BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has undergone rapid progress, both in technology and adjunct therapy. However, documentation of long-term temporal trends in relation to contemporary practice is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed PCI use and outcomes in 8976 consecutive patients in the multicenter, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored 1985-1986 percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and 1997-2006 Dynamic Registries waves (wave 1: 1997-1998, bare-metal stents; wave 2: 1999, uniform use of stents; wave 3: 2001-2002, brachytherapy; waves 4 and 5: 2004-2006, drug-eluting stents). Patients undergoing PCI in the recent waves were older and more often reported comorbidities than those in the balloon era. PCI was more often performed for acute coronary syndromes and, in spite of the greater disease burden, was more often selective. Procedural success was achieved and maintained more often in the stent era. Significant reductions were observed in in-hospital rates (%) of myocardial infarction (PTCA Registry: 4.9; wave 1, 2.7; wave 2, 2.8; wave 3, 1.9; wave 4, 2.6; wave 5, 2; P(trend)<0.001) and emergency coronary artery bypass surgery (PTCA Registry: 3.7; wave 1, 0.4; wave 2, 0.4; wave 3, 0.3; wave 4, 0.4; wave 5, 0; P(trend)<0.001). Compared with the PTCA Registry, risk for repeat revascularization (31 to 365 days after index PCI) was significantly lower in the dynamic waves (adjusted hazard ratio: wave 1, 0.72; wave 2, 0.51; wave 3, 0.51; wave 4, 0.30; wave 5, 0.36; P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous interventions, in the last 2 decades, have evolved to include more urgent, comorbid cases, despite achieving high success rates with significantly reduced need for repeat revascularization.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has undergone rapid progress, both in technology and adjunct therapy. However, documentation of long-term temporal trends in relation to contemporary practice is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed PCI use and outcomes in 8976 consecutive patients in the multicenter, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored 1985-1986 percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and 1997-2006 Dynamic Registries waves (wave 1: 1997-1998, bare-metal stents; wave 2: 1999, uniform use of stents; wave 3: 2001-2002, brachytherapy; waves 4 and 5: 2004-2006, drug-eluting stents). Patients undergoing PCI in the recent waves were older and more often reported comorbidities than those in the balloon era. PCI was more often performed for acute coronary syndromes and, in spite of the greater disease burden, was more often selective. Procedural success was achieved and maintained more often in the stent era. Significant reductions were observed in in-hospital rates (%) of myocardial infarction (PTCA Registry: 4.9; wave 1, 2.7; wave 2, 2.8; wave 3, 1.9; wave 4, 2.6; wave 5, 2; P(trend)<0.001) and emergency coronary artery bypass surgery (PTCA Registry: 3.7; wave 1, 0.4; wave 2, 0.4; wave 3, 0.3; wave 4, 0.4; wave 5, 0; P(trend)<0.001). Compared with the PTCA Registry, risk for repeat revascularization (31 to 365 days after index PCI) was significantly lower in the dynamic waves (adjusted hazard ratio: wave 1, 0.72; wave 2, 0.51; wave 3, 0.51; wave 4, 0.30; wave 5, 0.36; P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous interventions, in the last 2 decades, have evolved to include more urgent, comorbid cases, despite achieving high success rates with significantly reduced need for repeat revascularization.
Authors: K Detre; R Holubkov; S Kelsey; M Bourassa; D Williams; D Holmes; G Dorros; D Faxon; R Myler; K Kent Journal: Circulation Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Srihari S Naidu; Glenn M Polin; Faith Selzer; Warren K Laskey; Alice K Jacobs; David O Williams; Robert L Wilensky Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-06-19 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: S R Mehta; S Yusuf; R J Peters; M E Bertrand; B S Lewis; M K Natarajan; K Malmberg; H Rupprecht; F Zhao; S Chrolavicius; I Copland; K A Fox Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-08-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Wissam A Jaber; Ryan J Lennon; Verghese Mathew; David R Holmes; Amir Lerman; Charanjit S Rihal Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Robert L Wilensky; Faith Selzer; Janet Johnston; Warren K Laskey; Bruce D Klugherz; Peter Block; Howard Cohen; Katherine Detre; David O Williams Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Albert W Chan; Martin J Quinn; Deepak L Bhatt; Derek P Chew; David J Moliterno; Eric J Topol; Stephen G Ellis Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-08-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W D Rosamond; L E Chambless; A R Folsom; L S Cooper; D E Conwill; L Clegg; C H Wang; G Heiss Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-09-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dharam J Kumbhani; Brian J Wells; A Michael Lincoff; Anil Jain; Susana Arrigain; Changhong Yu; Marlene Goormastic; Stephen G Ellis; Eugene Blackstone; Michael W Kattan Journal: Am J Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2013-02-17
Authors: Kristal Young; Thomas Earl; Faith Selzer; Oscar C Marroquin; Suresh R Mulukutla; Howard A Cohen; David O Williams; Alice Jacobs; Sheryl F Kelsey; J Dawn Abbott Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Peter Cram; Xin Lu; Peter J Kaboli; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Xueya Cai; Brian R Wolf; Yue Li Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jamal S Rana; Lakshmi Venkitachalam; Faith Selzer; Suresh R Mulukutla; Oscar C Marroquin; Warren K Laskey; Elizabeth M Holper; Vankeepuram S Srinivas; Kevin E Kip; Sheryl F Kelsey; Richard W Nesto Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Sunil V Rao; Connie N Hess; David Dai; Cynthia L Green; Eric D Peterson; Pamela S Douglas Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 4.749