ABSTRACT
Antiplatelet therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention are two of the most important interventions in the management of coronary artery disease. In the last 20 years there has been groundbreaking advances in the pharmacotherapy and stent technology. Bleeding is the most feared complication of antiplatelet therapy, mainly due to the increase in major adverse cardiovascular events besides the bleeding itself. Different clinical decision tools have developed with the aim to define which patients have a high ischemic or bleeding risk, thus individualizing treatment.
Subject(s)
Humans , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/trends , Stents , Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy , Hemorrhage/drug therapy , Ischemia , Anticoagulants/therapeutic useABSTRACT
INTRODUÇÃO: A evolução tecnológica tem permitido ampliar a indicação da intervenção coronária percutânea (ICP) para cenários clínicos e angiográficos mais desafiadores. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar os resultados da ICP em dois diferentes períodos, nos últimos 6 anos. MÉTODOS: Registro multicêntrico no qual 6.288 pacientes consecutivos tratados por ICP foram divididos por períodos de tratamento: 2006 a 2008 (P1; n = 1.779) e 2009 a 2012 (P2; n = 4.509). Buscamos comparar as taxas de eventos cardíacos e cerebrovasculares adversos maiores (ECCAM) hospitalares e identificar seus preditores. RESULTADOS: Pacientes do Grupo P2 mostraram ser mais jovens, com maior prevalência de tabagismo e diabetes. Esses pacientes mostraram maior acometimento de múltiplos vasos, maior número de lesões trombóticas e lesões em bifurcações. A relação de vasos tratados/paciente foi maior no Grupo P2, assim como a relação stent/paciente e a utilização de stents farmacológicos. ECCAM foi mais frequente no Grupo P2 (2,5% vs. 3,5%; P = 0,04), às custas do infarto periprocedimento (1,7% vs. 2,6%; P = 0,05), não havendo diferenças quanto a óbito (1,0% vs. 1,0%; P = 0,87), acidente vascular cerebral (0,2% vs. 0,1%; P = 0,47) ou cirurgia de revascularização de emergência (0,1% vs. 0; P = 0,68). Idade (odds ratio - OR - de 1,02; intervalo de confiança de 95% - IC 95% - de 1,00-1,05; P = 0,04) e Killip III/IV (OR = 6,03, IC 95%; 3,39-10,90; P < 0,01) foram as variáveis que melhor explicaram a presença de ECCAM. CONCLUSÕES: Nessa grande coorte, mudanças substanciais ocorreram nas características de pacientes tratados por ICP nos últimos 6 anos. O cenário mais complexo associou-se a discreto aumento de infartos periprocedimento, mas não a outros eventos adversos clínicos hospitalares.
BACKGROUND: Technological developments have enabled the expansion of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) indications for more challenging clinical and angiographic scenarios. Our objective was to evaluate the results of PCI in two different periods in the past 6 years. METHODS: This was a multicenter registry including 6,288 consecutive patients treated by PCI, who were divided according to different treatment periods: 2006 to 2008 (P1; n = 1,779) and 2009 to 2012 (P2; n = 4,509). We intended to compare the rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and identify their predictors. RESULTS: P2 patients were younger and had a higher prevalence of smoking and diabetes. These patients had a greater rate of multivessel, thrombotic and bifurcation lesions. The number of diseased vessels per patient was higher in the P2 Group, as well as the number of stents per patient, and the use of drug-eluting stents. MACCE was more frequent in P2 patients (2.5% vs. 3.5%; P = 0.04), due to periprocedural myocardial infarction (1.7% vs. 2.6%; P = 0.05), and there were no differences in terms of death (1.0% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.87), stroke (0.2% vs. 0.1%; P = 0.47) or emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (0.1% vs. 0; P = 0.68). Age (odds ratio - OR - 1.02; 95% confidence interval - CI 95% - 1.00-1.05; P = 0.04) and Killip III/IV (OR = 6.0, 95% CI; 3.3-10.9; P < 0.01) were the variables that best explained the presence of MACCE. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort, substancial changes occurred in the characteristics of patients treated by PCI in the last 6 years. This more complex scenario was associated to a slight increase of periprocedural myocardial infarctions, but not to other in-hospital clinical adverse events.