Premium
In‐hospital outcomes of very elderly patients (85 years and older) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
Author(s) -
Appleby Clare E.,
Ivanov Joan,
Mackie Karen,
Džavík Vladimír,
Overgaard Christopher B.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.22729
Subject(s) - medicine , conventional pci , mace , percutaneous coronary intervention , cohort , myocardial infarction , propensity score matching , prospective cohort study , cohort study , emergency medicine , surgery
Objective : To compare in‐hospital outcomes of a large cohort of very elderly patients (age ≥85 years) with younger patients (age <85 years) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for all indications at our institution. Background : Interventionist cardiologists are often reluctant to undertake PCI in very elderly patients due to the perception of poor outcome in this high‐risk cohort. However, the prognostic significance of advanced age itself is not clear. Methods : Baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural variables, and in‐hospital outcome data were entered into a prospective registry of 17,572 consecutive patients undergoing PCI at the University Health Network between April 2000 and December 2008. Patients were stratified according to age (<85 years, n = 17,168, or ≥85 years, n = 404) and in‐hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and complication rates were calculated. Logistic regression‐analysis identified independent predictors of unadjusted mortality and MACE. Very elderly patients were propensity matched with younger patients (1:2 ratio), and the analysis repeated. Results : Very elderly patients had a mean age of 87.5 ± 2.9 (range, 85–97 years) vs. 62.8 ± 11.1 years for the younger cohort and had a greater number of comorbid conditions. This cohort were more likely to present as an urgent or primary PCI, underwent more complex interventions, and achieved less angiographic success. Unadjusted mortality and post procedure myocardial infarction were significantly higher in very elderly patients (6.93% vs. 1.20%, P < 0.0001 and 4.46% vs. 2.74%, P = 0.04). Renal, neurological, and access‐site complications were all greater in the very elderly cohort. Although age ≥85 years was a significant independent predictor of both mortality (OR, 2.62; CI, 1.44–4.78, P = 0.0016) and MACE (OR, 1.94; CI, 1.25–3.01, P = 0.003), other variables such as cardiogenic shock were more potent predictors of adverse outcomes. Conclusion : Very elderly patients represent a high‐risk cohort, with significantly increased in‐hospital mortality and complication rates after PCI. Death occurred predominantly in very elderly patients undergoing nonelective PCI. Decisions to proceed with PCI in very elderly patients should be based on other prognostic variables in combination with advanced age, and these patients should not be excluded from revascularization based on age alone. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.