Search

Objective: The principal trend in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is increasing utilization of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and declining coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) utilization. This study was designed to evaluate whether higher PCI:CABG ratios lead to higher in-hospital PCI or CABG mortality., Methods: The National Readmission Database for years 2016 was queried for all hospitalized ACS patients who underwent coronary revascularization during their admission. The study population was derived from 355 US hospitals and included 103 021 patients. Hospitals were grouped based on their PCI:CABG ratio into low, intermediate, and high ratio quartiles with a median [interquartile ranges (IQR)] PCI:CABG ratio of 2.9 (2.5-3.2), 5.0 (4.3-5.9) and 8.9 (7.8-10.3), respectively multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for age, demographics and comorbidities were used to identify CABG:PCI ratio related risk for in-hospital CABG and PCI mortality., Results: Higher PCI:CABG ratios correlated with an increased CABG mortality. There was a median (IQR) mortality of 2.5% (1.6-4.3) in the low ratio quartile; 3.1% (1.9-5.3) in the intermediate quartiles; and 5.3% (3.2-9.1) in the high ratio quartile (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the PCI:CABG ratio was associated with an increased risk for CABG mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.14-1.67, P < 0.001) and 2.17 (95% CI, 1.70-2.80, P < 0.001) for hospitals with intermediate and high PCI:CABG ratios, respectively. There was no significant association between PCI:CABG ratio and PCI mortality., Conclusions: The programmatic PCI:CABG ratio is a valid indicator of optimal case selection. The PCI:CABG ratio correlates with in-hospital mortality in ACS., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to compare the outcomes of combined surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to concurrent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a large U.S. population sample. The National Inpatient Sample was queried for all patients diagnosed with aortic valve stenosis who underwent SAVR with CABG or TAVR with PCI during the years 2016 to 2017. Study outcomes included all-cause in-hospital mortality, acute stroke, pacemaker insertion, vascular complications, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, sepsis, non-home discharge, length of stay and cost. Outcomes of hospitalization were modeled using logistic regression for binary outcomes and generalized linear models for continuous outcomes. Overall, 31,205 patients were included (TAVR + PCI = 2,185, SAVR + CABG = 29,020). In reference to SAVR + CABG, recipients of TAVR + PCI were older with mean age 82 versus 73 years, effect size (d) = 0.9, had higher proportions of females 47.6% versus 26.6%, d = 0.4 and higher prevalence of congestive heart failure and chronic renal failure. On multivariable analysis, TAVR + PCI was associated with lowers odds for mortality adjusted OR: 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.62) p = 0.001, lower odds for acute kidney injury, sepsis, non-home discharge, shorter length of stay and higher odds for vascular complications, need for pacemaker insertion and higher cost. The occurrence of stroke was similar between both groups. In conclusion, results from real-world observational data shows less rates of mortality and periprocedural complications in TAVR + PCI compared to SAVR + CABG., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: ASCERT (American College of Cardiology Foundation and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies) was a large observational study designed to compare the long-term effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat coronary artery disease (CAD) over 4 to 5 years., Objectives: This study examined the cost-effectiveness of CABG versus PCI for stable ischemic heart disease., Methods: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Foundation databases were linked to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data. Costs for the index and observation period (2004 to 2008) hospitalizations were assessed by diagnosis-related group Medicare reimbursement rates; costs beyond the observation period were estimated from average Medicare participant per capita expenditure. Effectiveness was measured via mortality and life-expectancy data. Cost and effectiveness comparisons were adjusted using propensity score matching with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained., Results: CABG patients (n = 86,244) and PCI patients (n = 103,549) were at least 65 years old with 2- or 3-vessel coronary artery disease. Adjusted costs were higher for CABG for the index hospitalization, study period, and lifetime by $10,670, $8,145, and $11,575, respectively. Patients undergoing CABG gained an adjusted average of 0.2525 and 0.3801 life-years relative to PCI over the observation period and lifetime, respectively. The life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CABG compared to PCI was $30,454/QALY gained., Conclusions: Over a period of 4 years or longer, patients undergoing CABG had better outcomes but at higher costs than those undergoing PCI., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent observational studies show that patients with multivessel coronary disease have a long-term survival advantage with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Important nonfatal outcomes may also affect optimal treatment recommendation., Methods: CABG was compared with percutaneous catheter intervention by using a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Medicare patients undergoing revascularization for stable multivessel coronary disease from 2004 through 2008 were identified in national registries. Short-term clinical information from the registries was linked to Medicare data to obtain long-term follow-up out to 4 years from the time of the procedure. Propensity scoring with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for baseline risk factors., Results: There were 86,244 CABG and 103,549 PCI patients. The mean age was 74 years, with a median 2.67 years of follow-up. At 4 years, the propensity-adjusted adjusted cumulative incidence of MI was 3.2% in CABG compared with 6.6% in PCI (risk ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.53). At 4 years, the cumulative incidence of stroke was 4.5% in CABG compared with 3.1% in PCI patients (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.31 to 1.54). This difference was primarily due to the higher 30-day stroke rate for CABG (1.55% vs 0.37%). For the composite of death, MI, or stroke, the 4-year adjusted cumulative incidence was 21.6% for CABG and 26.7% for PCI (risk ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.83)., Conclusions: The 4-year composite event rate of death, MI, and stroke favored CABG, whereas the risk of stroke alone favored PCI., (Copyright © 2014 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Numerous definitions have been proposed for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) after coronary revascularization. The universal definition for MI designates post procedural biomarker thresholds for defining percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related MI (type 4a) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related MI (type 5) which are of uncertain prognostic importance. In addition, for both MI types cTn is recommended as the biomarker of choice, the prognostic significance of which is less well validated than CK-MB. Widespread adoption of a MI definition not clearly linked to subsequent adverse events such as mortality or heart failure may have serious consequences for the appropriate assessment of devices and therapies, may affect clinical care pathways, and may result in misinterpretation of physician competence. Rather than employing an MI definition sensitive for small degrees of myonecrosis (the occurrence of which, based on contemporary large-scale studies, are unlikely to have important clinical consequences), it is instead recommended that a threshold level of biomarker elevation which has been strongly linked to subsequent adverse events in clinical studies be used to define a "clinically relevant MI." The present document introduces a new definition for "clinically relevant MI" after coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG) which is applicable for use in clinical trials, patient care, and quality outcomes assessment., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Questions persist concerning the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) collaborated to compare the rates of long-term survival after PCI and CABG., Methods: We linked the ACCF National Cardiovascular Data Registry and the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database to claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the years 2004 through 2008. Outcomes were compared with the use of propensity scores and inverse-probability-weighting adjustment to reduce treatment-selection bias., Results: Among patients 65 years of age or older who had two-vessel or three-vessel coronary artery disease without acute myocardial infarction, 86,244 underwent CABG and 103,549 underwent PCI. The median follow-up period was 2.67 years. At 1 year, there was no significant difference in adjusted mortality between the groups (6.24% in the CABG group as compared with 6.55% in the PCI group; risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.00). At 4 years, there was lower mortality with CABG than with PCI (16.4% vs. 20.8%; risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.82). Similar results were noted in multiple subgroups and with the use of several different analytic methods. Residual confounding was assessed by means of a sensitivity analysis., Conclusions: In this observational study, we found that, among older patients with multivessel coronary disease that did not require emergency treatment, there was a long-term survival advantage among patients who underwent CABG as compared with patients who underwent PCI. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Background: Most survival prediction models for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery are limited to in-hospital or 30-day end points. We estimate a long-term survival model using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services., Methods and Results: The final study cohort included 348 341 isolated coronary artery bypass grafting patients aged ≥65 years, discharged between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2007, from 917 Society of Thoracic Surgeons-participating hospitals, randomly divided into training (n=174 506) and validation (n=173 835) samples. Through linkage with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data, we ascertained vital status from date of surgery through December 31, 2008 (1- to 6-year follow-up). Because the proportional hazards assumption was violated, we fit 4 Cox regression models conditional on being alive at the beginning of the following intervals: 0 to 30 days, 31 to 180 days, 181 days to 2 years, and >2 years. Kaplan-Meier-estimated mortality was 3.2% at 30 days, 6.4% at 180 days, 8.1% at 1 year, and 23.3% at 3 years of follow-up. Harrell's C statistic for predicting overall survival time was 0.732. Some risk factors (eg, emergency status, shock, reoperation) were strong predictors of short-term outcome but, for early survivors, became nonsignificant within 2 years. The adverse impact of some other risk factors (eg, dialysis-dependent renal failure, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus) continued to increase., Conclusions: Using clinical registry data and longitudinal claims data, we developed a long-term survival prediction model for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. This provides valuable information for shared decision making, comparative effectiveness research, quality improvement, and provider profiling.

Limited data are available on the off-label use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in clinical practice. We used data from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry to describe the rates and outcomes of DES use in 4 common off-label situations: ST-elevation myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, coronary artery bypass grafts, and chronic total occlusions. The rates of in-hospital adverse events for each off-label situation were determined and compared with the expected rates calculated from a validated model. From approval of DESs to the end of 2004, a total of 408,033 procedures involved placement of a DES. The use of DESs increased from 19.7% at the start of the study to 78.2% by the end of fourth quarter of 2004. Off-label use of DESs occurred in 24.1% of procedures. The rates of in-hospital adverse events with DES use in ST-elevation myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, coronary artery bypass grafting, and chronic total occlusions were lower than expected from the validated model. In conclusion, off-label use of DESs is common and is associated with a low rate of short-term adverse events. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of DESs in these clinical and angiographic settings. These data also highlight the importance of multicenter registries in tracking new technologies.

Background: Although distal embolic protection (DEP) is increasingly utilized in saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention (SVG PCI), the clinical and economic outcomes of different DEP strategies are unknown., Methods: We compared 3 DEP strategies (no DEP, routine DEP, selective DEP in high-risk cases) in 126 consecutive cases of SVG PCI performed without DEP in a single catheterization laboratory over a 4-year period. No SVG PCI was excluded. High risk was defined using 2 multivariate predictors of embolic complication previously validated by NCDR (graft age greater than or equal to 8 years and or friable appearance with thrombus). Costs were determined by a ratio of cost-to-charges methodology and average cost of the two FDA-approved DEP devices ($1,350) with similar efficacy., Results: Without DEP, the incidence of embolic complications was 17% (22/126), resulting in major adverse coronary events (MACE) in 3.2% (4/126) of all cases: 2 deaths, 1 myocardial infarction, and 1 emergency coronary artery bypass. Embolic complications significantly increased both procedure costs by $2,725 (p < .001) and total hospital costs approximately $2,800 (p < 0.05). Risk adjustment for selective DEP use correctly predicted 86% (19/22) of embolic complications, including all MACE, at an incremental cost of $684 per patient for selective DEP versus $1,150 per patient for routine DEP. Selective DEP would cost $43,127 per death prevented versus $72,461 using routine DEP during the index hospitalization., Conclusions: Embolic complications increase cost in excess of the cost of a DEP device. This risk adjustment model correctly predicted the majority of cases of embolic complication and all MACE, suggesting that selective DEP use may help reduce utilization of DEP by an almost 50% cost reduction compared to routine use.

Drug-eluting stents (DES) constitute a major breakthrough in restenosis prevention after initial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Target lesion and vessel revascularization rates of <10% at six months follow-up represent a significant medical advance. Many cardiologists consider it reasonable to assume that PCI using DES ought to be considered equivalent, if not superior, to bypass surgery. The argument made is that in previous randomized clinical trials comparing PCI to coronary artery bypass grafting, restenosis was the determining factor favoring surgery, an event that clinical experience suggests is no longer as frequent. In the absence of a definitive clinical trial to support this view, how should the prudent, cutting edge cardiologist evaluate the data and manage their patients?

Byline: James E. Calvin, Lloyd W. Klein, Betsy J. VandenBerg, Peter Meyer, Luz Maria Ramirez-Morgen, Joseph E. Parrillo Abstract: Objective To determine if a risk prediction model for patients with unstable angina would predict resource utilization. Methods and Results Four hundred sixty-five consecutive patients admitted for unstable angina to a tertiary care university-based medical center were prospectively evaluated from June 1, 1992, to June 30, 1995.The proportion of patients receiving coronary angiography, coronary angioplasty, and coronary artery bypass grafting were analyzed according to four risk groups on the basis of a previously published model: Group 1, 15.1% risk. Hospital length of stay and estimated cost of hospitalization based on DRG and specific payer ratio of cost-to-charge were also compared between groups. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the influence of estimated risk and procedures on hospital costs. The four groups were well matched for gender, hypertension, tobacco history, and previous percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and myocardial infarction. Group 4 had a higher incidence of previous coronary bypass grafting (35% vs 10%, p = 0.001) and triple vessel or left main coronary artery disease compared with Group 1 (44% vs13%, p =0.041). Group 4 patients were more likely to be admitted to the coronary care unit compared with Group 2 or Group 1 patients (80% vs Group 1: 51% [p = 0.001]; and vs Group 2: 53% [p = 0.001]), more likely to receive heparin (87% vs 71%, p = 0.007), and more likely to receive a [beta]-blocker or calcium channel blocker (89% vs 74%, p = 0.008) than Group 1. Coronary angioplasty rates were similar for all groups, but Group 4 patients were more likely to receive coronary bypass grafting than Group 2 or Group 1 (27% vs Group 2:12%, p = 0.004 and vs Group 1: 8%, p = 0.002). Hospital length of stay was highest in Group 4 and lowest for Group 1. Average hospital costs were significantly less in Group 3 than in Group 4, but higher than in Group 1. Multivariate analysis determined a dependency of costs on risk group with Group 2 having costs 31.4% (95% CI= 9.8 to 57.2), Group 3 46.7% (24, 3 to 73.1), and Group 4 75% (46.9 to 110.7) higher than Group1. The use of procedures also significantly increased costs, with PTCA-treated patients having a 44.9% (26.7 to 65.7) increase in costs compared with medically treated patients, and surgically treated patients having a 204.7% increase in costs. Conclusion Resource utilization as assessed by the use of revascularization procedures, length of stay, and hospital costs are influenced by patient acuity estimated from a prediction model on the basis of estimated risk of cardiac complications. The model exerts independent influence on cost even after adjustment for various procedures. The use of revascularization procedures, especially coronary artery surgery, remains a large determinant of hospital cost. (Am Heart J 1998;136:373-81.) Author Affiliation: Chicago, Ill. Article History: Received 12 May 1997; Accepted 15 January 1998 Article Note: (footnote) [star] From the Section of Cardiology, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center., [star][star] Reprint requests: James E. Calvin, MD, Section of Cardiology, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, 1653 West Congress Parkway, Chicago, IL 60612., a 4/1/88959

Numerous definitions have been proposed for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) after coronary revascularization. The universal definition for MI designates post procedural biomarker thresholds for defining percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related MI (type 4a) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related MI (type 5), which are of uncertain prognostic importance. In addition, for both the MI types, cTn is recommended as the biomarker of choice, the prognostic significance of which is less well validated than CK-MB. Widespread adoption of a MI definition not clearly linked to subsequent adverse events such as mortality or heart failure may have serious consequences for the appropriate assessment of devices and therapies, may affect clinical care pathways, and may result in misinterpretation of physician competence. Rather than using an MI definition sensitive for small degrees of myonecrosis (the occurrence of which, based on contemporary large-scale studies, are unlikely to have important clinical consequences), it is instead recommended that a threshold level of biomarker elevation which has been strongly linked to subsequent adverse events in clinical studies be used to define a “clinically relevant MI.” The present document introduces a new definition for “clinically relevant MI” after coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG), which is applicable for use in clinical trials, patient care, and quality outcomes assessment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: National trends in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment strategy show increasing utilization of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). We evaluated whether the increased use of PCI in some hospitals results in high PCI:CABG ratios, leading to higher PCI or overall mortality due to aggressive case selection. Methodology: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the year 2014 was queried. All patients (pts) admitted for ACS who received either CABG or PCI were selected. We identified the 100 hospitals with highest volume of either kind of revascularization. PCI:CABG ratio was calculated and overall and PCI mortality rate for each hospital collected. Pearson correlation coefficient was utilized to assess for linear correlation of mortality vs. ratio. Results: Out of 72,755 pts selected, 81.3% received PCI and 18.7% received CABG. Mean age was 63.6±12.4 years and 69.2% were women. Mean number of PCIs performed per hospital was 591.4±194.7 and for CABG was 136.2 ±70.7. The average PCI:CABG ratio per hospital was 5.18±2.55 (range 1.4-15.0). Mean PCI in-hospital mortality was 2.90±1.67% and for CABG was 3.32%±3.91% p=0.324. Combined mortality for either strategy was 2.97%±1.56%. There was no relationship between PCI:CABG ratio and overall mortality rate (r =.008, P=.940) or PCI related mortality (r= -.002, P=.984). Conclusions: Increased relative utilization of PCI versus CABG has had no deleterious impact on mortality in ACS. PCI vs CABG case selection in ACS does not appear to be useful as a quality indicator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: ObjectivesWe sought to develop and evaluate a risk adjustment model for in-hospital mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures using data from a large, multi-center registry.: BackgroundThe 1998–2000 American College of Cardiology–National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC–NCDR) dataset was used to overcome limitations of prior risk-adjustment analyses.: MethodsData on 100,253 PCI procedures collected at the ACC–NCDR between January 1, 1998, and September 30, 2000, were analyzed. A training set/test set approach was used. Separate models were developed for presentation with and without acute myocardial infarction (MI) within 24 h.: ResultsFactors associated with increased risk of PCI mortality (with odds ratios in parentheses) included cardiogenic shock (8.49), increasing age (2.61 to 11.25), salvage (13.38) urgent (1.78) or emergent PCI (5.75), pre-procedure intra-aortic balloon pump insertion (1.68), decreasing left ventricular ejection fraction (0.87 to 3.93), presentation with acute MI (1.31), diabetes (1.41), renal failure (3.04), chronic lung disease (1.33); treatment approaches including thrombolytic therapy (1.39) and non-stent devices (1.64); and lesion characteristics including left main (2.04), proximal left anterior descending disease (1.97) and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions lesion classification (1.64 to 2.11). Overall, excellent discrimination was achieved (C-index = 0.89) and application of the model to high-risk patient groups demonstrated C-indexes exceeding 0.80. Patient factors were more predictive in the MI model, while lesion and procedural factors were more predictive in the analysis of non-MI patients.: ConclusionsA risk adjustment model for in-hospital mortality after PCI was successfully developed using a contemporary multi-center registry. This model is an important tool for valid comparison of in-hospital mortality after PCI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Patients with both aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease who are candidates for TAVI pose considerable management challenges. We evaluated whether the method of coronary revascularization mode, by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), impacted post-TAVI outcomes. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample database (NIS) was sampled, and 13,265 patients who underwent TAVI from 2011-2014 with history of either PCI or CABG comprised the study group; unrevascularized CAD, or history of both CABG and PCI, were exclusions. In-hospital outcomes between the two methods (PCI vs CABG) were compared, including myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, stroke, and in-hospital mortality. Results: Overall, 66.2% of the study group were males. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different between PCI and CABG groups, 2.8% and 2.5%, respectively (p=0.251). Both PCI and CABG groups had similar stroke rates (each 2.2%). 2.2% of PCI patients had post-TAVI MI in comparison to 2.4% CABG (p=0.407). Cardiogenic shock occurred in 2.6% of CABG and 1.7% of PCI patients (p=0.001); multivariate logistic regression showed that CABG was independently associated with increased risk for cardiogenic shock (adjusted OR:1.452; CI: 1.113 - 1.894; p=0.006) Neither PCI nor CABG had a significant association with any of the other clinical outcomes. Conclusion: The method of coronary revascularization had no significant impact on post TAVI in-hospital outcomes. Patients with prior CABG merit particular caution during TAVI and avoidance of hypotension, as they are more likely to develop cardiogenic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]