Original article
Adult cardiac
Prediction of Survival After Coronary Revascularization: Modeling Short-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term Survival

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.09.042Get rights and content

Background

Many clinical prediction rules for short-term mortality after coronary revascularization have been developed, validated, and introduced into routine clinical practice. Few rules exist for predicting long-term survival in the modern era of coronary revascularization. We report on the development and validation of models for predicting long-term survival after coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention on the basis of recent experience.

Methods

We linked 1987 through 2001 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and 1992 through 2001 percutaneous coronary intervention data from our northern New England registries on 35,000 patients with complete data on risk factors to the National Death Index, ascertaining 7,000 deaths. We partitioned time after revascularization into three periods on the basis of exploratory analysis using generalizations of Cox's semiparametric model to nonproportional hazards and nonlinear log-hazards. These periods were 0 to 3 months, 4 to 18 months, and 19 months and later. For each period, Cox's regression model was used to regress survival on risk factors yielding three models, which were then combined to make long-term predictions.

Results

These models were incorporated into easy-to-use software that yields predicted survival for up to 8 years after revascularization. The Harrell concordance statistic ranged from 72% to 83% for these models.

Conclusions

We developed and internally validated models that accurately predict long-term survival after coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention as currently performed. These models using routine clinical data, can be solved with available software, and could be used to enhance informed, patient-centered clinical decision making on the choice of revascularization procedure.

Section snippets

Patients

The patient cohort used for this study was drawn from the PCI and CABG registries of the NNECDSG, a voluntary research consortium composed of clinicians, research scientists, and hospital administrators at the institutions in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The intent of this group is to foster continuous improvement in the quality of care of patients with cardiovascular disease in northern New England [1, 2]. Hospital-based data on all PCIs and CABGs in the region are prospectively

Characteristics of Patients

Between 1987 and 2001, 47,917 unique patients underwent CABG in northern New England, of whom 15,245 had complete information for all risk factors except possibly CR and BMI (which were imputed) and became the study cohort. As shown in Table 1, the mean age in this group was 66, 27% were female, 30% had DM, 14% had a history of CHF, 50% had 3-VD, 5.5% underwent emergency procedures, and 76% had CABG in 1998 through 2001. From 1988 to 2001, 47,589 patients were added to the PCI registry, of whom

Comment

We have developed rules for predicting short-term, mid-term, and long-term survival in patients undergoing CABG and patients undergoing PCI. The rules were developed using models that are sensitive to departures from the usual assumptions (ie, proportionality of hazards and log-linear continuous effects). These rules are well calibrated and discriminate well overall (C indices of 77% to 83%, corrected for overfitting bias) and for a range of patient subtypes.

A variety of models have been

References (26)

  • G.T. O'Connor et al.

    Multivariate prediction of in-hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgeryNorthern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group

    Circulation

    (1992)
  • E.L. Hannan et al.

    Predicting risk-adjusted mortality for CABG surgery: logistic versus hierarchical logistic models

    Med Care

    (2005)
  • E.L. Hannan et al.

    Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State

    JAMA

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text