Gender-wise Long-term Predictors for Major Adverse Cardiac Events Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Elderly Population

Abstract

Background We aimed to recognize the predictors of long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the elderly candidates for elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in relation to gender at our center. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the data of the elderly patients (age ≥70 years) who underwent elective PCI who met our study criteria in our institution during 2008 and 2018. Demographical data, clinical history, angiographic details, PCI procedure, and follow-up data of the patients enrolled in the study were studied by using the angiographic and PCI procedure details. Patients were characterized in the study group as those with or without MACE, which were then compared and analyzed using the statistical analysis in a univariable and binary linear regression analysis. Results A total of 355 elderly patients (older than 70 years) undergoing elective PCI were selected who fulfilled the inclusion criteria; 277 patients were men and had more comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of heart failure, previous coronary artery bypass graft, and presentation with acute coronary syndrome. MACE occurred in 24 events patients of whom 20 were suffering from DM. Binary logistic regression showed that the only determinant for the 1-year follow-up outcome is diabetes (p = 0.000). Even in univariate analysis, DM (0.01) is the determinant. DM is a strong predictor for death in univariate analysis (p = 0.00). Conclusion PCI is a safe and effective method of coronary revascularization in elderly patients, and some risk factors can predict long-term MACE in this group of patients.

In-Hospital and Short-Term Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Older Than 65 Years Old: Results from Tanta PCI Registry

“…This percentage is comparable to mortality level in Papapostolou et al [4] study which was 5.2% in case group and 1.3% in control group. The inhospital mortality figure was better in Lian et al [14] study, as it was only 1.1%, and in Ramakrishna et al [15] study, with mortality rate = 1.7%.…”