Defining percutaneous coronary intervention complexity and risk: an analysis of the United Kingdom BCIS database 2006-2016

Protty, Majd, Sharp, Andrew S.P., Gallagher, Sean, Farooq, Vasim, Spratt, James C., Ludman, Peter, Anderson, Richard, McEntegart, Margaret M., Hanratty, Colm, Walsh, Simon, Curzen, Nick, Smith, Elliot, Mamas, Mamas and Kinnaird, Tim (2022) Defining percutaneous coronary intervention complexity and risk: an analysis of the United Kingdom BCIS database 2006-2016. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions, 15 (1), 39-49. (doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2021.09.039).

Abstract

Objectives: the authors used the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society) database to define the factors associated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedural complexity.

Background: complex high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI) is an emerging concept that is poorly defined.

Methods: the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society) database was used to study all PCI procedures in the United Kingdom 2006-2016. A multiple logistic regression model was developed to identify variables associated with in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and to construct a CHIP score. The cumulative effect of this score on patient outcomes was examined.

Results: a total of 313,054 patients were included. Seven patient factors (age ≥80 years, female sex, previous stroke, previous myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, ejection fraction <30%, and chronic renal disease) and 6 procedural factors (rotational atherectomy, left main PCI, 3-vessel PCI, dual arterial access, left ventricular mechanical support, and total lesion length >60 mm) were associated with increased in-hospital MACCE and defined as CHIP factors. The mean CHIP score/case for all PCIs increased significantly from 1.06 ± 1.32 in 2006 to 1.49 ± 1.58 in 2016 (P < 0.001 for trend). A CHIP score of 5 or more was present in 2.5% of procedures in 2006 increasing to 5.3% in 2016 (P < 0.001 for trend). Overall in-hospital MACCE was 0.6% when the CHIP score was 0 compared with 1.2% with any CHIP factor present (P < 0.001). As the CHIP score increased, an exponential increase in-hospital MACCE was observed. The cumulative MACCE for procedures associated with a CHIP score 4+ or above was 3.2%, and for a CHIP score 5+ was 4.4%. All other adverse clinical outcomes were more likely as the CHIP score increased.

Conclusions: seven patient factors and 6 procedural factors were associated with adverse in-hospital MACCE and defined as CHIP factors. Use of a CHIP score might be a future target for risk modification.

This record has no associated files available for download.

Contributors

Author: Nick Curzen

Download statistics