Revascularization vs. Medical Therapy in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Effect of stem cell transplantation on patients with ischemic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Stem cell transplantation (SCT) has become a promising way to treat ischemic heart failure (IHF). We performed a large-scale meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to investigate the efficacy and safety of SCT in IHF patients. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving stem cell transplantation for the treatment of IHF were identified by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, SpringerLink, Web of Science, and Cochrane Systematic Review databases as well as from reviews and the reference lists of relevant articles. Fourteen eligible randomized controlled trials were included in this study, for a total of 669 IHF patients, of which 380 patients were treated with SCT. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated for changes in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (LVEDV and LVESV), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina grade using a fixed effects model, while relative risk (RR) was used for mortality. Compared with the control group, SCT significantly lowered the NYHA class (MD = − 0.73, 95% CI − 1.32 to − 0.14, P < 0.05), LVESV (MD = − 14.80, 95% CI − 20.88 to − 8.73, P < 0.05), and CCS grade (MD = − 0.81, 95% CI − 1.45 to − 0.17, P < 0.05). Additionally, SCT increased LVEF (MD = 6.55, 95% CI 5.93 to 7.16, P < 0.05). However, LVEDV (MD = − 0.33, 95% CI − 1.09 to 0.44, P > 0.05) and mortality (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.66, P > 0.05) did not differ between the two groups. This meta-analysis suggests that SCT may contribute to the improvement of LVEF, as well as the reduction of the NYHA class, CCS grade, and LVESV. In addition, SCT does not affect mortality.

Comparing the effectiveness of revascularization interventions with medical therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Determining the effectiveness of cardiovascular interventions plays an important role in reimbursement decisions, health care pricing, and providing clinical guidance on the use of existing clinical technologies. This study aimed to review and analyze the effectiveness of revascularization interventions (CABG and PCI) compared to medical therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Methods: Different databases were searched up to December 2017. The articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality of all studies was evaluated by Jadad score and relevant checklists. The I2 test was used to test heterogeneity. Also, to integrate the results of similar studies, meta-analysis was done using STATA software.

Results: A total of 18 studies were included. Based on the random effects model, the overall results of comparing the effectiveness of revascularization interventions with medical therapy were as follow: 38.94 [95% CI: 26.95-50.94, p<0.001, I² = 99.6%, p<0.001], [75.31, 95% CI: 74.06-76.57, p<0.001, I²= 88.8, p<0.001], and 75.76 [95% CI: 71.99-79.53, p<0.001, I2= 99.2, p<0.001] for cardiac mortality rate, quality of life, and 5-year survival, respectively. Also, in patient satisfaction index, revascularization interventions were shown to be more effective than medical therapy.

Conclusion: This study showed that revascularization interventions in all studied indices were more effective than medical therapy. Also, between revascularization interventions, PCI was more effective in cardiovascular mortality and 5-year survival than CABG in terms of quality of life. Moreover, CABG was more effective than PCI. In patient satisfaction index, the results of the 2 included studies were contradictory.

Reexamining the Efficacy and Value of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to be performed frequently for patients with stable ischemic heart disease, despite uncertain efficacy. Individual randomized trial data and meta-analyses have not demonstrated that PCI in addition to optimal medical therapy reduces the incidence of death or myocardial infarction in patients with stable disease. The Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) Trial did not show benefit for cardiovascular outcomes or mortality but did find a modest improvement in quality of life that did not persist at 3 years. Long-term follow-up from COURAGE (up to 15 years) found no differences in mortality, consistent with other published literature. How PCI could reduce long-term mortality or prevent myocardial infarction is not clear because sites of future plaque rupture leading to myocardial infarction are unpredictable and PCI can only treat localized anatomic segments of obstructive atherosclerosis. In addition, PCI is expensive, and the value to society of PCI for stable disease has not been demonstrated. The ISCHEMIA trial will assess the role of PCI for stable ischemic heart disease using newer technology and in patients with greater ischemic burden than in COURAGE. After nearly a decade, the COURAGE trial and other studies have given us pause to critically reexamine the role of PCI for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Until further research can show that PCI can reduce cardiovascular events in these patients, a first-line strategy of optimal medical therapy is known to be safe, effective, and noninferior to PCI, and our practice should more closely follow this strategy.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention

The percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure has become one of the pivotal options in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the PCI procedure has rapidly developed in China, some concerns including in-stent restenosis and dissatisfactory long-term prognosis remain unsolved. Large-scale randomized controlled clinical trials indicate that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) can reduce all-cause mortality and recurrent cardiac events in patients with CAD. ACEIs/ARBs are recommended as a fundamental treatment in the secondary prevention of CAD and reduce in-stent restenosis after PCI. This review focuses on the role of ACEIs/ARBs in improving long-term prognosis and reducing in-stent restenosis.

Coronary Atherosclerosis: Pathophysiologic Basis for Diagnosis and Management

Coronary atherosclerosis is a long lasting and continuously evolving disease with multiple clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic to stable angina, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), heart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD). Genetic and environmental factors contribute to the development and progression of coronary atherosclerosis. In this review, current knowledge related to the diagnosis and management of coronary atherosclerosis based on pathophysiologic mechanisms will be discussed. In addition to providing state-of-the-art concepts related to coronary atherosclerosis, special consideration will be given on how to apply data from epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials to the individual patient. The greatest challenge for the clinician in the twenty-first century is not in absorbing the fast accumulating new knowledge, but rather in applying this knowledge to the individual patient.