Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Cardiovascular, Case Report
Cardiovascular, Editorial
Cardiovascular, Images in Cardiology
Cardiovascular, Interventional Round
Cardiovascular, Original Article
Cardiovascular, Preface
Cardiovascular, Review Article
Cardiovascular, Student’s Corner
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical Discussion
Clinical Rounds
CPC
Debate
Dedication
Editorial
Expert Comments
Expert's Opinion
Genetic Autopsy
Genetics Autopsy
Image in Cardiology
Images in Cardiology
Interventional Round
Interventional Rounds
Letter to the Editor
Media and news
Original Article
Practice in Medicine
Preface
Review Article
Scientific Paper
Short Communication
Student's Corner
WINCARS Activities
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Cardiovascular, Case Report
Cardiovascular, Editorial
Cardiovascular, Images in Cardiology
Cardiovascular, Interventional Round
Cardiovascular, Original Article
Cardiovascular, Preface
Cardiovascular, Review Article
Cardiovascular, Student’s Corner
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical Discussion
Clinical Rounds
CPC
Debate
Dedication
Editorial
Expert Comments
Expert's Opinion
Genetic Autopsy
Genetics Autopsy
Image in Cardiology
Images in Cardiology
Interventional Round
Interventional Rounds
Letter to the Editor
Media and news
Original Article
Practice in Medicine
Preface
Review Article
Scientific Paper
Short Communication
Student's Corner
WINCARS Activities
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial
06 (
01
); 033-034
doi:
10.1055/s-0041-1728183

Risk Stratification of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Department of Interventional Cardiology, Citi Heart Center, Hyderabad, India
Address for correspondence Naveen Kumar Murki, MD, DM Department of Interventional Cardiology, Citi Heart Center Hyderabad, Telangana 500034 India naveenjust@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher; therefore Scientific Scholar has no control over the quality or content of this article.

The field of interventional cardiology has witnessed enormous change in the armamentarium of hardware and the technique of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There has always been an unmet need for developing feasible risk score to predict the major adverse cardiovascular events in patients planned for PCI. These days PCI is in vogue as the method of revascularization in complex coronary lesions, often in high-risk patients.

In this original article titled “Factors influencing survival outcomes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after coronary revascularization,” the author has tried to correlate the factors responsible for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), in severe LV dysfunction (EF < 30%) patients undergoing percutaneous intervention.

The study was a single-center prospective study. Severe LV dysfunction patients who underwent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) were included in the study and followed up for one year. At the end of one year, the impact of gender, age, hypertension (HTN), obesity, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypothyroidism, smoking, and alcohol intake on one-year mortality and MACE were analyzed. The MACE included nonfatal reinfarction, recurrence of angina, repeat PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and heart failure. These factors were statistically analyzed and approached to observe the impact of those risk factors on one-year mortality. It was also observed whether the timing and mode of revascularization and the number of coronary arteries involved had any influence on mortality or MACE. To compare different parameters of the study with respect to mortality, a regression analysis was made at the end of one year.

It was observed that in patients with severe LV dysfunction, no significant relationship could be ascertained between the mortality or MACE and gender, age, DM, HTN, CKD, alcohol intake, or smoking at the end of one year after revascularization. MACE or mortality may be attributed directly to left ventricular dysfunction itself, and the observed mortality was higher than that in patients with normal LV function. Hence, in this study, it was observed that LV dysfunction is the cause of mortality in the study population but not the other associated variables.

The limitations of the study, as already mentioned, are that it is a single-center study and followed patients for one year, and the sample being from a single center may not represent geographic and social heterogeneity to apply for generalization.

In The Texas Heart Institute risk score,1 data collected from 9,494 patients who underwent PCI were analyzed. Predictors of MACE—death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization by emergency CABG or PCI—were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis using baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural variables. A simple integer score was constructed by multiplying the β coefficient for each variable by a constant and rounding the result to the nearest integer. Validation of the score was done by applying it in 5,545 patients who underwent PCI. Multivariate regression analysis identified urgent procedure, type C lesion, thrombus, unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, renal insufficiency, HTN, emergent procedure, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and number of stents placed as independent predictors of adverse events after PCI. The model had good overall discrimination (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve 0.701), and the model fitted the validation cohort adequately.

Risk–benefit analysis is essential, both for the patient and the treating doctor, to be able to select the best strategy for management out of the available ones; hence, a reliable risk score that can be used as a simple bedside tool is the need of the hour to predict MACE after PCI. Several risk scores are being developed in the past for prediction of MACE after PCI.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Some of the models were developed in the era of bare metal stents and were designed to predict mortality only. With ever-changing technology and its application, predicting MACE by risk stratification models is always challenging target. The best risk stratification score should always be feasible to apply at beside and it should take into consideration clinical, angiographic, and procedural parameters (number of stents used, type of stents used, physiological assessment usage, imaging usage, etc.); hence, there is always a scope and possibility for the development of such scores.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

References

  1. , , , , . Predicting major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention: the Texas Heart Institute risk score. Am Heart J. 2008;155(06):1068-1074.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , et al . Coronary angioplasty volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiologists. JAMA. 1997;277(11):892-898.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . Shaw R, Block PC, King SB III. Relation of operator volume and experience to procedural outcome of percutaneous coronary revascularization at hospitals with high interventional volumes. Circulation. 1997;95(11):2479-2484.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , et al , . Multivariate prediction of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions in 1994–1996. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(03):681-691.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , et al . Simple bedside additive tool for prediction of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation. 2001;104(03):263-268.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , . Simplified risk score models accurately predict the risk of major in-hospital complications following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88(01):5-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , et al . Development of a risk adjustment mortality model using the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) experience: 1998-2000. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(07):1104-1112.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , et al . Simplified scoring system for predicting mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(11):1890-1895.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , . Correlates of procedural complications and a simple integer risk score for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(03):387-393.
    [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
15

PDF downloads
1
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections