A comparison of angioplasty with medical therapy in the treatment of single-vessel coronary artery disease. Veterans Affairs ACME Investigators

Angina in stable coronary artery disease: Data from ORBITA and ORBITA-2

It is now widely accepted that in the setting of stable angina, the primary remit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is for symptom relief. However, prior to the Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina (ORBITA) trial, there had been no placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of this common procedure to improve angina. ORBITA randomised 200 patients with significant single-vessel coronary artery disease on maximal anti-anginal medications to either PCI or a placebo procedure. The results were striking and unexpected: after 6 weeks, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of treadmill exercise time between groups. Questions arose; how could PCI fail to outperform a placebo procedure, despite resolving significant epicardial stenosis and ischaemia? Clearly the relationship between symptoms, ischaemia and stenosis was more complex than previously understood. ORBITA-2 was designed to assess the effect of PCI compared to placebo in patients with single or multivessel disease, without the possible attenuation of anti-anginal medication, at 12 weeks. In this setting, PCI convincingly improved symptoms, with a significant increment over placebo as assessed by the angina symptom score, a patient-orientated primary endpoint. Taken together, these trials highlight a key insight: when offered first without anti-anginal medications, PCI offers meaningful symptom benefit. When offered after anti-anginal medications, as is recommended by international guidelines, it's added benefit is much smaller. This suggests the sequence of treatment matters, with the first therapy, whether PCI or medications, yielding the most demonstrable benefit, with subsequent interventions then offering little added value. As clinicians, the decision to advocate for PCI or anti-anginal medications first, will depend on many factors including individual patient characteristics and preferences. Importantly, in the absence of a head-to-head placebo-controlled trial of PCI alone versus medication alone, the question of which approach offers the greatest symptomatic benefit remains unresolved.

Anatomic vs. Ischemia-Driven Strategies for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS), the benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) added to optimal medical therapy (OMT) remains unclear. The indication to PCI may be driven either by angiographic evaluation or ischemia assessment, thus depicting different potential strategies which have not yet been thoroughly compared.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OMT versus PCI angio-guided or versus PCI non-invasive or invasive ischemia guided were identified and compared via network meta-analysis. Major adverse clinical events (MACE), as defined by each included trial, were the primary endpoint, while cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization the secondary ones.

RESULTS

18 studies, encompassing 17,512 patients, were included, with a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. PCI guided by ischemia defined either invasively or not was associated with a reduced risk of MACE compared with OMT alone. Furthermore, PCI guided by non-invasive assessment of ischemia was associated with a reduced risk of MI compared with OMT (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61 [95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.94). This strategy ranked best also in preventing CV death. Notably, iFR and FFR guided approaches showed the highest probability of performing best for reduction of subsequent revascularizations.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CCS, ischemia-guided PCI, either by invasive or non-invasive assessment, resulted in a reduced risk of MACE compared with OMT alone. The use of invasive or non-invasive tests influenced the benefit of ischemia-driven PCI: non-invasive tests significantly reduced risk of MI compared with OMT, while iFR or FFR showed the highest probability of reducing the need of subsequent revascularization.

The History of Angina and Its Remedies: COURAGE, ORBITA, and a Path Forward

The recent publication of the second Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial has renewed debate surrounding the indications and benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable angina. The second Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina results show that PCI improves anginal symptoms in the absence of antianginal medications. Taken together with the first Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina and Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation trial results, proponents argue that in contrast to current guidance, PCI and aggressive medical therapy are both equally acceptable initial antianginal strategies and subject to patient preference. Drawing on the history of randomized studies of interventional management for stable angina, we detail our reservations with this interpretation. More broadly, we highlight the merits of elegantly designed sham-controlled trials in answering lingering clinical questions. Finally, we offer select frameworks for more conclusive trials designed to answer the looming question that cardiologists face: does the landscape of randomized evidence support a medication-first, PCI-first, or shared decision-making treatment paradigm in stable angina?

Percutaneous coronary revascularization versus medical therapy in chronic coronary syndromes: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a main cause of morbidity and mortality. The effectiveness of coronary revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is still debated. Our recent study showed the superiority of coronary revascularization over optimal medical therapy (OMT) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The recent publication of the ORBITA-2 trial suggested superiority of percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) in reducing angina and improving quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to provide an updated meta-analysis evaluating the impact of PCI on both clinical outcomes and angina in CCS.

METHODS

Relevant studies were screened in PubMed/Medline until 08/01/2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCI to OMT in CCS were selected. The primary outcome was CV death. Secondary outcomes were MI, all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding and angina severity.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs involving 8616 patients were included. Median follow-up duration was 3.3 years. Revascularization significantly reduced CV death (4.2% vs. 5.5%; OR = .77; 95% CI .62-.96, p = .02). Subgroup analyses favoured revascularization in patients without chronic total occlusions (CTOs) (p = .052) and those aged <65 years (p = .02). Finally, a follow-up duration beyond 3 years showed increased benefit of coronary revascularization (p = .04). Secondary outcomes analyses showed no significant differences, except for a lower angina severity in the revascularization group according to the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (p = .04) and to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification (p = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

PCI compared to OMT significantly reduces CV mortality and angina severity, improving quality of life in CCS patients. This benefit was larger without CTOs, in patients aged <65 years and with follow-up duration beyond 3 years.

Coronary artery disease and heart failure: Late-breaking trials presented at American Heart Association scientific session 2023

The late-breaking science presented at the 2023 scientific session of the American Heart Association paves the way for future pragmatic trials and provides meaningful information to guide management strategies in coronary artery disease and heart failure (HF). The dapagliflozin in patient with acute myocardial infarction (DAPA-MI) trial showed that dapagliflozin use among patients with acute MI without a history of diabetes mellitus or chronic HF has better cardiometabolic outcomes compared with placebo, with no difference in cardiovascular outcomes. The MINT trial showed that in patients with acute MI and anemia (Hgb < 10 g/dL), a liberal transfusion goal (Hgb ≥ 10 g/dL) was not superior to a restrictive strategy (Hgb 7-8 g/dL) with respect to 30-day all-cause death and recurrent MI. The ORBITA-2 trial showed that among patients with stable angina and coronary stenoses causing ischemia on little or no antianginal therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention results in greater improvements in anginal frequency and exercise times compared with a sham procedure. The ARIES-HM3 trial showed that in patients with advanced HF who received a HeartMate 3 levitated left ventricular assist device and were anticoagulated with a vitamin K antagonist, placebo was noninferior to daily aspirin with respect to the composite endpoint of bleeding and thrombotic events at 1 year. The TEAMMATE trial showed that everolimus with low-dose tacrolimus is safe in children and young adults when given ≥ 6 months after cardiac transplantation. Providing patients being treated for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with specific out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for multiple medication options at the time of the clinical encounter may reduce 'contingency planning' and increase the extent to which patients are taking the medications decided upon. The primary outcome, which was cost-informed decision-making, defined as the clinician or patient mentioning costs of HFrEF medication, occurred in 49% of encounters with the checklist only control group compared with 68% of encounters in the OOP cost group.

Clinical impact of coronary revascularization over medical treatment in chronic coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide a quantitative comparison between myocardial revascularization (REVASC) and optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

METHODS

Pertinent studies were searched for in PubMed/Medline until 12/03/2023. Randomized controlled trials that compare REVASC to OMT reporting clinical outcomes were selected according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death. Two investigators independently assessed the study quality and extracted data.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight randomized controlled studies (RCTs) including 20692 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The rate of cardiovascular mortality was significantly lower among patients treated with myocardial revascularization [risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.90]. Age (p = 0.03), multivessel disease (p < 0.001), and follow-up duration (p = 0.001) were significant moderators of CV mortality. Subgroup analyses showed a larger benefit in patients treated with drug-eluting stents and those without chronic total occlusion. Among secondary outcomes, myocardial infarction was less frequent in the REVASC group (RR = 0.74; p < 0.001), while no significant difference was found for all-cause mortality (p = 0.09) nor stroke (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis showed lower rates of CV mortality and myocardial infarction in CCS patients treated with myocardial revascularization compared to OMT. This benefit was larger with increasing follow-up duration. Personalized treatment based on patient characteristics and lesion complexity may optimize clinical outcomes in patients with CCS.

Placebo Control and Blinding in Randomized Trials of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

Importance

Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed.

Objective

To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm.

Data Sources

Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison.

Study Selection

Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality.

Results

Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88).

Conclusions and Relevance

The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Systematic Review of Literature Citing the ISCHEMIA Trial

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Optimal therapy for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CCD) has long been a topic under investigation and a subject of debate. Seeking to clarify appropriate management, the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial compared medical management versus coronary angiography for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Its reception in the medical community has been met with both acclaim and criticism. In light of such disparate views of this trial, a systematic review of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was performed.

RECENT FINDINGS

All articles citing the ISCHEMIA trial on PubMed as of July 21, 2023, were compiled and underwent qualitative analysis. A total of 430 articles were evaluated; 109 (25.3%) did not offer substantial commentary on ISCHEMIA and cite it as background evidence for further study. Of the commentary articles, the majority (224, 52.1%) gave balanced, honest appraisals of the ISCHEMIA trial. A total of 46 (10.7%) strongly praised the trial while another 39 (9.1%) were strongly critical of the results. Almost three-quarters of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was commentary in nature, with roughly equal distribution across the spectrum of praise and criticism. Despite being one of the largest studies on CCD and coronary revascularization ever conducted, the impact of ISCHEMIA on the cardiology community appears to be mixed.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease: An umbrella review

Background

Invasive management of stable coronary artery disease is still a controversial topic. The purpose of this umbrella review was to synthesize systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the benefits and harms of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from 2018 to August 7, 2022. We included SRs with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the question of interest. We assessed the methodological quality of the SRs with the AMSTAR-2 tool. We summarized the results of the outcomes for each SR. We calculated the degree of overlap of the RCTs included in the SRs using the corrected covered area (CCA).

Results

We found 10 SRs with meta-analyses. The SRs included 3 to 15 RCTs. The degree of overlap among the SRs was very high (CCA > 15%). No SR evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system and 9 out of 10 had critically low methodological quality. The SRs reported heterogeneous results for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and angina. On the other hand, for the outcomes of cardiovascular mortality and stroke, all SRs agreed that there were no differences between PCI and OMT alone.

Conclusions

We found 10 SRs on the use of PCI compared to OMT alone for patients with stable coronary artery disease. However, none had high methodological quality, none evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and the results were inconsistent for several outcomes. This variability in evidence may result in divergent clinical decisions for the management of stable coronary artery disease among healthcare professionals. It is necessary to perform a high-quality SR using the GRADE approach to clarify the balance of benefits and harms of PCI.

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina.

RESULTS

A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Visualizing the randomized sham-controlled trial in orthopedic research: proposed steps to conducting a total knee arthroplasty randomized controlled trial

Performed more than 600,000 times annually in the USA alone, total knee arthroplasty is the one of the most common and costly elective operations in the world. A primary total knee arthroplasty is generally an elective procedure, for which total index hospitalization costs are estimated around $30,000 USD. Roughly four in five patients declare they are satisfied postoperatively, justifying the procedure's frequency and high costs. It is sobering to realize, however, that the evidence base in favor of this procedure remains circumstantial. We as a profession lack randomized trials showing a subjective improvement over placebo intervention. We argue for the necessity of sham-controlled surgical trials in this setting and provide a surgical atlas showing how a sham operation may be performed.

A Comprehensive Review: Epidemiological strategies, Catheterization and Biomarkers used as a Bioweapon in Diagnosis and Management of Cardio Vascular Diseases

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a serious health problem that causes a considerable number of mortality in a number of affluent nations throughout the world. The estimated death encountered in many developed countries includes including Pakistan, reached 111,367 and accounted for 9.87% of all deaths, despite the mortality rate being around 7.2 million deaths per year, or 12% of all estimated deaths accounted annually around the globe, with improved health systems. Atherosclerosis progressing causes the coronary arteries to become partially or completely blocked, which results in CAD. Additionally, smoking, diabetes mellitus, homocystinuria, hypertension, obesity, hyperlipidemia, and psychological stress are risk factors for CAD. The symptoms of CAD include angina which is described as a burning, pain or discomfort in the chest, nausea, weakness, shortness of breath, lightheadedness, and pain or discomfort in the arms or shoulders. Atherosclerosis and thrombosis are the two pathophysiological pathways most frequently involved in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Asymptomatic plaque disruption, plaque bleeding, symptomatic coronary blockage, and myocardial infarction are the prognoses for CAD. In this review, we will focus on medicated therapy which is being employed for the relief of angina linked with CAD including antiplatelet medicines, nitrates, calcium antagonists, blockers, catheterization, and the frequency of recanalized infarct-related arteries in patients with acute anterior wall myocardial infarction (AWMI). Furthermore, we have also enlightened the importance of biomarkers that are helpful in the diagnosis and management of CAD.

Lessons Learned from the ISCHEMIA Trial for the Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

The recent landmark International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial was undertaken to assess whether stable angina patients with moderate to severe baseline ischemia would benefit from an invasive approach with revascularization versus a conservative approach of intensive lifestyle intervention and pharmacologic secondary prevention. This trial addressed the hypothesis that treating ischemia with an invasive approach would reduce major adverse cardiac events more than a noninvasive pharmacologic and lifestyle approach. ISCHEMIA is discussed in detail, along with current implications for contemporary management of this very common cardiac disorder afflicting millions of patients worldwide.

Remote digital smart device follow-up in prospective clinical trials: early insights from ORBITA-2, ORBITA-COSMIC, and ORBITA-STAR

Smart devices are a fundamental media for acquisition, processing, storage, and transfer of digital health data. The global penetration and high frequency usage of smart devices such as smartphones and fitness monitors provide us an opportunity for incorporation into clinical trials to generate more clinically meaningful data. Reporting of angina can significantly vary between patients and also within patients at different timepoints. Furthermore, the nature of angina can lead to variation in ways patients adapt their activities of daily living and hence reporting of symptoms and quality of life. Current clinical trials investigating the effects of intervention on angina do not accurately incorporate these patient centred outcomes and considerations. Hence, methods to contemporaneously assess daily angina burden in a convenient, patient focused, and cost-effective manner are priorities for contemporary clinical trials to address. In this article, we provide our insights into the use of remote digital smart devices in clinical trials of stable coronary artery disease conducted by our research group. We discuss how our experiences from previous trials necessitated its incorporation and will provide us with important data that will inform clinical practice. We discuss the benefits and current challenges and limitations of smart device incorporation while providing our procedural workflow for how we incorporated smart devices into our clinical trials for others to consider. We hope that this approach will allow us to understand the perceptions and implications of angina on patient lives with greater granularity than previously explored.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention: a substudy of the ORBITA trial

AIMS

Oxygen-pulse morphology and gas exchange analysis measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been associated with myocardial ischaemia. The aim of this analysis was to examine the relationship between CPET parameters, myocardial ischaemia and anginal symptoms in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and to determine the ability of these parameters to predict the placebo-controlled response to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with severe single-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomized 1:1 to PCI or placebo in the ORBITA trial. Subjects underwent pre-randomization treadmill CPET, dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and symptom assessment. These assessments were repeated at the end of a 6-week blinded follow-up period.A total of 195 patients with CPET data were randomized (102 PCI, 93 placebo). Patients in whom an oxygen-pulse plateau was observed during CPET had higher (more ischaemic) DSE score [+0.82 segments; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40 to 1.25, P = 0.0068] and lower fractional flow reserve (-0.07; 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.02, P = 0.011) compared with those without. At lower (more abnormal) oxygen-pulse slopes, there was a larger improvement of the placebo-controlled effect of PCI on DSE score [oxygen-pulse plateau presence (Pinteraction = 0.026) and oxygen-pulse gradient (Pinteraction = 0.023)] and Seattle angina physical-limitation score [oxygen-pulse plateau presence (Pinteraction = 0.037)]. Impaired peak VO2, VE/VCO2 slope, peak oxygen-pulse, and oxygen uptake efficacy slope was significantly associated with higher symptom burden but did not relate to severity of ischaemia or predict response to PCI.

CONCLUSION

Although selected CPET parameters relate to severity of angina symptoms and quality of life, only an oxygen-pulse plateau detects the severity of myocardial ischaemia and predicts the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI in patients with single-vessel CAD.

Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease

Management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) centers on medication to prevent myocardial infarction and death. Many anti-anginal medications also have benefit for reducing symptoms, and have been proven to be effective against placebo control. Before effective preventive medications were available, patients with stable CAD often underwent revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), on the plausible assumption that these procedures would prevent adverse events and reduce symptoms. However, recent randomized controlled trials have cast doubt on these assumptions.Considering results from the recent ISCHEMIA trial, we discuss the evidence base that underpins revascularization for stable CAD in contemporary practice. We also focus on patient groups at high risk of myocardial infarction and death, for whom revascularization is often recommended. We outline the areas of uncertainty, unanswered research questions, and key areas of potential miscommunication in doctor-patient consultations.

A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention for the relief of stable angina without antianginal medications: design and rationale of the ORBITA-2 trial

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed for stable angina. However, the first blinded trial, ORBITA, did not show a placebo-controlled increment in exercise time in patients with single-vessel disease, at 6 weeks, on maximal antianginal therapy. ORBITA-2 will assess the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on angina frequency in patients with single- or multivessel disease, at 12 weeks, on no antianginal therapy. ORBITA-2 is a double-blind placebo-controlled trial randomising participants with (i) angina at presentation, (ii) documented angina during the 2-week pre-randomisation symptom assessment phase, (iii) objective evidence of ischaemia, (iv) single- or multivessel disease, and (v) clinical eligibility for PCI. At enrolment, antianginals will be stopped, and angina questionnaires completed. Participants will record their symptoms on a smartphone application daily throughout the trial and will undergo exercise treadmill testing and stress echocardiography at pre-randomisation. They will then undergo coronary angiography with unblinded invasive physiology assessment. Eligible participants will then be sedated to a deep level of conscious sedation and randomised 1:1 between PCI and placebo. After the 12-week blinded follow-up period, they will return for questionnaires, exercise testing and stress echocardiography assessment. If angina becomes intolerable, antianginals will be introduced using a prespecified medication protocol. The primary outcome is an angina symptom score using an ordinal clinical outcome scale for angina. Secondary outcomes include exercise treadmill time, angina frequency, angina severity and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03742050.

Atheroma or ischemia: which is more important for managing patients with stable chest pain?

In the evaluation and management of patients with stable chest pain/chronic coronary syndrome, cardiologists need to be able to weigh up the relative merits of managing these patients using either optimal therapy alone or optimal therapy plus revascularization. These decisions rely on an understanding of both the presence and the degree of coronary atheroma and myocardial ischemia, and the impact that these have on patients' symptoms and their prognosis. In this review the authors examine the relative impact of the anatomical and physiological assessment of patients with chronic coronary syndrome and how it can be used to achieve optimal and tailored therapy.

Popular procedures without evidence of benefit: A case study of percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease

Despite limited benefit, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a common procedure that is often performed for uncertain or inappropriate indications in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). PCI cases per capita have increased year-over-year in most European countries, and many have higher rates than the U.S. Meanwhile, first-line therapy such as optimal medical therapy (OMT) and lifestyle changes, continue to be under-utilized. This article reviews the evidence on use of PCI in stable CAD. Specifically, we analyzed randomized control trials, systematic reviews, appropriate use criteria, and professional society guidelines that examine the risks and benefits of PCI compared to OMT. We then highlight utilization patterns as well as interventions that better align current practice with evidence-based care.

State of the art approach to managing angina and ischemia: tailoring treatment to the evidence

Stable angina represents a chronic and often debilitating condition that affects daily activities and quality of life in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a four-step approach for the medical treatment of patients taking into consideration hemodynamic variables (heart rate and blood pressure) and the presence or absence of left ventricular dysfunction. However, CCS patients often have several comorbidities and risk factors. Thus, a tailored approach that takes into consideration patient risk factors and comorbidities may have additional benefits beyond angina relief. This is a state of the art review of stable angina treatment based on the currently available evidence.

Quality of Life Assessment in Trials of Revascularization for Chronic Stable Angina: Insights from ORBITA and the Implications of Blinding

The main aims of therapy in chronic stable angina are to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and death and improve symptoms and quality of life (QoL). Unblinded trials have shown that revascularization does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction or death but does appear to improve symptoms. However, symptoms are susceptible to the placebo effect which can bias therapies to appear more effective than they are. To assess the true physical impact of a treatment on symptoms, placebo-controlled trials with patients and medical and research teams blinded to treatment allocation are necessary. Symptoms and QoL can be reported directly by the patient or indirectly by the physician. Patient-reported outcome measures in angina trials can include angina frequency, frequency of nitrate use, exercise capacity, and questionnaires such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the generic EuroQOL-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) QoL questionnaire. Physician-assessed outcome measures include Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class. The Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) trial was the first blinded placebo-controlled study investigating the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic stable angina. The trial showed a smaller than expected and not statistically significant effect of placebo-controlled PCI on the primary endpoint of change in exercise time at 6 weeks follow-up in single-vessel coronary artery disease. There was also no significant placebo-controlled treatment effect of PCI for the prespecified secondary endpoints of SAQ or EQ-5D-5L, although PCI did result in 20% more patients becoming free from angina than placebo in a non-prespecified secondary analysis. ORBITA has demonstrated the need for symptomatic and QoL effects of PCI to be studied using placebo control. Here, we describe ways of measuring QoL, the impact of the unblinded and blinded trials to date, what we have learned from ORBITA, and what is next for this common and complex condition.

Appropriate coronary revascularization can be accomplished if myocardial perfusion is quantified by positron emission tomography prior to treatment decision

BACKGROUND

Many patients undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without the use of non-invasive stress testing prior to treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the potential added value of guiding revascularization by quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion prior to intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (10 females) with suspected or established CAD who had been referred for a clinical coronary angiography (CA) with possibility for PCI were included. Adenosine stress and rest 13N-NH3 PET, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and cardiopulmonary exercise test were performed 4 ± 3 weeks before and 5 ± 1 months after CA. The angiographer was blinded to the PET and CMR results. Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) < 2.0 by PET was considered abnormal. A PCI was performed in 19/33 patients. In 41% (11/27) of the revascularized vessel territories, a normal regional MFR was found prior to the PCI and no improvement in MFR was found at follow-up (P = 0.9). However, vessel territories with regional MFR < 2.0 at baseline improved significantly after PCI (P = 0.003). Of the 14 patients not undergoing PCI, four had MFR < 2.0 in one or more coronary territories.

CONCLUSION

Assessment of quantitative myocardial perfusion prior to revascularization could lead to more appropriate use of CA when managing patients with stable CAD.

Impact of Acquired Thrombocytopenia on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Acquired thrombocytopenia (aTP) is associated with a high frequency of bleeding and ischemic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Herein, we report a meta-analysis evaluating the adverse effects of aTP on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality post-PCI.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and, clinicaltrials.gov from the inception of these databases through October 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: 1) No Thrombocytopenia (nTP) and 2) Acquired Thrombocytopenia (aTP) after PCI. Primary endpoints were in-hospital, 30-day and all-cause mortality rates at the longest follow-up. The main summary estimate was random effects Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 57,247 participants were included. There was significantly increased in-hospital all-cause mortality (HR 10.73 [6.82-16.88]), MACE (HR 2.96 [2.24-3.94]), major bleeding (HR 4.78 [3.54-6.47]), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (HR 7.53 [2.8-20.2]), in the aTP group compared to the nTP group. Similarly, aTP group had a statistically significant increased incidence of 30-day all-cause mortality (HR 6.08), MACE (HR 2.77), post-PCI MI (HR 1.98), TVR (HR 5.2), and major bleeding (HR 12.73). Outcomes at longest follow-up showed increased incidence of all-cause mortality (HR 3.98 [1.53-10.33]) and MACE (HR 1.24 [0.99-1.54]) in aTP group, while there was no significant difference for post-PCI MI (HR 0.94 [0.37-2.39]) and TVR (HR 0.96 [0.69-1.32]) between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Acquired Thrombocytopenia after PCI is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, adverse bleeding events and the need for in-hospital and 30-day TVR.

Cardiac mortality in patients randomised to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

The value of elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy over medical therapy alone in managing stable patients with coronary artery disease is debated. We reviewed all trials comparing the two strategies in this population.

Methods and results

From inception through November 2020, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and other databases were searched for randomised trials comparing revascularisation against medical therapy alone in clinically stable coronary artery disease patients. Treatment effects were measured by rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects models. Cardiac mortality was the pre-specified primary endpoint. Spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) and its association with cardiac mortality were secondary endpoints. Further endpoints included all-cause mortality, any MI, and stroke. Longest follow-up data were abstracted. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021225598). Twenty-five trials involving 19 806 patients (10 023 randomised to revascularisation plus medical therapy and 9783 to medical therapy alone) were included. Compared with medical therapy alone, revascularisation yielded a lower risk of cardiac death [RR 0.79 (0.67–0.93), P < 0.01] and spontaneous MI [RR 0.74 (0.64–0.86), P < 0.01]. By meta-regression, the cardiac death risk reduction after revascularisation, compared with medical therapy alone, was linearly associated with follow-up duration [RR per 4-year follow-up: 0.81 (0.69–0.96), P = 0.008], spontaneous MI absolute difference (P = 0.01) and percentage of multivessel disease at baseline (P = 0.004). Trial sequential and sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of the cardiac mortality findings. All-cause mortality [0.94 (0.87–1.01), P = 0.11], any MI (P = 0.14), and stroke risk (P = 0.30) did not differ significantly between strategies.

Conclusion

In stable coronary artery disease patients, randomisation to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy led to reduced cardiac mortality compared with medical therapy alone. The cardiac survival benefit after revascularisation improved with longer follow-up times and was associated with fewer spontaneous MIs.

Invasive therapy versus conservative therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Although there are clear indications for revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes, there is debate regarding the benefits of revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease. We sought to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the role of revascularization compared to conservative medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

HYPOTHESIS

There is no significant difference in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality between invasive and medical arms.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search from January 2000 to June 2020. Our literature search yielded seven randomized controlled trials. We analyzed a total of 12 013 patients (6109 in revascularization arm and 5904 in conservative medical therapy arm). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke), cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke. Additional subgroup analysis for all-cause mortality was performed comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent versus conservative therapy; and PCI with drug eluting stent versus conservative therapy.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in primary outcome of all-cause mortality between either arm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.83 to 1.08; p = .84). There were statistically significant lower rates of MACE (death, MI or stroke) in the revascularization arm when compared to conservative arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis did not show any survival advantage of an initial invasive strategy over conservative medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

Initial optimal medical therapy with or without invasive strategy for stable coronary disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review

INTRODUCTION

There is a persistent controversy regarding the benefit and timing of angiography in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). With this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) the advantages of initial invasive strategy and medical therapy compared with only medical therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of the following databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Embase. Data was collected from all the RCTs that compared early invasive approach with medical therapy alone in treating stable CAD which was conducted by two independent authors. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI), while the secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, hospitalization due to unstable angina and revascularization events. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs (13 916 patients, mean age 63.1, 78.9% men). The early invasive strategy, compared with medical therapy alone, did not reveal a significant reduction in the incidence of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05, P = 0.30) or MI (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-1.10, P = 0.42). Furthermore, the early invasive strategy did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization or the revascularization rate compared with medical therapy alone (P > 0.05). However, the incidence of MACE and hospitalization due to unstable angina were lower in patients treated with early invasive strategy (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99, P = 0.04), and (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.67, P < 0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Early invasive strategy with medical therapy did not reduce the incidence of all-cause mortality and MI when compared with medical therapy alone among patients with stable CAD with significant stenosis. However, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of MACE and hospitalization due to unstable angina in the early invasive group.

The Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Ethiopia: Emphasis on Revascularization

Cardiovascular diseases are number one cause of death worldwide. Over half of the cardiovascular diseases, 51%, are due to coronary artery disease. Coronary artery disease is a pathological process characterized by atherosclerotic plaque accumulation in the epicardial coronary arteries. Rupture of the fibrous cap of the plaque causes the majority of the deaths due to myocardial infarction. Angina pectoris is a discomfort in the chest or adjacent areas caused by myocardial ischemia usually precipitated by exertion. In acute coronary syndrome, the chest discomfort is either of low threshold or appears at rest and when it evolves on the background of established angina pectoris, the discomfort becomes more frequent and prolonged. Exercise electrocardiography which has been the most frequently used non-invasive test to diagnose obstructive coronary artery disease is currently shown to have inferior diagnostic performance compared with diagnostic imaging tests. The pivotal tests in patients presenting with clinical features of acute coronary syndrome are electrocardiography and determination of serum troponin I and/or T. Revascularization is the mainstay of treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome. In chronic coronary syndrome, on top of optimal medical treatment, revascularization reduces mortality in:- 1) left main stenosis, 2) three-vessel coronary artery disease, particularly with ejection fraction of less than 40%, 3) two vessel disease with more than 75% stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery disease.

Coronary Revascularization and Long-Term Survivorship in Chronic Coronary Syndrome

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) persists as the leading cause of death in the Western world. In recent decades, great headway has been made in reducing mortality due to IHD, based around secondary prevention. The advent of coronary revascularization techniques, first coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the 1960s and then percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the 1970s, has represented one of the major breakthroughs in medicine during the last century. The benefit provided by these techniques, especially PCI, has been crucial in lowering mortality rates in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, in the setting where IHD is most prevalent, namely chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), the increase in life expectancy provided by coronary revascularization is controversial. Over more than 40 years, several clinical trials have been carried out comparing optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone with a strategy of routine coronary revascularization on top of OMT. Beyond a certain degree of symptomatic improvement and lower incidence of minor events, routine invasive management has not demonstrated a convincing effect in terms of reducing mortality in CCS. Based on the accumulated evidence more than half a century after the first revascularization procedures were used, invasive management should be considered in those patients with uncontrolled symptoms despite OMT or high-risk features related to left ventricular function, coronary anatomy, or functional assessment, taking into account the patient expectations and preferences.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with optimal medical therapy in stable obstructive coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for patients suffering from stable obstructive coronary artery disease (SOCAD) is controversial. Many studies have examined the value of performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in these patients but so far no study has been able to demonstrate an improvement in outcomes by performing PCI in addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT). This study aimed to examine the added value of performing PCI plus OMT vs. OMT alone regarding cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic search and a meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials comparing PCI plus OMT vs. OMT in SOCAD patients. We included six trials (N = 11 144) with follow-up ranges 2.2-11.4 years. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference between PCI + OMT vs. OMT group regarding all-cause mortality, odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 [confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.12, P = 0.79, I2 = 0%]. In addition, we have found no difference between the two groups regarding cardiovascular mortality, OR = 0.91 (CI 0.76-1.08, P = 0.27, I2 = 24%). Moreover, there was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction, OR = 0.92 (CI 0.81-1.04, P = 0.18, I2 = 49%).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that there is no improvement in cardiovascular outcomes of patients with SOCAD by performing PCI plus OMT vs. OMT alone. This study provides an insight that should be taken under consideration in the management of SOCAD patients.

Achieving Optimal Medical Therapy: Insights From the ORBITA Trial

Background

In stable coronary artery disease, medications are used for 2 purposes: cardiovascular risk reduction and symptom improvement. In clinical trials and clinical practice, medication use is often not optimal. The ORBITA (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina) trial was the first placebo‐controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention. A key component of the ORBITA trial design was the inclusion of a medical optimization phase, aimed at ensuring that all patients were treated with guideline‐directed truly optimal medical therapy. In this study, we report the medical therapy that was achieved.

Methods and Results

After enrollment into the ORBITA trial, all 200 patients entered a 6‐week period of intensive medical therapy optimization, with initiation and uptitration of risk reduction and antianginal therapy. At the prerandomization stage, the median number of antianginals established was 3 (interquartile range, 2–4). A total of 195 patients (97.5%) reached the prespecified target of ≥2 antianginals; 136 (68.0%) did not stop any antianginals because of adverse effects, and the median number of antianginals stopped for adverse effects per patient was 0 (interquartile range, 0–1). Amlodipine and bisoprolol were well tolerated (stopped for adverse effects in 4/175 [2.3%] and 9/167 [5.4%], respectively). Ranolazine and ivabradine were also well tolerated (stopped for adverse effects in 1/20 [5.0%] and 1/18 [5.6%], respectively). Isosorbide mononitrate and nicorandil were stopped for adverse effects in 36 of 172 (20.9%) and 32 of 141 (22.7%) of patients, respectively. Statins were well tolerated and taken by 191 of 200 (95.5%) patients.

Conclusions

In the 12‐week ORBITA trial period, medical therapy was successfully optimized and well tolerated, with few drug adverse effects leading to therapy cessation. Truly optimal medical therapy can be achieved in clinical trials, and translating this into longer‐term clinical practice should be a focus of future study.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02062593.

Stable ischemic heart disease: re-appraisal of coronary revascularization criteria in the light of contemporary evidence

The term "stable ischemic heart disease" includes a variety of clinical and pathophysiological situations resulting in different presentation modalities, often with complex referral patterns, and with multiple potential therapeutical options. Multifactorial pathogenesis and multiform expressivity are poorly captured by the traditional vision of ischemic heart disease (IHD) as the clogged pipes disease. The availability of different technologies for studying patients with symptoms suggestive of IHD, has shed a new light on the pathophysiology of the disease, but has also allowed appropriate follow-up of patients allocated to different therapeutical options. Though coronary revascularization has been one primary treatment option for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), the evidence for its efficacy in patients without acute presentation is far from optimal. A number of studies and meta-analyses strongly support the need for a personalized and optimized medical approach (including functional assessment and therapy) before the tailored option of revascularization in selected patients, in order to optimize its effects on symptoms and outcome. Most recent data have expanded the need for a more personalised approach to this complex situation, which should be patient-centered and not focused on technologies. In this review, we discuss the major pathophysiological factors and the most recent clinical data and guidelines suggestions, needed for a critical re-appraisal of the clinical decision-making to perform revascularization in patients with stable IHD. Moreover we aimed at suggesting the potential role for future studies to fill the existing knowledge gaps but also to counteract a reductive, hydraulic view of chronic IHD, which seems to be still alive and kicking, both in clinical and research communities, despite multiple evidences and recommendations.

[Should I treat a high-risk chronic coronary syndrome in an invasive way from the beginning? No, in most cases]

The definition of the high-risk chronic coronary syndrome varies depending on the noninvasive test used to trigger ischemia. The triggering occurs through increased myocardial work and oxygen demand, either through exercise or drugs. The initial approach to the chronic coronary syndrome leads us to discuss in which cases to prioritize an optimal initial medical therapy or to perform an initial invasive procedure of myocardial revascularization. In this article, we analyze both approaches based on previous studies carried out to date, where the initial invasive management has not been shown to be superior to initial optimal medical therapy in outcomes such as death or major adverse cardiovascular events.

COURAGE, ORBITA, and ISCHEMIA: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

This review article summarizes key landmark trials that have shaped understanding of the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The relationship between stenosis, ischemia, and angina is more complex than first imagined. Anginal relief remains the primary indication for PCI in stable CAD. The first placebo-controlled PCI trial showed a surprisingly small effect size, suggesting a significant placebo effect. PCI in stable CAD has not been shown to improve mortality or overall myocardial infarction rates, even in the presence of significant ischemia. Rather, risk reduction medical therapy remains the main intervention for improving outcomes.

Residual functional SYNTAX score by quantitative flow ratio and improvement of exercise capacity after revascularization

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the association between improvement in exercise capacity and functional completeness of revascularization, determined by residual functional SYNTAX score (rFSS), which is the sum of residual SYNTAX score of the vessels with post- percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) quantitative flow ratio (QFR) ≤0.80.

BACKGROUND

In patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD), the efficacy of PCI in improving exercise capacity has been under debate and the differential effect of PCI for exercise capacity, according to functional completeness of revascularization, has not been evaluated.

METHODS

Among patients enrolled in the QFR multicenter registry, 110 patients who underwent routine exercise treadmill tests before and after PCI were analyzed. Patients were classified into functional complete revascularization (CR) group (rFSS = 0) and functional incomplete revascularization (IR) group (rFSS ≥ 1). Increase of exercise time after PCI was compared between the two groups. Improvement of exercise capacity was defined as ≥10% increase of exercise time after PCI.

RESULTS

Functional CR was achieved in 79 patients (71.8%), otherwise classified as functional IR in 31 patients (28.2%) without differences in baseline characteristics including medication profiles. Increase of exercise time was significantly associated with increase of 3-vessel QFR (sum of QFRs in all three vessels; r = .198, p = .038) and rFSS (r = -.312, p < .001), but not with decrease of SYNTAX score (r = .097, p = .313). The rFSS showed significantly higher c-index to predict the improvement of exercise capacity after PCI than increase of 3-vessel QFR or decrease of SYNTAX score (0.722 vs. 0.627 vs. 0.492, respectively, p < 0.001). Patients with functional CR, defined by rFSS, showed significantly higher absolute and relative increase in exercise time than those with functional IR (97.7 s vs. 12.5 s, p < .001; 25.4% vs. 3.6%, p = .001). Functional CR was an independent predictor for improvement of exercise capacity after PCI (adjusted OR 4.656, 95% CI 1.678-12.920, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated anatomic and functional scoring system (rFSS) was significantly associated with improvement of exercise capacity after PCI. SIHD patients with functional CR, defined by rFSS, showed significantly higher exercise capacity after PCI than those with functional IR.

Routine Revascularization Versus Initial Medical Therapy for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Revascularization is often performed in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, whether revascularization reduces death and other cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted PUBMED/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches for randomized trials comparing routine revascularization versus an initial conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The primary outcome was death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, stroke, unstable angina, and freedom from angina. Trials were stratified by percent stent use and by percent statin use to evaluate outcomes in contemporary trials.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized clinical trials that enrolled 14 877 patients followed up for a weighted mean of 4.5 years with 64 678 patient-years of follow-up fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most trials enrolled patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function and low symptom burden, and excluded patients with left main disease. Revascularization compared with medical therapy alone was not associated with a reduced risk of death (relative risk [RR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90-1.09]). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary, indicating firm evidence for lack of a 10% or greater reduction in death. Revascularization was associated with a reduced nonprocedural MI (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.85]) but also with increased procedural MI (RR, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.86-3.31]) with no difference in overall MI (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83-1.03]). A significant reduction in unstable angina (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45-0.92]) and increase in freedom from angina (RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.15]) was also observed with revascularization. There were no treatment-related differences in the risk of heart failure or stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, routine revascularization was not associated with improved survival but was associated with a lower risk of nonprocedural MI and unstable angina with greater freedom from angina at the expense of higher rates of procedural MI. Longer-term follow-up of trials is needed to assess whether reduction in these nonfatal spontaneous events improves long-term survival.

Association between procedure appropriateness and patient-reported outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

The Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) has been used to identify individuals who are likely to benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable ischaemic heart disease. However, whether physicians reliably grade PCI appropriateness and whether AUC categories stratify symptomatic improvement in real-world practice are unclear.

METHODS

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for angina (Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7)), dyspnoea (Rose Dyspnea Scale (RDS)) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2)) were collected on patients undergoing elective coronary angiography at an academic medical centre. Retrospectively, two physicians independently determined PCI appropriateness by the AUC criteria.

RESULTS

Inter-rater agreement on appropriateness was moderate (κ=0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.63). Of PCI procedures evaluated, 57 (47.1%) were appropriate (A-PCI), 62 (51.2%) were maybe appropriate (MA-PCI) and 2 (1.6%) were rarely appropriate. At baseline, A-PCI compared with MA-PCI patients had worse RDS scores (2.0 vs 1.2, p=0.01). At 30 days, the change in SAQ-7 summary score was similar between groups (A-PCI vs MA-PCI, +27.1 vs +20.7, p=0.11). The mean change in RDS score was greater in A-PCI than MA-PCI (-1.0 vs -0.5, p for group by time interaction=0.03). PHQ-2 scores were similar and did not improve at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing PCI with PROMs collected before and 30 days after PCI, similar improvements in angina were observed regardless of appropriateness. Inter-rater agreement on PCI appropriateness was only moderate. Use of PROMs may improve reliability of physician assessments of PCI appropriateness.

Effects of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Death and Myocardial Infarction Stratified by Stable and Unstable Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

In patients presenting with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces mortality when compared with fibrinolysis. In other forms of coronary artery disease (CAD), however, it has been controversial whether PCI reduces mortality. In this meta-analysis, we examine the benefits of PCI in (1) patients post–myocardial infarction (MI) who did not receive immediate revascularization; (2) patients who have undergone primary PCI for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction but have residual coronary lesions; (3) patients who have suffered a non–ST-segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome; and (4) patients with truly stable CAD with no recent infarct. This analysis includes data from the recently presented International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) and Complete versus Culprit-Only Revascularization Strategies to Treat Multivessel Disease after Early PCI for STEMI (COMPLETE) trials.