Suzanne V Arnold1,2, Jae-Sik Jang1,2,3, Fengming Tang1, Garth Graham4, David J Cohen1,2, John A Spertus1,2. 1. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, 4401 Wornall Road, Kansas City, MO 64111, USA. 2. University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA. 3. Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea. 4. Aetna Foundation, Hartford, CT, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Angina relief is a major goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, about one in five patients continue to have angina after PCI. Understanding patient factors associated with residual angina would enable providers to more accurately calibrate patients' expectations of angina relief after PCI, may support different follow-up strategies or approaches to coronary revascularization, and could potentially serve as a marker of PCI quality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 2573 patients who had PCI at 10 US hospitals for stable angina, unstable angina, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 24% reported angina 6 months after PCI, as assessed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score (categorized as none vs. any angina; score = 100 vs. <100). Post-PCI angina was more common in those patients treated for unstable angina (30 vs. 20% stable angina and 21% NSTEMI, P < 0.001). Using a hierarchical logistic regression model, eight variables were independently associated with angina after PCI, including younger age, poor economic status, depression, and greater number of antianginal medications at the time of PCI (c-index = 0.75). The amount of angina at the time of PCI was more predictive of post-PCI angina in patients with stable or unstable angina when compared with NSTEMI (pinteraction = 0.01). The model demonstrated excellent calibration, both in the original sample (slope 1.04, intercept -0.01, r = 0.98) and in bootstrap validation. CONCLUSION: Based on a large, multicentre cohort of PCI patients, we created a model of residual angina 6 months after PCI that can provide patients realistic expectations of angina relief, guide follow-up strategies, support the use of residual angina as a means of comparing PCI quality, and enable comparative effectiveness research.
AIMS: Angina relief is a major goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, about one in five patients continue to have angina after PCI. Understanding patient factors associated with residual angina would enable providers to more accurately calibrate patients' expectations of angina relief after PCI, may support different follow-up strategies or approaches to coronary revascularization, and could potentially serve as a marker of PCI quality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 2573 patients who had PCI at 10 US hospitals for stable angina, unstable angina, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 24% reported angina 6 months after PCI, as assessed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score (categorized as none vs. any angina; score = 100 vs. <100). Post-PCI angina was more common in those patients treated for unstable angina (30 vs. 20% stable angina and 21% NSTEMI, P < 0.001). Using a hierarchical logistic regression model, eight variables were independently associated with angina after PCI, including younger age, poor economic status, depression, and greater number of antianginal medications at the time of PCI (c-index = 0.75). The amount of angina at the time of PCI was more predictive of post-PCI angina in patients with stable or unstable angina when compared with NSTEMI (pinteraction = 0.01). The model demonstrated excellent calibration, both in the original sample (slope 1.04, intercept -0.01, r = 0.98) and in bootstrap validation. CONCLUSION: Based on a large, multicentre cohort of PCI patients, we created a model of residual angina 6 months after PCI that can provide patients realistic expectations of angina relief, guide follow-up strategies, support the use of residual angina as a means of comparing PCI quality, and enable comparative effectiveness research.
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Ralph G Brindis; John E Brush; David J Cohen; Andrew J Epstein; Karen Furie; George Howard; Eric D Peterson; Saif S Rathore; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Yun Wang; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John A Spertus; Richard Bach; Charles Bethea; Adnan Chhatriwalla; Jeptha P Curtis; Elizabeth Gialde; Mayra Guerrero; Kensey Gosch; Philip G Jones; Aaron Kugelmass; Bradley M Leonard; Edward J McNulty; Marc Shelton; Henry H Ting; Carole Decker Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jae-Sik Jang; Donna M Buchanan; Kensey L Gosch; Philip G Jones; Praneet K Sharma; Ali Shafiq; Anna Grodzinsky; Timothy J Fendler; Garth Graham; John A Spertus Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: David M Safley; J Aaron Grantham; Jason Hatch; Philip G Jones; John A Spertus Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Bernice Ruo; John S Rumsfeld; Mark A Hlatky; Haiying Liu; Warren S Browner; Mary A Whooley Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-07-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; David A Morrow; Yang Lei; David J Cohen; Elizabeth M Mahoney; Eugene Braunwald; Paul S Chan Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2009-06-02
Authors: Mohammed Qintar; Taishi Hirai; Suzanne V Arnold; Justin Sheehy; James Sapontis; Phil Jones; Yuanyuan Tang; William Lombardi; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Jeffery Moses; Christian Patterson; William J Nicholson; David J Cohen; John A Spertus; J Aaron Grantham; Adam C Salisbury Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Ali O Malik; Philip G Jones; Paul S Chan; Poghni A Peri-Okonny; Vittal Hejjaji; John A Spertus Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-04
Authors: Neel M Butala; Hector Tamez; Eric A Secemsky; J Aaron Grantham; John A Spertus; David J Cohen; Philip Jones; Adam C Salisbury; Suzanne V Arnold; Frank Harrell; William Lombardi; Dimitrios Karmpaliotis; Jeffrey Moses; James Sapontis; Robert W Yeh Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; John A Spertus; Philip G Jones; Darren K McGuire; Kasia J Lipska; Yaping Xu; Joshua M Stolker; Abhinav Goyal; Mikhail Kosiborod Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-05-24
Authors: Daniëlle C J Keulards; Mohamed El Farissi; Pim A L Tonino; Koen Teeuwen; Pieter-Jan Vlaar; Eduard van Hagen; Inge F Wijnbergen; Annemiek de Vos; Guus R G Brueren; Marcel Van't Veer; Nico H J Pijls Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Yuan Lu; Haibo Zhang; Yongfei Wang; Tianna Zhou; John Welsh; Jiamin Liu; Wenchi Guan; Jing Li; Xi Li; Xin Zheng; John A Spertus; Frederick A Masoudi; Harlan M Krumholz; Lixin Jiang Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-12-07