Rohan Khera1,2, Eric A Secemsky3,4, Yongfei Wang1,2, Nihar R Desai1,2, Harlan M Krumholz1,2, Thomas M Maddox5,6, Kendrick A Shunk7, Salim S Virani8, Deepak L Bhatt4,9, Jeptha Curtis1,2, Robert W Yeh3,4. 1. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Division of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri. 6. Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri. 7. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco. 8. Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 9. Division of Cardiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality, particularly among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Recent evidence suggests that use of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be associated with harm. However, little is known about recent patterns of care and outcomes for this patient population. Objective: To evaluate patterns in the use of multivessel PCI vs culprit-vessel PCI in AMI and cardiogenic shock and outcomes in the US from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study identified all patients in the CathPCI Registry) with AMI and cardiogenic shock who had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent PCI between July 1, 2009, and March 31, 2018. Exposures: Multivessel or culprit-vessel PCI for AMI and shock. Primary Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Temporal trends and hospital variation in PCI strategies were evaluated, while accounting for differences in case mix using hierarchical models. As a secondary outcome, the association of PCI strategy with postdischarge outcomes was evaluated in the subset of patients who were Medicare beneficiaries. Results: Of 64 301 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.5] years; 20 366 [31.7%] female; 54 538 [84.8%] White) with AMI and shock at 1649 US hospitals, 34.9% had primary multivessel PCI. In the subgroup of 48 943 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 31.5% underwent multivessel PCI. Between 2009 and 2018, this percentage increased by 6.7% per year for AMI and 5.8% for STEMI. Overall, multivessel PCI was associated with a greater adjusted risk of in-hospital complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23) and with greater in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16). Among Medicare beneficiaries, multivessel PCI use was not associated with postdischarge 1-year mortality (51.5% vs 49.8%; risk-adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04; P = .37). Significant hospital variation was found in the use of multivessel PCI, with a higher multivessel PCI rate for similar patients across hospitals (median OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.41). Patients at hospitals with high rates of PCI in STEMI use had higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (highest vs lowest hospital multivessel PCI quartile: OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that multivessel PCI was increasingly used as the revascularization strategy in AMI and shock and that hospitals that used multivessel PCI more, especially among patients with STEMI, had worse outcomes. With recent evidence suggesting harm with this strategy, there appears to be an urgent need to change practice and improve outcomes in this high-risk population.
Importance: Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality, particularly among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Recent evidence suggests that use of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be associated with harm. However, little is known about recent patterns of care and outcomes for this patient population. Objective: To evaluate patterns in the use of multivessel PCI vs culprit-vessel PCI in AMI and cardiogenic shock and outcomes in the US from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study identified all patients in the CathPCI Registry) with AMI and cardiogenic shock who had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent PCI between July 1, 2009, and March 31, 2018. Exposures: Multivessel or culprit-vessel PCI for AMI and shock. Primary Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Temporal trends and hospital variation in PCI strategies were evaluated, while accounting for differences in case mix using hierarchical models. As a secondary outcome, the association of PCI strategy with postdischarge outcomes was evaluated in the subset of patients who were Medicare beneficiaries. Results: Of 64 301 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.5] years; 20 366 [31.7%] female; 54 538 [84.8%] White) with AMI and shock at 1649 US hospitals, 34.9% had primary multivessel PCI. In the subgroup of 48 943 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 31.5% underwent multivessel PCI. Between 2009 and 2018, this percentage increased by 6.7% per year for AMI and 5.8% for STEMI. Overall, multivessel PCI was associated with a greater adjusted risk of in-hospital complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23) and with greater in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16). Among Medicare beneficiaries, multivessel PCI use was not associated with postdischarge 1-year mortality (51.5% vs 49.8%; risk-adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04; P = .37). Significant hospital variation was found in the use of multivessel PCI, with a higher multivessel PCI rate for similar patients across hospitals (median OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.41). Patients at hospitals with high rates of PCI in STEMI use had higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (highest vs lowest hospital multivessel PCI quartile: OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that multivessel PCI was increasingly used as the revascularization strategy in AMI and shock and that hospitals that used multivessel PCI more, especially among patients with STEMI, had worse outcomes. With recent evidence suggesting harm with this strategy, there appears to be an urgent need to change practice and improve outcomes in this high-risk population.
Authors: Patrick T O'Gara; Frederick G Kushner; Deborah D Ascheim; Donald E Casey; Mina K Chung; James A de Lemos; Steven M Ettinger; James C Fang; Francis M Fesmire; Barry A Franklin; Christopher B Granger; Harlan M Krumholz; Jane A Linderbaum; David A Morrow; L Kristin Newby; Joseph P Ornato; Narith Ou; Martha J Radford; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Y Joseph Woo; David X Zhao Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eric D Peterson; David Dai; Elizabeth R DeLong; J Matthew Brennan; Mandeep Singh; Sunil V Rao; Richard E Shaw; Matthew T Roe; Kalon K L Ho; Lloyd W Klein; Ronald J Krone; William S Weintraub; Ralph G Brindis; John S Rumsfeld; John A Spertus Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Shamir R Mehta; David A Wood; Robert F Storey; Roxana Mehran; Kevin R Bainey; Helen Nguyen; Brandi Meeks; Giuseppe Di Pasquale; Jose López-Sendón; David P Faxon; Laura Mauri; Sunil V Rao; Laurent Feldman; P Gabriel Steg; Álvaro Avezum; Tej Sheth; Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri; Raul Moreno; Gianluca Campo; Benjamin Wrigley; Sasko Kedev; Andrew Sutton; Richard Oliver; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Goran Stanković; Robert Welsh; Shahar Lavi; Warren J Cantor; Jia Wang; Juliet Nakamya; Shrikant I Bangdiwala; John A Cairns Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amit P Amin; John A Spertus; Jeptha P Curtis; Nihar Desai; Frederick A Masoudi; Richard G Bach; Christian McNeely; Firas Al-Badarin; John A House; Hemant Kulkarni; Sunil V Rao Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-11-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J S Hochman; L A Sleeper; J G Webb; T A Sanborn; H D White; J D Talley; C E Buller; A K Jacobs; J N Slater; J Col; S M McKinlay; T H LeJemtel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-08-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Matthew Brennan; Jeptha P Curtis; David Dai; Susan Fitzgerald; Akshay K Khandelwal; John A Spertus; Sunil V Rao; Mandeep Singh; Richard E Shaw; Kalon K L Ho; Ronald J Krone; William S Weintraub; W Douglas Weaver; Eric D Peterson Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Anthony H Gershlick; Jamal Nasir Khan; Damian J Kelly; John P Greenwood; Thiagarajah Sasikaran; Nick Curzen; Daniel J Blackman; Miles Dalby; Kathryn L Fairbrother; Winston Banya; Duolao Wang; Marcus Flather; Simon L Hetherington; Andrew D Kelion; Suneel Talwar; Mark Gunning; Roger Hall; Howard Swanton; Gerry P McCann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nino Mihatov; Ramya C Mosarla; Ajay J Kirtane; Sahil A Parikh; Kenneth Rosenfield; Siyan Chen; Yang Song; Robert W Yeh; Eric A Secemsky Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 27.203
Authors: Mohamed A Omer; Jose E Exaire; Jacob C Jentzer; Yader B Sandoval; Mandeep Singh; Charles R Cagin; Islam Y Elgendy; Tahir Tak Journal: Int J Angiol Date: 2021-02-12
Authors: Richard G Jung; Pietro Di Santo; Rebecca Mathew; Omar Abdel-Razek; Simon Parlow; Trevor Simard; Jeffrey A Marbach; Taylor Gillmore; Brennan Mao; Jordan Bernick; Pascal Theriault-Lauzier; Angel Fu; Lawrence Lau; Pouya Motazedian; Juan J Russo; Marino Labinaz; Benjamin Hibbert Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 5.501