Impact of revascularisation on outcomes in chronic coronary syndromes: a new meta-analysis with the same old biases?

Optimizing Management of Stable Angina: A Patient-Centered Approach Integrating Revascularization, Medical Therapy, and Lifestyle Interventions

Angina pectoris may arise from obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) or in the absence of significant CAD (ischemia with nonobstructed coronary arteries [INOCA]). Therapeutic strategies for patients with angina and obstructive CAD focus on reducing cardiovascular events and relieving symptoms, whereas in INOCA the focus shifts toward managing functional alterations of the coronary circulation. In obstructive CAD, coronary revascularization might improve angina status, although a significant percentage of patients present angina persistence or recurrence, suggesting the presence of functional mechanisms along with epicardial CAD. In patients with INOCA, performing a precise endotype diagnosis is crucial to allow a tailored therapy targeted toward the specific pathogenic mechanism. In this expert opinion paper, we review the evidence for the management of angina, highlighting the complementary role of coronary revascularization, optimal medical therapy, and lifestyle interventions and underscoring the importance of a personalized approach that targets the underlying pathobiology.

Variation in Health Status With Invasive vs Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

The ISCHEMIA trial found that patients with chronic coronary disease randomized to invasive strategy had better health status than those randomized to conservative strategy. It is unclear how best to translate these population-level results to individual patients.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to identify patient characteristics associated with health status from invasive and conservative strategies, and develop a prediction algorithm for shared decision-making.

METHODS

One-year disease-specific health status was assessed in ISCHEMIA with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Summary Score (SAQ SS) and Angina Frequency, Physical Limitations (PL), and Quality of Life (QL) domains (range 0-100, higher = less angina/better health status).

RESULTS

Among 4,617 patients from 320 sites in 37 countries, mean SAQ SS was 74.1 ± 18.9 at baseline and 85.7 ± 15.6 at 1 year. Lower baseline SAQ SS and younger age were associated with better 1-year health status with invasive strategy (P interaction = 0.009 and P interaction = 0.004, respectively). For the individual domains, there were significant treatment interactions for baseline SAQ score (Angina Frequency, PL), age (PL, QL), anterior ischemia (PL), and number of baseline antianginal medications (QL), with more benefit of invasive in patients with worse baseline health status, younger age, anterior ischemia, and on more antianginal medications. Parsimonious prediction models were developed for 1-year SAQ domains with invasive or conservative strategies to support shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

In the management of chronic coronary disease, individual patient characteristics are associated with 1-year health status, with younger age and poorer angina-related health status showing greater benefit from invasive management. This prediction algorithm can support the translation of the ISCHEMIA trial results to individual patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Why percutaneous revascularisation might not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and mortality in patients with stable CAD?

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is widely adopted to treat chronic coronary artery disease. Numerous randomised trials have been conducted to test whether PCI may provide any prognostic advantage over oral medical therapy (OMT) alone, without definitive results. This has maintained the paradigm of OMT as the first-line standard of care for patients, reserving PCI for symptom control. In this review, we discuss the current evidence in favour and against PCI in stable coronary syndromes and highlight the pitfalls of the available studies. We offer a critical appraisal of the possible reasons why the existing data does not provide evidence supporting the role of PCI in improving clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary syndromes.

Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis

The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.

The Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

The first coronary artery bypass operation (CABG) was performed on May 2, 1960. The first percutaneous coro - nary intervention (PCI) was performed almost 20 years later. Since then, the invasive treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) has moved into the spotlight of cardiac medical care.

METHODS

We summarize the current status of medical and invasive CAD treatment through a selective review of the literature.

RESULTS

More than 800 000 patients currently undergo invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for CAD in Germany each year. The number of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures rose to 65 000/year by the turn of the millennium and has been declining since then. In contrast, the number of PCIs in Germany rose to approximately 350 000/year by 2017, and a beginning decline is being observed at present. This development occurred even though, for elective patients, a survival advantage from an invasive procedure compared to medical therapy has been shown in direct comparison only for CABG.

CONCLUSION

Conservative treatment is always the baseline treatment and has undergone major advances in the last few decades. Moreover, non-invasive coronary evaluation with computed tomography, as well as non-invasive cardiac stress imaging studies, are increasingly replacing primary invasive coronary evaluations. In this review, we illustrate a mechanistic concept of the appropriate use of CABG and PCI that can improve patient care, while underscoring the importance of interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration.

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.

Optimal Medical Therapy as First-Line Therapy for Chronic Coronary Syndromes: Lessons from COURAGE, BARI 2D, FAME 2, and ISCHEMIA

The chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) include patients with a classic history of angina pectoris in the presence of either risk factors for or known atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Randomized, controlled trials conducted in the optimal medical therapy (OMT) era have convincingly demonstrated that adherence to the outdated paradigm focused on treatment of obstructive coronary disease with initial revascularization fails to reduce death or myocardial infarction and inconsistently reduces angina symptoms. Rather, OMT reduces events and improves symptoms and should be considered first-line treatment for patients with CCS.