Balloon angioplasty versus new device intervention: clinical outcomes. A comparison of the NHLBI PTCA and NACI registries

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to compare outcomes of patients treated in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) and New Approaches to Coronary Intervention (NACI) registries.

Background: Coronary angioplasty has numerous shortcomings. New devices for performing coronary interventions have been introduced in an effort to improve clinical outcomes.

Methods: Under the sponsorship of the NHLBI, a registry of consecutive patients treated with PTCA during 1985 to 1986 was established. In 1990, the NHLBI funded a second registry, the NACI. The two registries used the same data coordinating center to collect detailed baseline and follow-up information.

Results: Patients enrolled in the NACI registry were older, had undergone more previous bypass surgery procedures and had more stenoses located in bypass grafts than patients in the NHLBI PTCA registry. Procedural success was achieved in 72.1% and 82.6% of patients in the PTCA and NACI registries, respectively; however, in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were 1.0% versus 1.8% and 3.1% versus 5.9% for the PTCA versus NACI registries, respectively. After risk adjustment, there was no difference in 1-year mortality. Rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were 21.5% for the PTCA registry and 24.2% for the NACI registry. NACI registry patients had a higher risk for TLR and the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction or revascularization (relative risk 1.28 and 1.23, respectively). However, the NACI registry patients who received stents tended to have a lower adjusted TLR rate.

Conclusions: This comparative study found no overall superiority of these newer devices in terms of patient survival or freedom from TLR after adjustment for baseline risk profiles. Although technologic improvements (especially improved stenting) continue, these observations highlight the importance of careful assessment of clinical results in the broad population of patients in whom interventions are used.