Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Since the foundation of appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization, the proportion of inappropriate (later revised as “rarely inappropriate”) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) varied in different populations. However, the pooled inappropriate PCI rate remains unknown. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Sinomed databases for studies related to AUC and PCIs. Studies that reported inappropriate/rarely appropriate PCI rates were included. A random effects model was employed in the meta-analysis because of the high statistical heterogeneity. Results: Thirty-seven studies were included in our study, of which eight studies reported the appropriateness of acute PCIs or PCIs in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, 25 studies reported the appropriateness of non-acute/elective PCIs or PCIs in non-ACS/stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) patients, and 15 studies reported both acute and non-acute PCIs or did not distinguish the urgency of PCI. The pooled inappropriate PCI rate was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.6–6.4%) in acute scenarios, 8.9% (95% CI: 6.7–11.0%) in non-acute scenarios, and 6.1% (95% CI: 4.9–7.3%) overall. The inappropriate/rarely appropriate PCI rate was significantly higher in non-acute than acute scenarios. No difference in the inappropriate PCI rate was detected based on the study location, the country’s level of development, or the presence of chronic total occlusion (CTO). Conclusions: The worldwide inappropriate PCI rate is generally identical but comparatively high, especially under non-acute scenarios.