Percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy in stable coronary artery disease: the unresolved conundrum.

One of the major dilemmas facing physicians is what diagnostic and therapeutic approaches should be recommended to those stable coronary artery disease patients whose symptoms are adequately controlled on medical therapy. This study sought to assess the evidence-based data relating to whether: 1) all patients with significant coronary lesions (i.e., ischemia-producing) should undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); 2) the best therapeutic approach is optimal medical therapy; or 3) PCI should be performed, but only in certain subsets of patients. We reviewed all recent meta-analyses of prospective randomized trials that compared the outcomes of medical therapy and PCI in stable, symptomatically controlled, coronary artery disease patients. To provide greater insights to the clinician, we then analyzed, in depth, 3 comprehensive and widely quoted randomized trials. Review of recently published (2012) meta-analyses, and the detailed analyses of 3 widely quoted individual studies, indicate no difference exists between PCI and medical therapy in nonfatal MI or in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. Thus, clinical equipoise exists: in other words, there is no evidence-based justification for adopting 1 therapeutic strategy over the other. Therefore, it is not inappropriate, until additional evidence emerges, for the responsible, experienced physician to weigh several sources of information in formulating a recommendation to the patient, even though definitive evidence-based data are not as yet available. Such sources may include assessment of the individual patient's clinical presentation, assessment of the severity of ischemia, and the patient's precise coronary anatomy. Critical for more-reliable decision making will be future development of accurate measures of the individual patient's risk of MI and/or death, whether by biomarker, imaging, or ischemia assessments.

Epstein SE ，Waksman R ，Pichard AD ，Kent KM ，Panza JA ... -  《-》

Ten-year outcomes of patients randomized to surgery, angioplasty, or medical treatment for stable multivessel coronary disease: effect of age in the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study II trial.

With progressive aging, coronary artery disease has been diagnosed at more advanced ages. Although patients aged 65 years or more have been referred to surgical or percutaneous coronary interventions, the best option for coronary artery disease treatment remains uncertain. The current study compared the 3 treatment options for coronary artery disease in patients aged 65 years or more and analyzed the impact of age in treatment options. Patients were separated according to age: 65 years or more (n = 200) and less than 65 years (n = 411). All patients were followed for 10 years. The rates of overall mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and new revascularizations were analyzed. Of 200 patients aged 65 years or more, 68 were randomized to medical therapy, 68 were randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention, and 64 were randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting. At 10 years, overall survival was 63% (medical therapy), 69% (percutaneous coronary intervention), and 66% (coronary artery bypass grafting) (P = .93). The survival free of combined events was 43% (medical therapy), 38% (percutaneous coronary intervention ), and 66% (coronary artery bypass grafting) (P = .007). The survival free of myocardial infarction was 82% (medical therapy), 77% (percutaneous coronary intervention), and 90% (coronary artery bypass grafting) (P = .17), and survival free of new revascularizations was 59% (medical therapy), 58% (percutaneous coronary intervention ), and 91% (coronary artery bypass grafting) (P = .0003). When the 2 age groups were compared, survival free of myocardial infarction for patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention was 77% (older patients) and 92% (younger patients) (P = .004). In this analysis, treatment options for patients aged 65 years or more who have coronary artery disease yield similar overall survival. However, coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with fewer coronary events, and percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a higher incidence of myocardial infarction.

Rezende PC ，Hueb W ，Garzillo CL ，Lima EG ，Hueb AC ，Ramires JA ，Kalil Filho R ... -  《-》

Balancing benefit against risk in the choice of therapy for coronary artery disease. Lesson from prospective, randomized, clinical trials of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Morrison DA ，Sacks J 《MINERVA CARDIOANGIOLOGICA》

Surgical Revascularization versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Optimal Medical Therapy in Diabetic Patients with Multi-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Patients with DM and CAD undergoing revascularization with either a surgical or a percutaneous approach are at higher risk of adverse outcomes and mortality compared with non-DM patients. It is within this background that the optimal choice of revascularization is of critical importance in this high-risk population. The large FREEDOM trial randomized 1900 patients with DM and multivessel CAD to either revascularization with coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Compared with PCI, CABG significantly reduced the rates of death and myocardial infarction but was associated with a higher risk of stroke. In a real-world setting the decision-making process for the optimal revascularization strategy in these patients is challenging as many clinical factors may influence the decision to either pursue a surgical or a percutaneous revascularization. However, the current consensus is that CABG should be the preferred revascularization strategy in diabetic patients with extensive multivessel CAD.

Giustino G ，Dangas GD 《-》

Ischemia change in stable coronary artery disease is an independent predictor of death and myocardial infarction.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the independent prognostic significance of ischemia change in stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Recent randomized trials in stable CAD have suggested that revascularization does not improve outcomes compared with optimal medical therapy (MT). In contrast, the nuclear substudy of the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial found that revascularization led to greater ischemia reduction and suggested that this may be associated with improved unadjusted outcomes. Thus, the effects of MT versus revascularization on ischemia change and its independent prognostic significance requires further investigation. From the Duke Cardiovascular Disease and Nuclear Cardiology Databanks, 1,425 consecutive patients with angiographically documented CAD who underwent 2 serial myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography scans were identified. Ischemia change was calculated for patients undergoing MT alone, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients were followed for a median of 5.8 years after the second myocardial perfusion scan. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to identify factors independently associated with the primary outcome of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Formal risk reclassification analyses were conducted to assess whether the addition of ischemia change to traditional predictors resulted in improved risk classification for death or MI. More MT patients (15.6%) developed ≥5% ischemia worsening compared with those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (6.2%) or coronary artery bypass grafting (6.7%) (p < 0.001). After adjustment for established predictors, ≥5% ischemia worsening remained a significant independent predictor of death or MI (hazard ratio: 1.634; p = 0.0019) irrespective of treatment arm. Inclusion of ≥5% ischemia worsening in this model resulted in significant improvement in risk classification (net reclassification improvement: 4.6%, p = 0.0056) and model discrimination (integrated discrimination improvement: 0.0062, p = 0.0057). In stable CAD, ischemia worsening is an independent predictor of death or MI, resulting in significantly improved risk reclassification when added to previously known predictors.

Farzaneh-Far A ，Phillips HR ，Shaw LK ，Starr AZ ，Fiuzat M ，O'Connor CM ，Sastry A ，Shaw LJ ，Borges-Neto S ... -  《-》