Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for in-stent restenosis among Medicare beneficiaries.
Journal
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 1969-6213
Titre abrégé: EuroIntervention
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101251040
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
31
8
2020
medline:
11
8
2021
entrez:
1
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In-stent restenosis (ISR) is highly prevalent and leads to repeat revascularisation. Long-term implications of ISR are poorly understood. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR. National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI records for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing PCI from July 2009 to December 2014 were linked to Medicare claims. Baseline characteristics and long-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation including target vessel revascularisation (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared between ISR PCI versus de novo lesion PCI. Of 653,304 individuals, 10.2% underwent ISR PCI and 89.8% underwent de novo lesion PCI. The median duration of follow-up was 825 days (quartile 1: 352 days-quartile 3: 1,379 days). The frequency of MACCE (55.6% vs 45.0%; p<0.001), all-cause mortality (27.8% vs 25.5%; p<0.001), MI (19.0% vs 12.3%; p<0.001), repeat revascularisation (31.9% vs 18.6%; p<0.001), TVR (22.4% vs 8.0%; p<0.001), and stroke (8.8% vs 8.3%; p=0.005) was higher after ISR PCI. After multivariable adjustment, ISR PCI remained associated with worse long-term outcomes than after de novo lesion PCI (hazard ratio [HR] for MACCE 1.24 [95% CI: 1.22, 1.26], mortality 1.07 [95% CI: 1.05, 1.09], MI 1.44 [95% CI: 1.40, 1.48], repeat revascularisation 1.55 [95% CI: 1.51, 1.59], and TVR 2.50 [95% CI: 2.42, 2.58]). ISR PCI was common and was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrent long-term major ischaemic events compared to patients undergoing de novo lesion PCI. There remains a need for new strategies to minimise ISR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In-stent restenosis (ISR) is highly prevalent and leads to repeat revascularisation. Long-term implications of ISR are poorly understood.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR.
METHODS
METHODS
National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI records for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing PCI from July 2009 to December 2014 were linked to Medicare claims. Baseline characteristics and long-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation including target vessel revascularisation (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared between ISR PCI versus de novo lesion PCI.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 653,304 individuals, 10.2% underwent ISR PCI and 89.8% underwent de novo lesion PCI. The median duration of follow-up was 825 days (quartile 1: 352 days-quartile 3: 1,379 days). The frequency of MACCE (55.6% vs 45.0%; p<0.001), all-cause mortality (27.8% vs 25.5%; p<0.001), MI (19.0% vs 12.3%; p<0.001), repeat revascularisation (31.9% vs 18.6%; p<0.001), TVR (22.4% vs 8.0%; p<0.001), and stroke (8.8% vs 8.3%; p=0.005) was higher after ISR PCI. After multivariable adjustment, ISR PCI remained associated with worse long-term outcomes than after de novo lesion PCI (hazard ratio [HR] for MACCE 1.24 [95% CI: 1.22, 1.26], mortality 1.07 [95% CI: 1.05, 1.09], MI 1.44 [95% CI: 1.40, 1.48], repeat revascularisation 1.55 [95% CI: 1.51, 1.59], and TVR 2.50 [95% CI: 2.42, 2.58]).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
ISR PCI was common and was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrent long-term major ischaemic events compared to patients undergoing de novo lesion PCI. There remains a need for new strategies to minimise ISR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32863243
pii: EIJ-D-19-01031
doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-01031
pmc: PMC9724866
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e380-e387Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 2;75(21):2664-2678
pubmed: 32466881
Eur Heart J. 2020 Oct 7;41(38):3715-3728
pubmed: 31511862
Am J Cardiol. 2018 Jun 15;121(12):1512-1518
pubmed: 29627111
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 12;70(23):2852-2862
pubmed: 29100702
Circulation. 2012 Jan 31;125(4):584-91
pubmed: 22203694
J Epidemiol. 2014;24(6):500-7
pubmed: 25174915
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Apr;8(4):
pubmed: 25855680
Lancet. 2016 Nov 26;388(10060):2618-2628
pubmed: 27806900
Am Heart J. 2016 May;175:47-55
pubmed: 27179723
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Feb;4(2):155-64
pubmed: 21349453
JAMA. 2011 Jul 6;306(1):53-61
pubmed: 21730241
Lancet. 2015 Aug 15;386(9994):655-64
pubmed: 26334160
Circulation. 2006 May 16;113(19):2293-300
pubmed: 16682614
Circulation. 2004 Mar 23;109(11):1366-70
pubmed: 14993127
Circulation. 2011 Jun 21;123(24):2819-28, 6 p following 2828
pubmed: 21646500
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013 Jan;22(1):40-54
pubmed: 22745038
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Nov 19;62(21):1931-1947
pubmed: 24036027
Circulation. 2012 Jun 12;125(23):2873-91
pubmed: 22586281
BMJ. 2015 Nov 04;351:h5392
pubmed: 26537292
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 18;75(6):590-604
pubmed: 32057373
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Nov;12(11):e008231
pubmed: 31694411
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Nov 30;56(23):1897-907
pubmed: 21109112