Age-Stratified Prevalence and Relative Prognostic Significance of Traditional Atherosclerotic Risk Factors: A Report from the Nationwide Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Japan.

Background The prevalence of traditional atherosclerotic risk factors (TARFs) and their association with clinical profiles or mortality in percutaneous coronary intervention remain unclear. Methods and Results The study analyzed 559 452 patients who underwent initial percutaneous coronary intervention between 2012 and 2019 in Japan. TARFs were defined as male sex, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking, and chronic kidney disease. We calculated the relative importance according to R2 and machine learning models to assess the impact of TARFs on clinical profile and in-hospital mortality. The relative contribution (RC) of each TARF was defined as the average percentage of the relative importance calculated from these models. The age-specific prevalence of TARFs, except for chronic kidney disease, formed an inverted U-shape with significantly different peaks and percentages. In the logistic regression model and relative risk model, smoking was most strongly associated with acute myocardial infarction (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.62 [95% CI, 1.60-1.64]; RC, 47.1%) and premature coronary artery disease (adjusted unstandardized beta coefficient, 2.68 [95% CI, 2.65-2.71], RC, 42.2%). Diabetes was most strongly associated with multivessel disease (adjusted unstandardized beta coefficient, 0.068 [95% CI, 0.066-0.070], RC, 59.4%). The absence of dyslipidemia was most strongly associated with presentation of cardiogenic shock (adjusted OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.61-0.64], RC, 34.2%) and in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.41-0.46], RC, 39.8%). These specific associations were consistently observed regardless of adjustment or stratification by age. Conclusions Our analysis showed a significant variation in the age-specific prevalence of TARFs. Further, their contribution to clinical profiles and mortality also varied widely.

Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with cancer.Methods and Results:Cancer screening was recommended before PCI in consecutive 1,303 patients who underwent their first PCI. By using cancer screening, cancer was diagnosed in 29 patients (2.2%). In total, 185 patients had present or a history of cancer. Patients with cancer more often suffered from non-cardiac death than those without (4.4% vs. 1.5%, P=0.006), and patients with cancer requiring ongoing therapy (n=18) more often suffered from major bleeding compared with those with recently (≤12 months) diagnosed cancer who do not have ongoing therapy (n=59) (16.7% vs. 3.4%, P=0.049). During the 1-year follow up, 25 patients (2.0%) were diagnosed as having cancer, in which 48.0% of bleeding events led to a cancer diagnosis. Patients with high bleeding risk according to the Academic Research Consortium for high bleeding risk (ARC-HBR) were associated with a greater 1-year major bleeding risk than those without high bleeding risk in patients with (7.9% vs. 0.0%, P=0.02) and without cancer (7.1% vs. 2.5%, P<0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer was diagnosed in 2.2% of 1,303 unselected patients before PCI by cancer screening and in 2.0% within 1-year after PCI. Cancer was associated with a greater risk of non-cardiac death, whereas ongoing active cancer was associated with greater risk of major bleeding. ARC-HBR criteria successfully identified high-bleeding risk patients, irrespective of the presence or absence of cancer.