WJCD  Vol.4 No.9 , August 2014
A Modified Treatment Failure Classification System with Complete and Exhaustive Accounting of Any Adverse Events Related to the Previous Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
ABSTRACT

Objectives: To determine the clinical outcome related to treatment failure of the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) itself. Background: When considering the addition of PCI to the medical treatment of angina, it is necessary to know the balance between the benefit and the risk of the PCI itself, but the latter remains unknown. The usual outcome measures are imprecise because they contain events unrelated to the previous PCI and because some events clearly caused by PCI treatment failures are omitted. Methods: In total, 2098 unselected patients were randomized to receive either sirolimus-(n = 1065) or paclitaxel-(n = 1033) eluting coronary stents and followed for five years in the SORT OUT II. Any death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis and documented stenosis was classified and combined to a “patient oriented clinical outcome” (POCO), the classical “major adverse cardiac events” (MACE) and the new “PCI-treatment oriented clinical outcome” (TOCO). Results: POCO occurred in 746 patients (35.6%), MACE in 467 patients (22.3%) and TOCO in 293 patients (14.0%), thus TOCO amounted to 39% of the POCO and to 63% of the MACE. Conclusion: By introduction of the present PCI treatment failure classification system, the clinical outcome of PCI-treatment itself may be credulously estimated by the rate of TOCO and eventually PCI is substantially better than what might be perceived from the classically used POCO and MACE rates.


Cite this paper
Galløe, A. , Jeppesen, J. , Boesgaard, S. , Godtfredsen, J. , Bligaard, N. , Lassen, J. , Kelbæk, H. , Junker, A. , Ravkilde, J. , Hansen, P. , Larsen, C. , Stephansen, G. and Abildgaard, U. (2014) A Modified Treatment Failure Classification System with Complete and Exhaustive Accounting of Any Adverse Events Related to the Previous Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases, 4, 405-415. doi: 10.4236/wjcd.2014.49051.
References
[1]   Cutlip, D.E., Windecker, S., Mehran, R., et al. (2007) Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions. Circulation, 115, 2344-2351.

[2]   Galloe, A.M., Thuesen, L., Kelbaek, H., et al. (2008) Comparison of Paclitaxeland Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Everyday Clinical Practice: The SORT OUT II Randomized Trial. JAMA, 299, 409-416.

[3]   Bliggard, N., Thuesen, L., Saunamaki, K., et al. (2014) Similar Five-Year Outcome with Paclitaxeland SirolimusEluting Coronary Stents. Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal, 48, 148-155.

[4]   Stone, G.W., Maehara, A., Lansky, A.J., et al. (2011) A Prospective Natural-History Study of Coronary Atherosclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364, 226-235.

[5]   Mauri, L., Hsieh, W.H., Massaro, J.M., Ho, K.K., D’Agostino, R. and Cutlip, D.E. (2007) Stent Thrombosis in Randomized Clinical Trials of Drug-Eluting Stents. The New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 1020-1029.

[6]   Kip, K.E., Hollabaugh, K., Marroquin, O.C. and Williams, D.O. (2008) The Problem with Composite End Points in Cardiovascular Studies: The Story of Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 51, 701-707.

[7]   De, L.G., Dirksen, M.T., Spaulding, C., et al. (2012) Drug-Eluting vs Bare-Metal Stents in Primary Angioplasty: A Pooled Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172, 611-621.

[8]   Boden, W.E., O’Rourke, R.A., Teo, K.K., et al. (2007) Optimal Medical Therapy with or without PCI for Stable Coronary Disease. The New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 1503-1516.

[9]   Ahmed, B., Dauerman, H.L., Piper, W.D., et al. (2011) Recent Changes in Practice of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 4, 300-305.

[10]   Pursnani, S., Korley, F., Gopaul, R., et al. (2012) Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Optimal Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 5, 476-490.

[11]   Gliner, J.G.J., Leech, N.L.N. and Morgan, G.M.G. (2002) Problems with Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST): What Do the Textbooks Say? Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 83-92.

[12]   Levine, G.N., Bates, E.R., Blankenship, J.C., et al. (2011) ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 58, e44-e122.

[13]   Fihn, S.D., Gardin, J.M., Abrams, J., et al. (2012) ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 60, e44-e164.

[14]   Goldman, S., Zadina, K., Moritz, T., et al. (2004) Long-Term Patency of Saphenous Vein and Left Internal Mammary Artery Grafts after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 44, 2149-2156.

[15]   Shah, P.J., Durairaj, M., Gordon, I., et al. (2004) Factors Affecting Patency of Internal Thoracic Artery Graft: Clinical and Angiographic Study in 1434 Symptomatic Patients Operated between 1982 and 2002. European Journal CardioThoracic Surgery, 26, 118-124.

 
 
Top