Show simple item record

Outcome of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Elderly and the Very Elderly: Insights From the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium

dc.contributor.authorThomas, Michael P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMoscucci, Mauroen_US
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Dean E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAronow, Herben_US
dc.contributor.authorShare, Daviden_US
dc.contributor.authorKraft, Phillipen_US
dc.contributor.authorGurm, Hitinder S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-10T15:32:25Z
dc.date.available2012-11-02T18:56:36Zen_US
dc.date.issued2011-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationThomas, Michael P.; Moscucci, Mauro; Smith, Dean E.; Aronow, Herb; Share, David; Kraft, Phillip; Gurm, Hitinder S. (2011). "Outcome of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Elderly and the Very Elderly: Insights From the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium." Clinical Cardiology 34(9): 549-554. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86865>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0160-9289en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-8737en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86865
dc.description.abstractBackground: There is a paucity of data on the outcome of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the elderly. Accordingly, we assessed the impact of age on outcome of a large cohort of patients undergoing PCI in a regional collaborative registry. Hypothesis: Increasing age is associated with a higher incidence of procedural‐related complications. Methods: We evaluated the outcome of 152373 patients who underwent PCI from 2003 to 2008 in the 31 hospitals participating in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. The procedural outcomes of the cohort were compared by dividing patients into <70 years of age, 70 to 79 years, 80 to 84 years, 85 to 89 years, and ≥90 years. Results: Of the cohort, 64.64% were <70 years of age, 23.83% were 70 to 79 years, 7.85% were 80 to 84 years, 3.09% were 85 to 89 years, and 0.58% were 90 years or older. Increasing age was associated with an increase in all‐cause in‐hospital mortality, contrast‐induced nephropathy, transfusion, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and vascular complications. The overall in‐hospital mortality rate was 1.09% and increased from 0.67% in those younger than 70 years up to 5.44% in those 90 years old or greater. The mortality rate in patients over 80 years approached 12% to 15% for those with ST‐segment myocardial infarction and 39% in cardiogenic shock patients. Conclusions: The proportion of elderly patients referred for PCI is increasing. Procedural complications increase with age, and patients presenting with unstable symptoms are at the highest risk. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This work was supported by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.titleOutcome of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Elderly and the Very Elderly: Insights From the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortiumen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialitiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Medicine Division of Cardiovascular Medicine University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, 2A394 1500 E. Medical Center Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐5853en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Floridaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherMichigan Heart, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherWilliam Beaumont Hospital, Troy, Michiganen_US
dc.identifier.pmid21717474en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86865/1/20926_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/clc.20926en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Cardiologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceManton KG, Lowrimore GR, Ullian AD, et al. Labor force participation and human capital increases in an aging population and implications for U.S. research investment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104: 10802 – 10807.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceManton KG, Gu X, Lamb VL. Change in chronic disability from 1982 to 2004/2005 as measured by long‐term changes in function and health in the U.S. elderly population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103: 18374 – 18379.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcKellar SH, Brown ML, Frye RL, et al. Comparison of coronary revascularization procedures in octogenarians: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2008; 5: 738 – 746.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBatchelor WB, Anstrom KJ, Muhlbaier LH, et al. Contemporary outcome trends in the elderly undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: results in 7,472 octogenarians. National Cardiovascular Network Collaboration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 723 – 730.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKline‐Rogers E, Share D, Bondie D, et al. Development of a multicenter interventional cardiology database: the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) experience. J Interv Cardiol. 2002; 15: 387 – 392.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoscucci M, Eagle KA, Share D, et al. Public reporting and case selection for percutaneous coronary interventions: an analysis from two large multicenter percutaneous coronary intervention databases. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45: 1759 – 1765.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoscucci M, Kline‐Rogers E, Share D, et al. Simple bedside additive tool for prediction of in‐hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation. 2001; 104: 263 – 268.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoscucci M, O'Connor GT, Ellis SG, et al. Validation of risk adjustment models for in‐hospital percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty mortality on an independent data set. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 34: 692 – 697.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoscucci M, Rogers EK, Montoye C, et al. Association of a continuous quality improvement initiative with practice and outcome variations of contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation. 2006; 113: 814 – 822.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSingh M, Peterson ED, Roe MT, et al. Trends in the association between age and in‐hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: National Cardiovascular Data Registry experience. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2: 20 – 26.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePeterson ED, Jollis JG, Bebchuk JD, et al. Changes in mortality after myocardial revascularization in the elderly. The national Medicare experience. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 121: 919 – 927.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJeroudi MO, Kleiman NS, Minor ST, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in octogenarians. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 113: 423 – 428.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKern MJ, Deligonul U, Galan K, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in octogenarians. Am J Cardiol. 1988; 61: 457 – 458.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSantana JO, Haft JI, LaMarche NS, et al. Coronary angioplasty in patients eighty years of age or older. Am Heart J. 1992; 124: 13 – 18.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKlein LW, Block P, Brindis RG, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians in the American College of Cardiology‐National Cardiovascular Data Registry: development of a nomogram predictive of in‐hospital mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40: 394 – 402.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceParikh R, Chennareddy S, Debari V, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions in nonagenarians: in‐hospital mortality and outcome at one year follow‐up. Clin Cardiol. 2009; 32: E16 – E21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFuchs S, Stabile E, Kinnaird TD, et al. Stroke complicating percutaneous coronary interventions: incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications. Circulation. 2002; 106: 86 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarenzi G, Lauri G, Assanelli E, et al. Contrast‐induced nephropathy in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 1780 – 1785.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChauhan MS, Kuntz RE, Ho KL, et al. Coronary artery stenting in the aged. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37: 856 – 862.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYan BP, Gurvitch R, Duffy SJ, et al. An evaluation of octogenarians undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the Melbourne Interventional Group Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007; 70: 928 – 936.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTeplitsky I, Assali A, Lev E, et al. Results of percutaneous coronary interventions in patients ≥90 years of age. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007; 70: 937 – 943.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMa HY, Zhou YJ, Dick RJ, et al. Long‐term outcome of patients of over 85 years old with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary stenting: a comparison of bare metal stent and drug eluting stent. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008; 121: 887 – 891.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLefevre T, Morice MC, Eltchaninoff H, et al. One‐month results of coronary stenting in patients ≥75 years of age. Am J Cardiol. 1998; 82: 17 – 21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDynina O, Vakili BA, Slater JN, et al. In‐hospital outcomes of contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions in the very elderly. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003; 58: 351 – 357.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePfisterer M, Buser P, Osswald S, et al. Outcome of elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary artery disease with an invasive vs optimized medical treatment strategy: one‐year results of the randomized TIME trial. JAMA. 2003; 289: 1117 – 1123.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePepine CJ, Sharaf B, Andrews TC, et al. Relation between clinical, angiographic and ischemic findings at baseline and ischemia‐related adverse outcomes at 1 year in the Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot study. ACIP Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 29: 1483 – 1489.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 1503 – 1516.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoutouzis M, Grip L, Matejka G, et al. Primary percutaneous coronary interventions in nonagenarians. Clin Cardiol. 2010; 33: 157 – 161.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJeger RV, Tseng CH, Hochman JS, et al. Interhospital transfer for early revascularization in patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock—a report from the SHould we revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK? (SHOCK) trial and registry. Am Heart J. 2006; 152: 686 – 692.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.