Relative Impact of Clinical Risk Versus Procedural Risk on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Abstract

Background: The clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is affected by various clinical and procedural risk factors. We investigated the relative impact of clinical and procedural risks on clinical outcomes after PCI. Methods: A total of 13 172 patients were enrolled from the Grand-DES registry. The population was grouped into tertiles (high-, intermediate-, low-risk) according to the number of prespecified clinical and procedural risk factors, respectively. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 3 years post-PCI. Results: MACCE occurred in 1109 (8.4%) patients during the follow-up period (median duration: 1126 days). Compared with procedural risk, clinical risk showed superior predictive power (area under the curve: 0.678 versus 0.570, P <0.001, for clinical and procedural risks, respectively) and greater magnitude of effect in the multivariate analysis for MACCE (Clinical risk: hazard ratio, 1.953 [95% CI, 1.809–2.109], P <0.001; procedural risk: hazard ratio, 1.240 [95% CI, 1.154–1.331], P <0.001). In subgroup analyses within each clinical risk tertile, procedural risk had no significant impact on MACCE in the lowest clinical risk tertile. An annual landmark analysis revealed that clinical and procedural risks were both significant predictors of MACCE, which occurred within the first and second year post-PCI. However, for MACCE occurring in the third year post-PCI, only clinical risk but not procedural risk was a significant predictor of events. Conclusions: Clinical and procedural risks were both significant predictors for ischemic clinical events in patients undergoing PCI. However, clinical risk had a greater and more prolonged effect on outcomes than procedural risk. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03507205.