Follow‐up strategies and individual risk profile after percutaneous coronary intervention: The prospective post percutaneous coronary intervention registry

Abstract

Background A multidisciplinary consensus document (MCD) provided a follow‐up strategy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) based on individual risk profiles: A, high; B, intermediate; and C, low. Aim To assess patterns of follow‐up after PCI and to evaluate the potential reduction of cardiologic examinations with the application of the MCD. Methods The post‐PCI registry was carried out at 31 Italian Hospitals and included consecutive patients undergoing PCI. We collected cardiologic consults (CC), noninvasive stress tests (ST), and echocardiograms (EC) actually performed at 12 months and we compared them with the expected by the MCD. Results We included 1,113 patients (58% with acute coronary syndrome) that underwent 1,567 CC, 398 ST, and 612 EC. The performed CC and ST were significantly lower compared to the expected, respectively [1.6 (95% CI, 1.5–1.7) vs. 1.9 (95% CI, 1.8–2.0), and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.4–0.5) vs. 0.61 (95% CI, 0.6–0.7), p < .001]; the performed EC were significantly higher [0.6 (95% CI, 0.6–0.7) vs. 0.3 (95% CI, 0.3–0.37), p < .001]. Patients at moderate low risk had an excess of noninvasive tests whereas patients at higher risk received less examinations than the expected. The individual risk profile was an independent predictor of increased number of cardiac examination in patients at intermediate and low risk [profile B, OR 2.56 (95%CI 1.38–4.75); profile C, OR 27.00 (95%CI 8.13–89.62), p < .001]. Conclusion In real world patients undergoing PCI, the intensity of follow‐up at 12 months appeared not based on individual risk profile, with a higher numbers of examinations, particularly EC, performed in low risk subjects.