Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and comparison among scoring systems in predicting procedural success in elderly patients (>= 75 years) with chronic total occlusion

摘要

Background Evidence-based data on percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) and comparison among different scoring systems have not been well established. Patients and methods A total of 246 consecutive patients were stratified into two groups according to the age: elderly group (age >= 75 years, n = 68) and nonelderly group (age = 75 years (ORA) scores] were examined. Results Triple-vessel disease and the Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery score in the elderly group were significantly higher than those in the nonelderly group (73.53 vs. 53.93%, P = 0.005; 31.39 +/- 7.68 vs. 27.85 +/- 7.16, P = 0.001, respectively). The in-hospital major adverse cardiac event rates, vascular access complication rates, and major bleeding rates were similar between the elderly and the nonelderly group (2.94 vs. 2.25%, P = 0.669; 1.47 vs. 0.56%, P = 0.477; 2.94 vs. 1.12%, P = 0.306, respectively). By contrast, the procedural success rate was statistically lower in the elderly group than that in the nonelderly group (73.53 vs. 84.83%, P = 0.040). All the four scoring systems showed a moderate predictive capacity [area under the curve (AUC) for J-CTO score: 0.806, P < 0.0001; AUC for PROGRESS CTO score: 0.727, P < 0.0001; AUC for CL score: 0.800, P < 0.0001; AUC for ORA score: 0.672, P < 0.0001, respectively]. Compared with the ORA score, the J-CTO score, and the CL score showed a significant advantage in predicting procedural success among overall patients (Delta AUC = 0.134, P = 0.0122; Delta AUC = 0.128, P = 0.0233, respectively). Conclusion Despite the lower procedural success rate, percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with CTO is feasible and safe. J-CTO, PROGRESS, ORA, and CL scoring systems have moderate discriminatory capacity.