Scholarlink

Background <p>In recent years, revascularization for ischaemic heart failure (HF) has received increasing attention, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been positioned as a high-risk procedure. However, the risk of major bleeding and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after PCI for patients with ischaemic HF has not been adequately evaluated.</p> Methods <p>HF patients were selected from the PENDULUM (Platelet rEactivity in patieNts with DrUg eLUting stent and balancing risk of bleeding and ischaemic event) registry to compare the efficacy and safety of PCI in HF and non-HF patients. In addition, the impact of high bleeding risk (HBR) defined as BARC 3 and 5 was evaluated in these patients.</p> Results <p>A total of 6266 patients were included; 16% (<i>n</i> = 1006) had a history of HF at enrolment. Patients with HF showed a higher MACCE rate than those without HF (18.4% versus 7.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.59, 95%CI, 1.30–1.93; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and a significant difference in major bleeding (9.3% versus 3.3%; adjusted HR = 1.74, 95%CI, 1.30–2.33; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). HBR was significantly more associated with the MACCE and major bleeding rates than non-HBR, regardless of HF status (adjusted HR = 2.93, 95% CI: 2.33–3.69, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, p for interaction = 0.913, adjusted HR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.89–3.76, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, p for interaction = 0.465, respectively).</p> Conclusions <p>After contemporary PCI, HF and HBR were independently associated with a higher risk of MACCE and bleeding. HF patients after PCI require more careful management to improve prognosis, particularly with HBR factors.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The impact of heart failure and bleeding risk on clinical outcomes in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月19日

查看全文
  • Yoshiyuki Yazaki,
  • Yoshihisa Nakagawa,
  • Ken Kozuma,
  • Raisuke Iijima,
  • Anna Tsutsui,
  • Yoshitaka Murakami,
  • Masayuki Fukuzawa,
  • Satoru Abe,
  • Go Kato,
  • Hidehiko Hara,
  • Masato Nakamura

摘要

Background

In recent years, revascularization for ischaemic heart failure (HF) has received increasing attention, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been positioned as a high-risk procedure. However, the risk of major bleeding and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after PCI for patients with ischaemic HF has not been adequately evaluated.

Methods

HF patients were selected from the PENDULUM (Platelet rEactivity in patieNts with DrUg eLUting stent and balancing risk of bleeding and ischaemic event) registry to compare the efficacy and safety of PCI in HF and non-HF patients. In addition, the impact of high bleeding risk (HBR) defined as BARC 3 and 5 was evaluated in these patients.

Results

A total of 6266 patients were included; 16% (n = 1006) had a history of HF at enrolment. Patients with HF showed a higher MACCE rate than those without HF (18.4% versus 7.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.59, 95%CI, 1.30–1.93; p < 0.001) and a significant difference in major bleeding (9.3% versus 3.3%; adjusted HR = 1.74, 95%CI, 1.30–2.33; p < 0.001). HBR was significantly more associated with the MACCE and major bleeding rates than non-HBR, regardless of HF status (adjusted HR = 2.93, 95% CI: 2.33–3.69, p < 0.001, p for interaction = 0.913, adjusted HR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.89–3.76, p < 0.001, p for interaction = 0.465, respectively).

Conclusions

After contemporary PCI, HF and HBR were independently associated with a higher risk of MACCE and bleeding. HF patients after PCI require more careful management to improve prognosis, particularly with HBR factors.

Graphical Abstract