(Circulation. 2000;102:517.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Application of the New York State PTCA Mortality Model in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation
From the Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine (D.R.H., P.B.B., K.N.G., V.M., M.R.B., G.W.B., S.T.H., L.N.H., C.S.R.) and the Section of Biostatistics (D.E.G.), Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minn.
Background—This study applied the New York State conventional coronary angioplasty (PTCA) model of clinical outcomes to evaluate whether it has relevance in the current era of stent implantation. The model was developed in 62 670 patients treated with conventional PTCA from 1991 to 1994 to risk adjust mortality and bypass surgery after PTCA. Since then, stents have become the dominant form of intervention. Whether that model remains relevant is uncertain.
Methods and Results—All patients undergoing stenting at the Mayo
Clinic from 1995 to 1998 were analyzed for in-hospital
mortality, bypass surgery performed after attempted stenting, and
longer-term mortality. No patients were excluded. The New York model
was used to risk adjust and predict in-hospital and follow-up
mortality. There were 3761 patients with 4063 procedural admissions for
stenting; 6472 target vessel segments were attempted, and 96.1% of
procedures were successful. With the New York multivariable risk
factor equation, 79 in-hospital deaths were expected (1.95%); 66
deaths (1.62%) were observed. The New York model risk score in a
logistic regression model was the most significant factor associated
with in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.86; P<0.001). During
a mean follow-up of 1.2±1.0 years, there were 154 deaths.
Multivariable analysis documented 6 factors associated with
subsequent mortality; New York risk score was the most significant
(
2=16.64, P=0.0001).
Conclusions—Although the New York mortality model was developed in an era of conventional angioplasty, it remains relevant in patients undergoing stenting. The risk score derived from that model is the variable most significantly associated with not only in-hospital but also longer-term outcome.
Key Words: angioplasty • coronary disease • stents
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M. Singh, E. D. Peterson, M. T. Roe, F.-S. Ou, J. A. Spertus, J. S. Rumsfeld, H. V. Anderson, L. W. Klein, K. K.L. Ho, and D. R. Holmes Trends in the Association Between Age and In-Hospital Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: National Cardiovascular Data Registry Experience Circ Cardiovasc Interv, February 1, 2009; 2(1): 20 - 26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E Romagnoli, F Burzotta, C Trani, M Siviglia, G G L Biondi-Zoccai, G Niccoli, A M Leone, I Porto, M A Mazzari, R Mongiardo, et al. EuroSCORE as predictor of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention Heart, January 1, 2009; 95(1): 43 - 48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Singh, C S Rihal, V L Roger, R J Lennon, J Spertus, A Jahangir, and D R Holmes Jr Comorbid conditions and outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention Heart, November 1, 2008; 94(11): 1424 - 1428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Singh, E. D. Peterson, S. Milford-Beland, J. S. Rumsfeld, and J. A. Spertus Validation of the Mayo Clinic Risk Score for In-Hospital Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Circ Cardiovasc Interv, August 1, 2008; 1(1): 36 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Kunadian, J Dunning, R Das, A P Roberts, R Morley, A J Turley, D Twomey, J A Hall, R A Wright, A G C Sutton, et al. External validation of established risk adjustment models for procedural complications after percutaneous coronary intervention Heart, August 1, 2008; 94(8): 1012 - 1018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A D Grayson, R K Moore, M Jackson, S Rathore, S Sastry, T P Gray, I Schofield, A Chauhan, F F Ordoubadi, B Prendergast, et al. Multivariate prediction of major adverse cardiac events after 9914 percutaneous coronary interventions in the north west of England Heart, May 1, 2006; 92(5): 658 - 663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Moscucci, K. A. Eagle, D. Share, D. Smith, A. C. De Franco, M. O'Donnell, E. Kline-Rogers, S. M. Jani, and D. L. Brown Public Reporting and Case Selection for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: An Analysis From Two Large Multicenter Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Databases J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 7, 2005; 45(11): 1759 - 1765. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Singh, R. J. Lennon, D. Darbar, B. J. Gersh, D. R. Holmes Jr, and C. S. Rihal Effect of Peripheral Arterial Disease in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Intracoronary Stents Mayo Clin. Proc., September 1, 2004; 79(9): 1113 - 1118. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. S. Resnic, K. H. Zou, D. V. Do, G. Apostolakis, and L. Ohno-Machado Exploration of a Bayesian Updating Methodology to Monitor the Safety of Interventional Cardiovascular Procedures Med Decis Making, August 1, 2004; 24(4): 399 - 407. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Singh, C. S. Rihal, R. J. Lennon, K. N. Garratt, and D. R. Holmes Jr Comparison of Mayo Clinic risk score and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lesion classification in the prediction of adverse cardiovascular outcome following percutaneous coronary interventions J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 21, 2004; 44(2): 357 - 361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Holmes Jr Risk Stratification and Interventional Cardiology: Robert L. Frye Lecture Mayo Clin. Proc., December 1, 2003; 78(12): 1507 - 1518. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Singh, C. S. Rihal, F. Selzer, K. E. Kip, K. Detre, and D. R. Holmes Jr Validation of Mayo clinic risk adjustment model for in-hospital complications after percutaneous coronary interventions, using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute dynamic registry J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 19, 2003; 42(10): 1722 - 1728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. de Feyter and E. McFadden Risk score for percutaneous coronary intervention: forewarned is forearmed J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 19, 2003; 42(10): 1729 - 1730. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. R. Holmes, F. Selzer, J. M. Johnston, S. F. Kelsey, R. Holubkov, H. A. Cohen, D. O. Williams, and K. M. Detre Modeling and Risk Prediction in the Current Era of Interventional Cardiology: A Report From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry Circulation, April 15, 2003; 107(14): 1871 - 1876. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Singh, R. J. Lennon, D. R. Holmes Jr, M. R. Bell, and C. S. Rihal Correlates of procedural complicationsand a simple integer risk scorefor percutaneous coronary intervention J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 7, 2002; 40(3): 387 - 393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. C. Smith Jr, J. T. Dove, A. K. Jacobs, J. Ward Kennedy, D. Kereiakes, M. J. Kern, R. E. Kuntz, J. J. Popma, H. V. Schaff, D. O. Williams, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (revision of the 1993 PTCA guidelines): A report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee to revise the 1993 guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) endorsed by the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 15, 2001; 37(8): 2239 - 2239. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|