Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 2018; 111(5): 731-732

Real World of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in the Public Health System in Rio de Janeiro: How Can It Be Improved?

Stefano Garzon, Expedito E. Ribeiro

DOI: 10.5935/abc.20180227

This Short Editorial is referred by the Research article "Up to 15-Year Survival of Men and Women after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Paid by the Brazilian Public Healthcare System in the State of Rio de Janeiro, 1999-2010".

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are currently the leading cause of death in Brazil and in the world, with 80% of the cases occurring in low- and middle-income countries. It impacts these countries economies negatively, with reductions in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and increases in the burden on already precarious health care systems. The risk factors associated with CVD are largely preventable, and raising awareness and increasing access to primary health care for prevention are key factors for reducing events.

The present study examined mortality rates in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for both stable coronary disease (SCD) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the State of Rio de Janeiro Public Health System (SUS) from 1999 to 2010. It provides us with interesting data regarding mortality outcomes in such patients, dividing them by gender, age groups, and type of intervention (balloon coronary angioplasty, stenting with bare metal stents and primary PCI for STEMI). It has obvious limitations: it is a retrospective populational cohort; its data were extracted from different databases, and the information had to be paired (hospital admissions versus death certificates, which are not in the same dataset); the mortality outcome was death by any cause, and although the authors cite that the cause of death was divided into two groups (cardiovascular death and any other cause), it is not clear which data was used; there is no information regarding comorbidities, single vessel versus multivessel disease, or medications prescribed; and patients with more than one PCI were excluded.

[…]