Drug-Eluting Stents and the Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Class I Indications for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Undergoing Index Revascularization Analysis From the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry)

Objectives Our purpose was to evaluate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) attempt rates in patients with class I indications for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery after the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES). Background In patients with severe, multivessel coronary disease, CABG has historically been recommended over PCI. Practice guidelines for CABG were last updated before the emergence of data on DES efficacy. Methods We analyzed 265,028 procedures from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) meeting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association class I indications for surgical revascularization. Temporal trends in PCI attempt rates were analyzed during 3 consecutive time periods: pre-DES (before April 1, 2003), DES diffusion (April 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004), and DES (January 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006). Results The attempted rate of PCI in patients with class I indications for CABG increased over the 3 time periods (pre-DES: 29.4%, DES diffusion: 33.4%, and DES era: 34.7%, p < 0.001). In a hierarchical multivariable logistic model adjusting for patient and PCI site characteristics, PCI attempts were more likely in the DES compared with pre-DES era (odds ratio: 1.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.40 to 1.48) and the DES diffusion era (odds ratio: 1.20, 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 1.23). PCI attempt rates increased in all 3 time periods, although the average rate of increase during the DES era was 0.6% per quarter compared with 0.3% per quarter for both the DES diffusion and the pre-DES eras (p = 0.03). Conclusions DES use in clinical practice was associated with a significant overall increase in PCI to treat patients with class I indications for CABG. Long-term follow-up of this cohort of patients is warranted. (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2009;2:614-21) (C) 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation