Multicentre cohort study of the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention on patients with concurrent cancer and ischaemic heart disease

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. Study flowchart. CABG coronary artery bypass grafting, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, IHD ischaemic heart disease, DPC Japan’s Diagnosis Procedure Combination Per-diem Payment System, OMI old myocardial infarction

• 

  Fig. 2. Kaplan–Meier analysis of all-cause mortality in the PCI + and PCI−/IHD + groups. After propensity score matching, Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed. The starting point of the survival analysis was the admission date for PCI or IHD. The PCI + group had better long-term prognosis compared to the PCI−/IHD + group. PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, IHD ischaemic heart disease, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

• 

  Fig. 3. Kaplan–Meier analysis of all-cause mortality according to cancer type. Kaplan–Meier analysis of all-cause mortality in a colorectal, b lung, c prostate, and d gastric cancer patients was performed. Small cell carcinoma was considered a factor during propensity score matching of lung cancer patients. The starting point of the survival analysis was the admission date for PCI or IHD. PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, IHD ischaemic heart disease, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

• 

  Fig. 4. Kaplan–Meier analysis of all-cause mortality in the PCI + and PCI−/IHD− groups. The PCI + and PCI−/IHD− groups were propensity score-matched as was done in the prior analyses. Immortal time bias was adjusted for by considering PCI + patients as part of the PCI−/IHD− group during the period from cancer diagnosis to PCI admission, as the PCI + group had no patients at risk. The starting point of the survival analysis was the date of cancer diagnosis for both groups, but the PCI + group was allowed to contribute to the risk of the PCI−/IHD− group in the period before PCI. PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, IHD ischaemic heart disease, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval