What do we mean by complex percutaneous coronary intervention? An assessment of agreement amongst interventional cardiologists for defining complexity.
complex 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:
07 2023
07 2023
Historique:
revised:
17
03
2023
received:
05
01
2023
accepted:
30
04
2023
medline:
4
7
2023
pubmed:
21
5
2023
entrez:
21
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the last decade, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved toward the treatment of complex disease in patients with multiple comorbidities. Whilst there are several definitions of complexity, it is unclear whether there is agreement between cardiologists in classifying complexity of cases. Inconsistent identification of complex PCI can lead to significant variation in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to determine the inter-rater agreement in rating the complexity and risk of PCI procedures. An online survey was designed and disseminated amongst interventional cardiologists by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Intervention (EAPCI) board. The survey presented four patient vignettes, with study participants assessing these cases to classify their complexity. From 215 respondents, there was poor inter-rater agreement in classifying the complexity level (k = 0.1) and a fair agreement (k = 0.31) in classifying the risk level. The experience level of participants did not show any significant impact on the inter-rater agreement of rating the complexity level and the risk level. There was good level of agreement between participants in terms of rating 26 factors for classifying complex PCI. The top five factors were (1) impaired left ventricular function, (2) concomitant severe aortic stenosis, (3) last remaining vessel PCI, (4) requirement fort calcium modification and (5) significant renal impairment. Agreement among cardiologists in classifying complexity of PCI is poor, which may lead to suboptimal clinical decision-making, procedural planning as well as long-term management. Consensus is needed to define complex PCI, and this requires clear criteria incorporating both lesion and patient characteristics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the last decade, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved toward the treatment of complex disease in patients with multiple comorbidities. Whilst there are several definitions of complexity, it is unclear whether there is agreement between cardiologists in classifying complexity of cases. Inconsistent identification of complex PCI can lead to significant variation in clinical decision-making.
AIM
This study aimed to determine the inter-rater agreement in rating the complexity and risk of PCI procedures.
METHOD
An online survey was designed and disseminated amongst interventional cardiologists by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Intervention (EAPCI) board. The survey presented four patient vignettes, with study participants assessing these cases to classify their complexity.
RESULTS
From 215 respondents, there was poor inter-rater agreement in classifying the complexity level (k = 0.1) and a fair agreement (k = 0.31) in classifying the risk level. The experience level of participants did not show any significant impact on the inter-rater agreement of rating the complexity level and the risk level. There was good level of agreement between participants in terms of rating 26 factors for classifying complex PCI. The top five factors were (1) impaired left ventricular function, (2) concomitant severe aortic stenosis, (3) last remaining vessel PCI, (4) requirement fort calcium modification and (5) significant renal impairment.
CONCLUSION
Agreement among cardiologists in classifying complexity of PCI is poor, which may lead to suboptimal clinical decision-making, procedural planning as well as long-term management. Consensus is needed to define complex PCI, and this requires clear criteria incorporating both lesion and patient characteristics.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-10Subventions
Organisme : INTERREG VA
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Shahjehan RD, Bhutta BS. Coronary Artery Disease. [Updated 2021 Aug 7]. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564304/?report=classic
Gunnoo T, Hasan N, Khan MS, Slark J, Bentley P, Sharma P. Quantifying the risk of heart disease following acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of over 50,000 participants. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e009535. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009535
Shen H, Du Y, Zhou YJ. Contemporary management of complex higher-risk and indicated patients: perspectives from China. Chin Med J. 2019;132:1387-1389. doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000000280
Kirtane AJ, Doshi D, Leon MB, et al. Treatment of Higher-Risk patients with an indication for revascularization: evolution within the field of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2016;134:422-431. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022061
Kinnaird T, Gallagher S, Spratt JC, et al. Complex high-risk and indicated percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina: does operator volume influence patient outcome? Am Heart J. 2020;222:15-25. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2019.12.019
Marchese A, Tito A, Paparella D, Colombo A. A cascade of multiple complications hampering a complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI): when ingenuity overcomes troubles! Clin Case Rep. 2020;8:3361-3367. doi:10.1002/ccr3.3446
Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the task force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the european society of cardiology (ESC) and of the european association for Cardio-Thoracic surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39:213-260. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx419
Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:1243-1275. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.07.044
Riley RF, Henry TD, Mahmud E, et al. SCAI position statement on optimal percutaneous coronary interventional therapy for complex coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:346-362. doi:10.1002/ccd.28994
Giustino G, Chieffo A, Palmerini T, et al. Efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy after complex PCI. JACC. 2016;68:1851-1864. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.07.760
Kinnaird T, Cockburn J, Gallagher S, et al. Temporal changes in radial access use, associates and outcomes in patients undergoing PCI using rotational atherectomy between 2007 and 2014: results from the British cardiovascular intervention society national database. Am Heart J. 2018;198:46-54. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.01.001
Urban P, Mehran R, Colleran R, et al. Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2019;140(3):240-261. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040167
Kim BK, Nah DY, Choi KU, et al. Impact of hospital volume of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on In-Hospital outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction: based on the 2014 cohort of the Korean percutaneous coronary intervention (K-PCI) registry. Korean Circ J. 2020;50:1026-1036. doi:10.4070/kcj.2020.0172
Banning AP, Baumbach A, Blackman D, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in the UK: recommendations for good practice 2015. Heart. 2015;101(suppl 3):1-13. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2015-307821
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Cardiovascular disease risk assessment and prevention. Accessed October 5, 2021. https://bnf.nice.org.uk/treatment-summary/cardiovascular-disease-risk-assessment-and-prevention.html
Allan GM, Nouri F, Korownyk C, Kolber MR, Vandermeer B, McCormack J. Agreement among cardiovascular disease risk calculators. Circulation. 2013;127:1948-1956. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000412