Percutaneous coronary interventions for stable ischemic heart disease in Italy.

AIMS Although the benefits of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in patients with stable chronic ischemic heart disease (SIHD) are controversial, a large number of PCIs are currently performed in SIHD patients, frequently after coronary angiography (ad-hoc procedures), without the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to identify patients most likely to benefit from PCI. METHODS Assessment of regional variations in PCI for SIHD performed in Italy in 2017 and correlation of the regional number of PCI per million inhabitants with the use of FFR were performed using the data reported in the registry of the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) registry for the year 2017. RESULTS PCI for SIHD accounted for 44.5% of all PCI performed in Italy with large variations among the Italian regions. There was a significant and inverse relationship between the use of FFR and the PCI number per million inhabitants performed for SIHD in the various Italian regions (P = 0.01). In the Veneto region, where local authorities mandated Heart Team reports to select the most appropriate treatment choice in multivessel disease patients, the rate of ad-hoc procedures was significantly lower than the national average. CONCLUSION PCI for SIHD patients represent almost half of all procedures currently performed in Italy with regional variations inversely related to physiologic guidance use. The mandatory assessment by the Heart Team to select the most appropriate treatment choice in multivessel disease patients is associated with a significantly lower number of ad-hoc procedures.

[1]  I. Roifman,et al.  Variation in Revascularization Practice and Outcomes in Asymptomatic Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[2]  Ahmed Elghanam,et al.  2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. , 2019, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[3]  R. Gibbons,et al.  Moving from volume to value for revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease: A review , 2018, American heart journal.

[4]  G. Musumeci,et al.  Evolving Routine Standards in Invasive Hemodynamic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: The Nationwide Italian SICI-GISE Cross-Sectional ERIS Study. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[5]  B. Koo,et al.  Coronary Psychology: Do You Believe? , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[6]  D. Francis,et al.  Moving the Goalposts Into Unblinded Territory: The Larger Lessons of DEFER and FAME 2 and Their Implications for Shifting End Points in ISCHEMIA , 2018 .

[7]  S. Thom,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial , 2018, The Lancet.

[8]  S. de Servi,et al.  The diagnostic process of stable angina: still many doubts since Heberden's first description 250 years ago , 2017, Journal of cardiovascular medicine.

[9]  B. Lindahl,et al.  Unstable Angina in the Era of Cardiac Troponin Assays with Improved Sensitivity-A Clinical Dilemma. , 2017, The American journal of medicine.

[10]  S. de Servi,et al.  APpropriAteness of percutaneous Coronary interventions in patients with ischaemic HEart disease in Italy: the APACHE pilot study , 2017, BMJ Open.

[11]  A. Baumbach,et al.  Current trends in structural heart interventions: an overview of the EAPCI registries. , 2017, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[12]  G. Stone,et al.  Medical Therapy With Versus Without Revascularization in Stable Patients With Moderate and Severe Ischemia: The Case for Community Equipoise. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization and Trends in Utilization, Patient Selection, and Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. , 2015, JAMA.

[14]  Nikola Jagic,et al.  Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  W. Fearon Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Is it a Valid Concept? Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Should Be Guided by Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement , 2014 .

[16]  Eric Vicaut,et al.  Platelet function testing to adjust antiplatelet therapy for elective coronary stenting: a landmark analysis of the ARCTIC trial , 2013 .

[17]  B. Gersh,et al.  ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease — addenda The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology , 2013 .

[18]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  ESC / EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization , 2014 .

[19]  S. Pocock,et al.  Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  Maria Mori Brooks,et al.  A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  J. Spertus,et al.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Th , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  D. Berman,et al.  Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2005, JAMA.