Incomplete revascularization for percutaneous coronary interventions: Variation among operators, and association with operator and hospital characteristics

Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous interventions for women with multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

DESIGN

This retrospective, propensity-score matched cohort study from the New York State cardiac registry (2012-2018) included all women with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing PCI with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and CABG surgery. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The key secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

RESULTS

PCI with EES was associated with a higher 6-year risk of mortality (25.75% vs 23.57%; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.45). PCI also was associated with a higher rate of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (36.58% vs 32.89%; AHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.17-1.41), as well as myocardial infarction (14.94% vs 9.12%; AHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.56-2.17), but not stroke (7.07% vs 7.62%; AHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.03). Repeat revascularization rates also were higher for women undergoing PCI (21.53% vs 11.57%; AHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.63-2.17). There was no difference in mortality between the 2 interventions when PCI patients received complete revascularization or had noncomplex lesions and for women without diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

For women with multivessel coronary artery disease, CABG surgery is associated with lower 6-year mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization rates compared to PCI with EES.

Challenges and Burdens in the Coronary Artery Disease Care Pathway for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Contemporary Narrative Review

Clinical and economic burdens exist within the coronary artery disease (CAD) care pathway despite advances in diagnosis and treatment and the increasing utilization of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, research presenting a comprehensive assessment of the challenges across this pathway is scarce. This contemporary review identifies relevant studies related to inefficiencies in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of CAD, including clinician, patient, and economic burdens. Studies demonstrating the benefits of integration and automation within the catheterization laboratory and across the CAD care pathway were also included. Most studies were published in the last 5-10 years and focused on North America and Europe. The review demonstrated multiple potentially avoidable inefficiencies, with a focus on access, appropriate use, conduct, and follow-up related to PCI. Inefficiencies included misdiagnosis, delays in emergency care, suboptimal testing, longer procedure times, risk of recurrent cardiac events, incomplete treatment, and challenges accessing and adhering to post-acute care. Across the CAD pathway, this review revealed that high clinician burnout, complex technologies, radiation, and contrast media exposure, amongst others, negatively impact workflow and patient care. Potential solutions include greater integration and interoperability between technologies and systems, improved standardization, and increased automation to reduce burdens in CAD and improve patient outcomes.

Is There a Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health, Beyond the Intervention and All Known Factors? A Systematic Review

Purpose

Despite billions of doctor visits worldwide each year, little is known on whether doctors themselves affect patients’ physical health after accounting for intervention and confounders such as patients’ and doctors’ data, hospital effects, nor how strong that doctors’ effect is. Knowledge of surgeons’ and psychotherapists’ effects exists, but not for 102 other medical specialties notwithstanding the importance of such knowledge.

Methods

Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control, and cohort studies including medical doctors except surgeons for any intervention, reporting the proportion of variance in patients’ outcomes owing to the doctors (random effects), or the fixed effects of grading doctors by outcomes, after multivariate adjustment. Exclusions: studies of <15 doctors or solely reporting doctors’ effects for known variables.

Sources

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, inception to June 2020. Manual search for papers referring/referred to by resulting studies.

Risk of Bias

Using Newcastle–Ottawa scale.

Results

Despite all medical interventions bar surgery being eligible, only thirty cohort papers were found, covering 36,239 doctors, with 10 specialties, 21 interventions, 60 outcomes (17 unique). Studies reported doctors’ effects by grading doctors from best to worst, or by diversely calculating the doctor-attributed percentage of patients’ outcome variation, ie the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Sixteen studies presented fixed effects, 18 random effects, and 3 another approach. No RCTs found. Thirteen studies reported exceptionally good and/or poor performers with confidence intervals wholly outside the average performance. ICC range 0 to 33%, mean 3.9%. Highly diverse reporting, meta-analysis therefore not applicable.

Conclusion

Doctors, on their own, can affect patients’ physical health for many interventions and outcomes. Effects range from negligible to substantial, even after accounting for all known variables. Many published cohorts may reveal valuable information by reanalyzing their data for doctors’ effects. Positive and negative doctor outliers appear regularly. Therefore, it can matter which doctor is chosen.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/uXjR7VOXTwQ

The Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health Outcomes Beyond the Intervention: A Methodological Review

Background

Previous research suggests that when a treatment is delivered, patients’ outcomes may vary systematically by medical practitioner.

Objective

To conduct a methodological review of studies reporting on the effect of doctors on patients’ physical health outcomes and to provide recommendations on how this effect could be measured and reported in a consistent and appropriate way.

Methods

The data source was 79 included studies and randomized controlled trials from a systematic review of doctors’ effects on patients’ physical health. We qualitatively assessed the studies and summarized how the doctors’ effect was measured and reported.

Results

The doctors’ effects on patients’ physical health outcomes were reported as fixed effects, identifying high and low outliers, or random effects, which estimate the variation in patient health outcomes due to the doctor after accounting for all available variables via the intra-class correlation coefficient. Multivariable multilevel regression is commonly used to adjust for patient risk, doctor experience and other demographics, and also to account for the clustering effect of hospitals in estimating both fixed and random effects.

Conclusion

This methodological review identified inconsistencies in how the doctor’s effect on patients’ physical health outcomes is measured and reported. For grading doctors from worst to best performances and estimating random effects, specific recommendations are given along with the specific data points to report.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/rvHjVIEPVhI

Outcomes With Complete Versus Incomplete Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Everolimus Eluting Stents

The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes with completeness of revascularization (CR) in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) who underwent PCI using everolimus-eluting stent (EES). Patients with MVD who underwent PCI using EES in New York State were chosen. Patients were categorized into CR, attempted but failed CR or incomplete revascularization (ICR). The primary outcome was death/myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes were death/MI/repeat revascularization and the individual components of the composite outcomes. Multiple propensity score adjustment analysis was used to adjust for differences in covariates among the 3 groups. Among 15,046 patients, 4,545 (30%) had CR. The strongest predictors of ICR were the number of vessels diseased (χ² = 428.48; p <0.0001) and presence of chronic total occlusion (CTO) (χ² = 184.27; p <0.0001). In the multiple propensity score-adjusted analysis, over a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, compared with CR, ICR was associated with significant higher risk of death/MI (17.49% vs 12.69%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.29; p = 0.02), death/MI/repeat revascularization (48.01% vs 37.85%; HR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.27; p <0.0001), death (12.41% vs 8.63%; HR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35; p = 0.047), and repeat revascularization (39.16% vs 31.63%; HR = 1.20; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.28; p <0.0001), with numerically higher rates of MI (7.18% vs 4.90%; HR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.40; p = 0.09). The risk with attempted but failed CR was intermediate between CR and ICR. In conclusion, in patients with MVD who underwent PCI with EES, incomplete revascularization is associated with significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events including death compared with complete revascularization.

Association of Coronary Vessel Characteristics With Outcome in Patients With Percutaneous Coronary Interventions With Incomplete Revascularization

Importance

Many studies have compared outcomes for incomplete revascularization (IR) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), but little is known about whether outcomes are related to the nature of the IR.

Objective

To determine whether some coronary vessel characteristics are associated with worse outcomes in patients with PCI with IR.

Design, Setting, and Participants

New York's PCI registry was used to examine mortality (median follow-up, 3.4 years) as a function of the number of vessels that were incompletely revascularized, the stenosis in those vessels, and whether the proximal left anterior descending artery was incompletely revascularized after controlling for other factors associated with mortality for patients with and without ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This was a multicenter study (all nonfederal PCI hospitals in New York State) that included 41 639 New York residents with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing PCI in New York State between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012.

Exposures

Percutaneous coronary interventions, with complete and incomplete revascularization.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Medium-term mortality.

Results

For patients with STEMI, the mean age was 62.8 years; 26.2% were women, 11.9% were Hispanic, and 81.5% were white. For other patients, the mean age was 66.6 years, 29.1% were women, 11.3% were Hispanic, and 79.1% were white. Incomplete revascularization was very common (78% among patients with STEMI and 71% among other patients). Patients with IR in a vessel with at least 90% stenosis were at higher risk than other patients with IR. This was not significant among patients with STEMI (17.18% vs 12.86%; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99-1.37) and significant among patients without STEMI (17.71% vs 12.96%; AHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07-1.24). Similarly, patients with IR in 2 or more vessels had higher mortality than patients with completely revascularization and higher mortality than other patients with IR among patients with STEMI (20.37% vs 14.39%; AHR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.15-1.59) and among patients without STEMI (20.10% vs 12.86%; AHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.59). Patients with proximal left anterior descending artery vessel IR had higher mortality than other patients with IR (20.09% vs 14.67%; AHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.64 for patients with STEMI and 20.78% vs 15.62%; AHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23 for patients without STEMI). More than 20% of all PCI patients had IR of 2 or more vessels and more than 30% had IR with more than 90% stenosis.

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients with IR are at higher risk of mortality if they have IR with at least 90% stenosis, IR in 2 or more vessels, or proximal left anterior descending IR.

Definitions and clinical impact of revascularization completeness

The completeness of revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) remains an unanswered question. Despite 20 years of investigation there are still major doubts in this topic, reaching as far as to the lack of a standardized definition. The employment of different definition and the multiplicity of confounding variables that in general favor patients who receive a complete revascularization (CR) are the reason of difficult comparisons between studies. The complexity of coronary anatomy diseases and the clinical features play important role in the revascularization strategy. However, the clinical impact of CR is different in particular clinical subsets, such as diabetes, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, ischemic heart failure. The CR is a desirable objective, but it is not mandatory and sometimes a reasonable incomplete revascularization (IR) offers comparable results. Clinical variables, including patient's age, life expectancy, the severity of symptoms at presentation, comorbidities (particularly diabetes mellitus), left ventricular function and myocardial viability, as well as coronary anatomy should be considered in the decision making whether to attempt CR or to follow a reasonable IR strategy, for both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, in patients with multivessel CAD.