Twenty-five-year trends in in-hospital and long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention: A single-institution experience

Mandeep Singh, Charanjit S. Rihal, Bernard J. Gersh, Ryan J. Lennon, Abhiram Prasad, Paul Sorajja, Rachel E. Gullerud, David R. Holmes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

105 Scopus citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND - Little is known about the impact of technological and pharmacological advances on long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in general clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS - We analyzed in-hospital and long-term outcome of 24 410 percutaneous coronary interventions among 18 575 unique patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at Mayo Clinic over 25 years. The study population was divided into group 1 (n=3708), coronary interventions from 1979 to 1989; group 2 (n=7020), interventions from 1990 to 1996; group 3 (n=10 952), interventions from 1996 to 2003; and group 4 (n=2730), interventions from 2003 to 2004. Despite the fact that patients in groups 3 and 4 were significantly older, sicker, and had greater prevalence of comorbid conditions, heart failure, and previous revascularization than those in groups 1 and 2, procedural success in groups 3 and 4 improved significantly (94%) versus groups 2 (89%) and 1 (78%) (P<0.001). Significant reduction in in-hospital mortality (groups 4 to 1: 1.8%, 1.7%, 2.6%, 3.0%; P<0.001) and need for emergency bypass surgery (groups 4 to 1: 0.4%, 0.5%, 1.6%, 5%; P<0.001) was noted in groups 3 and 4 compared with groups 1 and 2. Better adherence to currently recommended evidence-based medications for secondary prevention was seen in the recent time periods. After adjustment, significant reduction in follow-up mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81 and 0.74 for groups 3 and 4, respectively); death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.75 for groups 3 and 4, respectively); death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.76 and 0.58 for groups 3 and 4, respectively) was noted in recent time periods. CONCLUSIONS - Despite higher-risk profiles of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in recent time periods, procedural success as well as in-hospital and long-term outcomes improved significantly over the last 25 years.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2835-2841
Number of pages7
JournalCirculation
Volume115
Issue number22
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2007

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Angioplasty
  • Prognosis
  • Stents

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this