PLoS ONE (Jan 2018)

Survival outcomes post percutaneous coronary intervention: Why the hype about stent type? Lessons from a healthcare system in India.

  • Bhanu Duggal,
  • Jyothi Subramanian,
  • Mona Duggal,
  • Pushpendra Singh,
  • Meeta Rajivlochan,
  • Sujata Saunik,
  • Koundinya Desiraju,
  • Archana Avhad,
  • Usha Ram,
  • Sayan Sen,
  • Anurag Agrawal

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196830
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 5
p. e0196830

Abstract

Read online

A prospective, multicenter study was initiated by the Government of Maharashtra, India, to determine predictors of long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary artery disease, and to compare the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients undergoing PCI under government-funded insurance. The present analysis included 4595 patients managed between August 2012 and November 2016 at any of 110 participating centers. Using the classical multivariable regression and propensity-matching approach, we found age to be the most important predictor of 1-year mortality and target lesion revascularization at 1 year post-PCI. However, using machine learning methods to account for unmeasured confounders and bias in this large observational study, we determined total stent length and number of stents deployed as the most important predictors of 1-year survival, followed by age and employment status. The unadjusted death rates were 5.0% and 3.8% for the BMS and DES groups, respectively (p = 0.185, log-rank test). The rate of re-hospitalization (p<0.001) and recurrence of unstable angina (p = 0.08) was significantly lower for DESs than for BMSs. Increased use of DES after 2015 (following establishment of a price cap on DESs) was associated with a sharp decrease in adjusted hazard ratios of DESs versus BMSs (from 0.94 in 2013 to 0.58 in 2016), suggesting that high price was limiting DES use in some high-risk patients. Since stented length and stent number were the most important predictors of survival outcomes, adopting an ischemia-guided revascularization strategy is expected to help improve outcomes and reduce procedural costs. In the elderly, PCI should be reserved for cases where the benefits outweigh the higher risk of the procedure. As unemployed patients had poorer long-term outcomes, we expect that implementation of a post-PCI cardiovascular rehabilitation program may improve long-term outcomes.