Three-year survival after percutaneous coronary intervention according to appropriateness criteria for revascularization.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare 3-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to recently published appropriateness criteria for PCI.

BACKGROUND

The choice of revascularization between PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains uncertain in many patients despite numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing a first PCI at a single, large-volume institution were included if they did not have prior CABG and did not need emergency PCI. Patients were classified according to PCI indication into the following groups: Appropriate (A) - 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), Uncertain (U) - 3-vessel CAD and Inappropriate (I) - left main coronary artery stenosis. Survival was assessed with the Social Security Death Index.

RESULTS

A total of 2,134 patients fulfilled the study criteria: 1,706 (80%) with "appropriate" PCI, 414 (19.4%) with "uncertain" PCI and only 14 (0.6%) with "inappropriate" PCI. In-hospital outcomes were very favorable, with 99.3%, 98.6% and 100% of the three groups, respectively, experiencing no complications (p = 0.31). The estimated survival in the three categories at 900 days was 92.6% (95% confidence interval 91-94%) for Group A, 91.3% (88-4%) for Group U and 66.9% (33-87%) for Group I; p = 0.014. The only predictors of mortality were advanced age and comorbidities, but not "appropriateness level" (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSION

The majority of PCIs performed would were classified as "appropriate." The patients classified as "uncertain" had similarly favorable outcomes, as those considered "appropriate" both during initial hospitalization and during the 3-year follow up. If confirmed, these data suggest that anatomically-based appropriateness criteria are not sufficient to inform choice of revascularization method.