Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background Standardization of risk is critical in benchmarking and quality improvement efforts for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). In 2018, the CathPCI Registry was updated to include additional variables to better classify higher-risk patients. Objectives We sought to develop a model for predicting in-hospital mortality risk following PCI incorporating these additional variables. Methods Data from 706,263 PCIs performed between 7/2018-6/2019 at 1,608 sites were used to develop and validate a new full and pre-catheterization model to predict in-hospital mortality, and a simplified bedside risk score. The sample was randomly split into a development (70%, n=495,005) and validation cohort (30%, n=211,258). We created 1,000 bootstrapped samples of the development cohort and used stepwise selection logistic regression on each sample. The final model included variables that were selected in at least 70% of the bootstrapped samples and those identified a priori due to clinical relevance. Results In-hospital mortality following PCI varied based on clinical presentation. Procedural urgency, cardiovascular instability, and level of consciousness after cardiac arrest were most predictive of in-hospital mortality. The full model performed well, with excellent discrimination (c-index: 0.943) in the validation cohort and good calibration across different clinical and procedural risk cohorts. The median hospital risk-standardized mortality rate was 1.9% and ranged from 1.1% to 3.3% (interquartile range: 1.7%-2.1%). Conclusions The risk of mortality following PCI can be predicted in contemporary practice by incorporating variables that reflect clinical acuity. This model, which includes data previously not captured, is a valid instrument for risk stratification and for quality improvement efforts

ACC/AHA Guidelines for Coronary Angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography)

"The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines herein revises and updates the original “Guidelines for Coronary Angiography,” published in 1987 (1). The frequent and still-growing use of coronary angiography, its relatively high costs, its inherent risks and the ongoing evolution of its indications have given this revision urgency and priority. The expert committee appointed included private practitioners and academicians. Committee members were selected to represent both experts in coronary angiography and senior clinician consultants. Representatives from the family practice and internal medicine professions were also included on the committee. The English-language medical literature was searched for the 10 years preceding development of the guidelines. The searches yielded >1,600 references that the committee reviewed for relevance. Evidence relative to the use of coronary angiography was compiled and evaluated by the committee. Whereas randomized trials are often available for reference in the development of treatment guidelines, randomized trials regarding the use of diagnostic procedures such as coronary angiography are rarely available (2). For development of these guidelines, when coronary angiography was a necessary procedure in describing a clinical subset or in choosing a course of treatment and that therapy was shown to have an advantage for the patient, especially in the context of a randomized trial, then the indication for angiography was given greater consideration than indications cited in less-rigorous evaluations of data.

The evaluation of angina pectoris

Detailed formal protocol with illustrations and extensive bibliography.UT Southwestern--Internal Medicin