Relative Impact of Clinical Risk Versus Procedural Risk on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Why the study?
Clinical outcomes after PCI are affected by various clinical and procedural risk factors, but their relative impact remained to be investigated.
Does clinical risk have a greater impact than procedural risk on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in patients undergoing PCI?
Structured PICO
Does clinical risk have a greater impact than procedural risk on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in patients undergoing PCI?
P
Population
13,172 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled from the Grand-DES registry
I
Intervention
Stratification by clinical risk factors (grouped into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk tertiles)
C
Comparator
Stratification by procedural risk factors (grouped into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk tertiles)
O
Outcome
Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 3 years post-PCIcomposite
In patients undergoing PCI, baseline clinical risk factors have a greater and more prolonged impact on long-term ischemic outcomes than procedural risk factors.
Authors
Discussion
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Implication
Clinical risk may warrant closer post-PCI attention than procedural factors; leaves open whether modifying baseline risks reduces long-term MACCE.
Cite This Study
Kang et al. (2021) studied this question.