A prognostic computer model to predict individual outcome in interventional cardiology. The INTERVENT Project.

It is not yet possible to predict an individual's outcome from percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or alternative/adjunctive coronary interventional techniques. The purpose of the INTERVENT project is to redefine complications associated with coronary interventions, to set up a prognostic computer model to predict individual outcome and to compare the results to those of conventional statistical techniques. 2500 data items were analysed in 455 consecutive patients (mean age: 61.1 +/- 8.3 years; range 33-84 years; 80.4% male, 16.7% unstable angina, 5.1%/10.1% acute/subacute myocardial infarction) undergoing coronary interventions at three university centres. In-lab/out-of-lab complication rates were 0.4%/0.9% (death), 1.8%/0.2% (abrupt vessel closure with myocardial infarction) and 5.5%/4.0% (haemodynamic complications). Computer algorithms derived by applying techniques from artificial intelligence were able (1) to reduce the set of possible relevant risk factors from 2500 to about 40, (2) to predict individual risk with an accuracy of > 95% and (3) to explain the structural relationship between outcome and risk factors. Patient data from two centres were used to construct and test the algorithm. Data from a third centre were used to evaluate the algorithm. The most important predictors-were acute myocardial infarction, heart failure (NYHA class > II), unstable angina, complex lesions, high low density lipoprotein cholesterol and duration of coronary heart disease. Neither age nor gender impaired the percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty results in acute ischaemic syndromes; however, for stable angina, procedural risk increased with age. There was little risk from primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction in patients with NYHA heart failure classes I-II; however, the risk was high for patients in NYHA classes > II, either with or without additional thrombolysis. Alternative/adjunctive intervention techniques were no predictors for in-lab-, but were predictors for post-procedural complications.

[1]  S. Palmeri,et al.  Coronary angioplasty in unstable angina: contemporary experience. , 1995, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[2]  D. Faxon,et al.  Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in 1985-1986 and 1977-1981. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Registry. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  E. Topol,et al.  Abrupt vessel closure complicating coronary angioplasty: clinical, angiographic and therapeutic profile. , 1992, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  D. Faxon,et al.  ABC's of coronary angioplasty: have we simplified it too much? Interventional Cardiology Committee, Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. , 1992, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[5]  D. Faxon,et al.  Incidence and consequences of periprocedural occlusion. The 1985-1986 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Registry. , 1990, Circulation.

[6]  Randall C. Thompson,et al.  Predicting Early and Intermediate‐Term Outcome of Coronary Angioplast in the Elderly , 1993, Circulation.

[7]  H. Luft,et al.  Coronary Angioplasty Statewide Experience in California , 1993, Circulation.

[8]  R. Myler,et al.  Cardiopulmonary support: the risk and benefits of assisted coronary angioplasty. , 1990, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  M. Nobuyoshi,et al.  Initial success rate and complications of elective PTCA in 5064 patients. , 1991, Japanese circulation journal.

[10]  S. Ellis,et al.  Angiographic and clinical predictors of acute closure after native vessel coronary angioplasty. , 1988, Circulation.

[11]  T. Ryan Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). , 1988, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  P. Hartigan,et al.  A comparison of angioplasty with medical therapy in the treatment of single-vessel coronary artery disease. Veterans Affairs ACME Investigators. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  S. Ellis,et al.  In-hospital cardiac mortality after acute closure after coronary angioplasty: analysis of risk factors from 8,207 procedures. , 1988, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  R E Vlietstra,et al.  Comparison of complications during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty from 1977 to 1981 and from 1985 to 1986: the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Registry. , 1988, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Prediction of risk for hemodynamic compromise during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. , 1992, The American journal of cardiology.

[16]  E. Topol,et al.  Causes and correlates of death after unsupported coronary angioplasty: implications for use of angioplasty and advanced support techniques in high-risk settings. , 1991, The American journal of cardiology.

[17]  W Siegenthaler,et al.  Long-term follow-up after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. The early Zurich experience. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  M. Goormastic,et al.  Multivessel and single-vessel coronary angioplasty: a comparative study. , 1992, American heart journal.

[19]  M. Buchalter,et al.  The occurrence of early sudden coronary artery occlusion following angioplasty may be predicted from the clinical characteristics of the patients and their coronary lesion morphology. , 1992, Japanese heart journal.