Preoperative Variables of 30-Day Mortality in Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review

Background and AimRisk adjustment following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is vital for clinical quality registries, performance monitoring, and clinical decision-making. There remains significant variation in the accuracy and nature of risk adjustment models utilised in international PCI registries/databases. Therefore, the current systematic review aims to summarise preoperative variables associated with 30-day mortality among patients undergoing PCI, and the other methodologies used in risk adjustments.MethodThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases until October 2022 without any language restriction were systematically searched to identify preoperative independent variables related to 30-day mortality following PCI. Information was systematically summarised in a descriptive manner following the Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist. The quality and risk of bias of all included articles were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. Two independent investigators took part in screening and quality assessment.ResultsThe search yielded 2,941 studies, of which 42 articles were included in the final assessment. Logistic regression, Cox-proportional hazard model, and machine learning were utilised by 27 (64.3%), 14 (33.3%), and one (2.4%) article, respectively. A total of 74 independent preoperative variables were identified that were significantly associated with 30-day mortality following PCI. Variables that repeatedly used in various models were, but not limited to, age (n=36, 85.7%), renal disease (n=29, 69.0%), diabetes mellitus (n=17, 40.5%), cardiogenic shock (n=14, 33.3%), gender (n=14, 33.3%), ejection fraction (n=13, 30.9%), acute coronary syndrome (n=12, 28.6%), and heart failure (n=10, 23.8%). Nine (9; 21.4%) studies used missing values imputation, and 15 (35.7%) articles reported the model's performance (discrimination) with values ranging from 0.501 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.472–0.530) to 0.928 (95% CI 0.900–0.956), and four studies (9.5%) validated the model on external/out-of-sample data.ConclusionsRisk adjustment models need further improvement in their quality through the inclusion of a parsimonious set of clinically relevant variables, appropriately handling missing values and model validation, and utilising machine learning methods.