Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in patients of three age groups (<60, 60 to 80, and >80 years) (from the New York State Angioplasty Registry).

Octogenarians have been under-represented in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials despite an increase in referrals for PCI. As the United States population ages, the number of high-risk PCIs in the elderly will continue to increase. This study investigated the effect of age on short-term prognosis after PCI in 3 age groups. Using the 2000/2001 New York State Angioplasty Registry, we compared in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; death, stroke, or coronary artery bypass grafting) in emergency and elective PCI cohorts across 3 age categories of patients: 10,964 patients who underwent emergency PCI (<60 years of age, n = 5,354; 60 to 80 years of age, n = 4,939; >80 years of age, n = 671) and 71,176 patients who underwent elective PCI (<60 years of age, n = 24,525; 60 to 80 years of age, n = 40,869; >80 years of age, n = 5,782). Patients were considered to have undergone an emergency PCI if they had an acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours, had thrombolytic therapy within 7 days, or presented with hemodynamic instability or shock. Elderly patients had more co-morbidities, including more extensive coronary atherosclerosis, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and renal insufficiency, and presented more frequently with hemodynamic instability or shock. In the emergency PCI group, in-hospital mortality (1.0% vs 4.1% vs 11.5%, p <0.05) and MACEs (1.6% vs 5.2% vs 13.1%, p <0.05) increased incrementally by age group. In the elective PCI group, rates of in-hospital complications were considerably lower, with an incremental increase in mortality (0.1% vs 0.4% vs 1.1%, p <0.05) and MACEs (0.4% vs 0.7% vs 1.6%, p <0.05). Age was strongly predictive of in-hospital mortality for emergency and elective PCI by multivariate analysis. In conclusion, elective PCI in the elderly has favorable outcome and acceptable short-term mortality in the stent era. Elderly patients, in particular octogenarians undergoing emergency PCI, have a substantially higher risk of in-hospital death.

Long-term clinical benefit of sirolimus-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in the treatment of saphenous vein graft disease.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in the treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of SVG lesions with bare metal stents (BMS) is associated with frequent in-stent restenosis, progression of disease in nonstented SVG segments, and suboptimal clinical outcomes. While SES have been shown to reduce restenosis rates in various native lesion subsets, the long-term clinical impact of SES use in SVG lesions is less clear. METHODS: We compared our first 59 patients who underwent SES implantation in SVGs with 50 consecutive patients who received BMS in an equivalent time period prior to SES availability. Clinical outcomes were compared in both groups. RESULTS: Baseline clinical variables between the two groups were similar. Mean graft age in the SES cohort was older than that in the BMS cohort (12.9 years vs. 9.4 years). At follow-up, the SES group had a 24.6% absolute lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (25.4% vs. 50.0%), driven by a 20.7% absolute lower incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) (15.3% vs. 36.0%). The SES treatment group had a 24.1% lower rate of clinical restenosis (11.9% vs. 36.0%). The use of a SES was an independent negative predictor of MACE at a mean follow-up of 20 months (odds ratio [OR]= 0.48,P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the placement of longer stents in patients with older, smaller SVGs, the use of SES in the treatment of SVG lesions appears to be safe and is associated with less clinical restenosis and more favorable long-term clinical outcomes as compared with BMS.