Gender-based outcomes of coronary bifurcation stenting: A report from the National Readmission Database.
30-day readmission
bifurcation stenting
gender disparity
high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
in-hospital outcomes
percutaneous coronary intervention
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
revised:
05
03
2021
received:
04
12
2020
accepted:
01
04
2021
pubmed:
16
5
2021
medline:
8
4
2022
entrez:
15
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a paucity of data focusing on women's outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs). Patients who received PCI for CBLs in the context of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during the period of 01 October 2015- 31 December 2017, were identified from the United States National Readmission Database. The primary endpoint of this study was in-hospital major adverse events (MAEs). The secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, vascular complications, major bleeding, post-procedural bleeding, need for blood transfusion, severe disability surrogates (non-home discharge and need for mechanical ventilation), resources utilization surrogates (length of stay and cost of hospitalization), and 30-day readmission rate. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to compare the outcomes between women and men. A total of 25,050 (women = 7,480; men = 17,570) patients were included in the current analysis. After propensity score matching, women had higher in-hospital MAEs (7 vs 5.2%, p < .01), major bleeding (1.8 vs 0.8%, p < .01), post-procedural bleeding (6.1 vs 3.4%, p < .01), need for blood transfusion (6.4 vs 4.2%, p < .01), non-home discharges (10.2 vs 7.1%; p < .01), longer length of hospital stay (3 days [IQR 2-6] vs. 3 days [IQR 2-5], p < .01) and higher 30-day readmission rate compared to men (14.2 vs. 11.5%, p < .01). Among all-comers who received PCI for CBLs in the context of ACS, women suffered higher MAEs and 30-day readmission rates compared to their men' counterparts. The higher MAEs in the women were mainly driven by higher postprocedural bleeding rates and the need for blood transfusion.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is a paucity of data focusing on women's outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs).
METHODS
Patients who received PCI for CBLs in the context of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during the period of 01 October 2015- 31 December 2017, were identified from the United States National Readmission Database. The primary endpoint of this study was in-hospital major adverse events (MAEs). The secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, vascular complications, major bleeding, post-procedural bleeding, need for blood transfusion, severe disability surrogates (non-home discharge and need for mechanical ventilation), resources utilization surrogates (length of stay and cost of hospitalization), and 30-day readmission rate. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to compare the outcomes between women and men.
RESULTS
A total of 25,050 (women = 7,480; men = 17,570) patients were included in the current analysis. After propensity score matching, women had higher in-hospital MAEs (7 vs 5.2%, p < .01), major bleeding (1.8 vs 0.8%, p < .01), post-procedural bleeding (6.1 vs 3.4%, p < .01), need for blood transfusion (6.4 vs 4.2%, p < .01), non-home discharges (10.2 vs 7.1%; p < .01), longer length of hospital stay (3 days [IQR 2-6] vs. 3 days [IQR 2-5], p < .01) and higher 30-day readmission rate compared to men (14.2 vs. 11.5%, p < .01).
CONCLUSIONS
Among all-comers who received PCI for CBLs in the context of ACS, women suffered higher MAEs and 30-day readmission rates compared to their men' counterparts. The higher MAEs in the women were mainly driven by higher postprocedural bleeding rates and the need for blood transfusion.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
433-439Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, et al. Heart disease and stroke Statistics-2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;139(10):e56-e528.
Fryar CD, Chen T-C, Li X. Prevalence of uncontrolled risk factors for cardiovascular disease: United States, 1999-2010. NCHS Data Brief. 2012;(103):1-8.
Garot P, Lefèvre T, Savage M. Nine-month outcome of patients treated by percutaneous coronary interventions for bifurcation lesions in the recent era: a report from the prevention of restenosis with Tranilast and its outcomes (PRESTO) trial. ACC Curr J Rev. 2005;14(12):28-28.
Lassen JF, Holm NR, Banning A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(1):38-46.
Giustino G, Baber U, Aquino M, et al. Safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents in women undergoing complex percutaneous coronary artery revascularization: from the WIN-DES collaborative patient-level pooled analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol Interv. 2016;9(7):674-684.
Scott PE, Unger EF, Jenkins MR, et al. Participation of women in clinical trials supporting FDA approval of cardiovascular drugs. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(18):1960-1969.
Osman M, Syed M, Abdul Ghaffar Y, et al. Gender-based outcomes of impeller pumps percutaneous ventricular assist devices. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;97(5):E627-E635.
Potts J, Sirker A, Martinez SC, et al. Persistent sex disparities in clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from 6.6 million PCI procedures in the United States. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0203325.
Osman M, Patel B, Munir MB, et al. Sex-stratified analysis of the safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;97(5):885-892.
HCUP National readmission database (NRD). Healthcare cost and utilization project (HCUP). Agency Healthc Res Qual R M Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nrdoverview.jsp.
Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418-1428.
Tripathi A, Abbott JD, Fonarow GC, et al. Thirty-day readmission rate and costs after percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(12):e005925.
Milner KA, Vaccarino V, Arnold AL, Funk M, Goldberg RJ. Gender and age differences in chief complaints of acute myocardial infarction (Worcester heart attack study). Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(5):606-608.
Akhter N, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, Piana RN, Kao J, Shroff A. Gender differences among patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). Am Heart J. 2009;157(1):141-148.
Blomkalns AL, Chen AY, Hochman JS, et al. Gender disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: large-scale observations from the CRUSADE (can rapid risk stratification of unstable angina patients suppress adverse outcomes with early Implementatio). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(6):832-837.
Bugiardini R, Yan AT, Yan RT, et al. Factors influencing underutilization of evidence-based therapies in women. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(11):1337-1344.
Di Giosia P, Passacquale G, Petrarca M, Giorgini P, Marra AM, Ferro A. Gender differences in cardiovascular prophylaxis: focus on antiplatelet treatment. Pharmacol Res. 2017;119:36-47.
Tran K, Dorsey C, Lee JT, Chandra V. Gender-related differences in Iliofemoral arterial anatomy among abdominal aortic aneurysm patients. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;44:171-178.
Osman M, Saleem M, Osman K, et al. Radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: trial sequential analysis. Am Heart J. 2020;224:98-104.
Huang F-Y, Huang B-T, Wang P-J, et al. Gender disparity in the safety and efficacy of radial and femoral access for coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Angiology. 2016;67(9):810-819.
Kwok CS, Kontopantelis E, Kunadian V, et al. Effect of access site, gender, and indication on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the British cardiovascular intervention society (BCIS). Am Heart J. 2015;170(1):164-172.e165.