Prevalence, Trends, and Outcomes of Higher-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Among Patients Without Acute Coronary Syndromes

Background/purpose: Patients and lesions at a higher procedural risk for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are an understudied population. We examined the frequency, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of higher risk and non-higher risk PCIs at a large tertiary center.

Methods/materials: The following procedures were considered higher risk: unprotected left main PCI, chronic total occlusion PCI, PCI requiring atherectomy, multivessel PCI, bifurcation PCI, PCI in prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) patients, pre-PCI left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30%, or use of hemodynamic support.

Results: Of the 1975 PCIs performed from 6/29/09 to 12/30/2016 in patients without acute coronary syndromes, 1230 (62%) were higher risk. Patients undergoing higher risk PCI were more likely to have a history of CABG, myocardial infarction, PCI, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, or congestive heart failure. Higher risk PCIs required more stents (2.0 vs. 1.0, p < 0.001), and had longer median fluoroscopy times (17.3 vs. 8.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher median contrast doses (160 vs. 120 mL, p < 0.001). In higher risk PCIs, the risks for technical failure and periprocedural complications were 2.9 (95% CI 1.2-7.4) times and 2.2 (95% CI 0.9-5.4) times higher as compared with non-higher risk PCI procedures.

Conclusions: In summary, over half of the PCIs performed in non-acute coronary syndrome patients were higher risk and were associated with lower odds of technical success and higher periprocedural complication rates as compared with non-higher risk PCIs.

Summary: We examined the frequency, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of higher risk and non-higher risk PCIs at a large tertiary center. Higher risk PCI was associated with lower odds of technical and procedural success and higher odds of procedural complications as compared with non-higher risk PCI. However, the risk/benefit ratio may still be favorable for many of these higher-risk patients and should be estimated on a case by case basis.