Prognostic Impact of Race in Patients Undergoing PCI: Analysis From 10 Randomized Coronary Stent Trials

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess race-based differences in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from a large pooled database of randomized controlled trials.BackgroundData on race-based outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention are limited, deriving mainly from registries and single-center studies.MethodsBaseline characteristics and outcomes at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years were assessed across different races, from an individual patient data pooled analysis from 10 randomized trials. Endpoints of interest included death, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac events (defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess associations between race and outcomes, controlling for differences in 12 baseline covariates.ResultsAmong 22,638 patients, 20,585 (90.9%) were white, 918 (4.1%) were black, 404 (1.8%) were Asian, and 473 (2.1%) were Hispanic. Baseline and angiographic characteristics differed among groups. Five-year major adverse cardiac event rates were 18.8% in white patients (reference group), compared with 23.9% in black patients (p = 0.0009), 11.2% in Asian patients (p = 0.0007), and 21.5% in Hispanic patients (p = 0.07). Multivariate analysis demonstrated an independent association between black race and 5-year risk for major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 1.57; p = 0.01).ConclusionsIn the present large-scale individual patient data pooled analysis, comorbidities were significantly more frequent in minority-group patients than in white patients enrolled in coronary stent randomized controlled trials. After accounting for these differences, black race was an independent predictor of worse outcomes, whereas Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were not. Further research examining race-based outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention is warranted to understand these differences.