to appropriateness criteria for revascularization

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to compare 3-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to recently published appropriateness criteria for PCI.

Background: The choice of revascularization between PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains uncertain in many patients despite numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses.

Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing a first PCI at a single, large-volume institution were included if they did not have prior CABG and did not need emergency PCI. Patients were classified according to PCI indication into the following groups: Appropriate (A) - 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), Uncertain (U) - 3-vessel CAD and Inappropriate (I) - left main coronary artery stenosis. Survival was assessed with the Social Security Death Index.

Results: A total of 2,134 patients fulfilled the study criteria: 1,706 (80%) with "appropriate" PCI, 414 (19.4%) with "uncertain" PCI and only 14 (0.6%) with "inappropriate" PCI. In-hospital outcomes were very favorable, with 99.3%, 98.6% and 100% of the three groups, respectively, experiencing no complications (p = 0.31). The estimated survival in the three categories at 900 days was 92.6% (95% confidence interval 91-94%) for Group A, 91.3% (88-4%) for Group U and 66.9% (33-87%) for Group I; p = 0.014. The only predictors of mortality were advanced age and comorbidities, but not "appropriateness level" (p = 0.26).

Conclusion: The majority of PCIs performed would were classified as "appropriate." The patients classified as "uncertain" had similarly favorable outcomes, as those considered "appropriate" both during initial hospitalization and during the 3-year follow up. If confirmed, these data suggest that anatomically-based appropriateness criteria are not sufficient to inform choice of revascularization method.