Key result
CHIP-PCI is linked to ~64% higher all-cause mortality compared to non-CHIP-PCI.
Why the study?
What are the clinical outcomes and predictors of mortality in patients undergoing complex high-risk and indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI)?
Observational (n=695)
No
What are the clinical outcomes and predictors of mortality in patients undergoing complex high-risk and indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI)?
Hazard Ratio: 1.64 (95% CI 1.03–2.92)
p-value: p=0.04
CHIP-PCI is associated with reasonable mid-term survival, though advanced age, COPD, low LVEF, severe CKD, and the need for mechanical circulatory support strongly predict worse mortality outcomes.
Observational CHIP-PCI prognosis data are hypothesis-generating; prospective trials needed before informing practice or guidelines.
The concept of complex and high-risk indicated procedures using percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI) has recently been defined. However, few studies have investigated the prognosis of patients after CHIP-PCI. We enrolled 322 consecutive patients who underwent CHIP-PCI. CHIP-PCI was defined as a procedure satisfying at least one criterion each for both patient and procedure characteristics, as follows: patient characteristics [age ≥ 75 years old, low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), diabetes mellitus, acute coronary syndrome, previous coronary artery bypass surgery, peripheral arterial disease, severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and severe valvular disease] and procedure characteristics [unprotected left main disease, degenerated saphenous or radial artery grafts, severely calcified lesions, last patent conduit, chronic total occlusions, multivessel disease, and use of mechanical circulatory support]. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates following CHIP-PCI was 93.8%, 89.2%, and 85.4%, respectively. Moreover, on Cox multivariate hazard analysis, age (≥ 75 years old) (hazard ratio: 4.01, 95% confidence interval: 1.92-8.38, P < 0.01), COPD (hazard ratio: 2.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.38-6.32, P < 0.01), low LVEF (hazard ratio: 3.35, 95% confidence interval: 1.55-7.22, P < 0.01), severe CKD (hazard ratio: 3.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.44-6.36, P < 0.01), and use of mechanical circulatory support (hazard ratio: 5.97, 95% confidence interval: 2.72-13.10, P < 0.01) remained significant predictors of mortality. In conclusion, we revealed the clinical outcomes after CHIP-PCI. The presence of advanced age, COPD, low LVEF, severe CKD, and mechanical circulatory support use might lead to worse clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Satake et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=695). Complex and high-risk indicated procedures using percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI) vs. Non-CHIP-PCI was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.03-2.92, p=0.04). CHIP-PCI was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to non-CHIP-PCI (HR 1.64), with advanced age, COPD, low LVEF, and severe CKD as significant predictors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: