Key result
New 9-factor lesion classification scheme predicts adverse post-PCI outcomes better than historical ACC/AHA criteria.
Why the study?
Does a contemporary lesion classification scheme better predict adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared to the historical ACC/AHA scheme?
Population
6,327 consecutive patients treated with percutaneous intervention from 1995 to 1997 at a single center.
Comparison
A contemporary lesion classification scheme… vs The historical American College of…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May improve post-PCI risk stratification; leaves open prospective validation before replacing the ACC/AHA scheme.
Cohort (n=6,327)
No
Does a contemporary lesion classification scheme better predict adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared to the historical ACC/AHA scheme?
p-value: p=0.010
A contemporary lesion classification scheme incorporating 9 angiographic variables provides better risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention complications than the historical ACC/AHA scheme.
Ellis et al. (1999) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous intervention (n=6,327). New lesion classification scheme based on 9 contemporary risk factors vs. Old American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lesion classification scheme was evaluated on Ranked adverse outcome (death, Q-wave or creatine kinase ≥3x normal myocardial infarction, or emergency coronary artery bypass grafting) (p=0.010). A new lesion classification scheme based on 9 risk factors predicted adverse outcomes after percutaneous intervention better than the old ACC/AHA scheme (c-statistic 0.672 vs 0.620; P=0.010).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: