Key result
Complex percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with noncomplex PCI (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.38-1.92; P<0.001).
Why the study?
The relation between complex PCI, high bleeding risk, and adverse events after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents was incompletely characterized.
Does complex PCI increase the risk of MACE or bleeding compared to noncomplex PCI in patients receiving drug-eluting stents?
Cohort (n=10,167)
No
Does complex PCI increase the risk of MACE or bleeding compared to noncomplex PCI in patients receiving drug-eluting stents?
Hazard Ratio: 1.63 (95% CI 1.38–1.92)
p-value: p=<0.001
Complex PCI is associated with a significantly higher risk of ischemic events but not bleeding events compared to noncomplex PCI, and this relationship is not modified by high bleeding risk status.
May prompt closer ischemic monitoring after complex PCI; leaves open optimal antithrombotic tailoring by HBR status.
Background/Aim. The relation between complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), high bleeding risk (HBR), and adverse events after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents has been incompletely characterized. This study sought to investigate the ischemic and bleeding events after complex PCI including stratification according to HBR estimated by PARIS bleeding risk score. Methods. Between January 2013 and December 2013, 10,167 consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively enrolled in Fuwai PCI Registry. Complex PCI was defined when having at least one of the following characteristics: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, treatment of chronic total occlusion, unprotected left main PCI, in-stent restenosis target lesion, and severely calcified lesion. The primary ischemic endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite/probable stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization), and primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. Results. The median duration of follow-up was 29 months. In adjusted Cox regression analysis, patients having complex PCI procedures experienced higher risks of MACE (hazard ratio (HR): 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38–1.92; P<0.001 ), compared with noncomplex PCI. In contrast, the risk of clinically relevant bleeding was statistically similar between the 2 groups (HR: 0.86 [0.66–1.11]; P=0.238 ). There was no statistical interaction between HBR (PARIS bleeding score ≥8 or <8) and complex PCI in regard to MACE (adjusted Pinteraction=0.388 ) and clinically relevant bleeding (adjusted Pinteraction=0.279 ). Conclusions. Patients who had undergone complex PCI resulted in substantially more ischemic events, without an increase in clinically relevant bleeding risk, and these associations did not seem to be modified by HBR status. More intensified antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial for patients with complex percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (n=10,167). Complex percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Noncomplex percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite/probable stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization) (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.38-1.92, p=<0.001). Complex percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with noncomplex PCI (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.38-1.92; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: