Trends in in-hospital outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stents era

2Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) dramatically changed the practice of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the 2000s. Little is known about trends in in-hospital outcome after PCI in the DES era. Hypothesis: The in-hospital outcomes after PCI might be continuously improved over time. Methods: We analyzed in-hospital outcomes of 21 667 patients who underwent PCI at Fu Wai Hospital in the past 5 years. The patients were divided into 5 groups according to the time of their intervention: group 1 (June 2004 to May 2005), group 2 (June 2005 to May 2006), group 3 (June 2006 to May 2007), group 4 (June 2007 to May 2008), and group 5 (June 2008 to May 2009). Results: Procedural success rates for the 5 groups were 93.6%, 95%, 94.4%, 94.2%, and 94.3%, respectively (P = 0.39). Significant reduction in in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (3.1%, 3.4%, 2.8%, 1.6%, and 1.0%, P < 0.001) and need for target-vessel revascularization (2.0%, 2.2%, 1.5%, 0.4%, and 0.2%, P < 0.001) was noted over time, which was associated with a significant increase in use of DES (from 56.6% to 97.0%, P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, use of DES, dissection during procedure, left main lesion, prior myocardial infarction, and age ≥65 years were independent predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events. Conclusions: There were substantial reductions in in-hospital major adverse cardiac events and target-vessel revascularization over the past 5 years. This reduction was associated with the concurrent increased use of DES. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Liu, S. W., Xu, B., Chen, J., Hu, F. H., Wu, Y. J., Li, J. J., … Qiao, S. B. (2010). Trends in in-hospital outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stents era. Clinical Cardiology, 33(8), 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.20786

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free