Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is More Beneficial Than Optimal Medical Therapy in Elderly Patients with Angina Pectoris

Treatment Strategies for Chronic Coronary Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction or Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In this meta-analysis, we examine the advantages of invasive strategies for patients diagnosed with chronic coronary heart disease (CHD) and preserved left ventricular (LV) function, as well as those with significant LV systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction (EF) < 45%).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify all randomized trials directly comparing invasive strategies with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients diagnosed with chronic CHD. Data from these trials were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was the all-cause mortality, while secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization. This study was designed to assess the benefits of both invasive strategies and OMT in patients with preserved LV function and in those with LV systolic dysfunction. The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using the Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).

RESULTS

Twelve randomized studies enrolling 13,912 patients were included in the final analysis. Among the patients with chronic CHD and preserved LV systolic function, revascularization did not demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality (8.52% vs. 8.45%, p = 0.45), CV death (3.41% vs. 3.62%, p = 0.08), or the incidence of MI (9.88% vs. 10.49%, p = 0.47). However, the need for unplanned myocardial revascularization was significantly lower in the group following the initial invasive approach compared to patients undergoing OMT (14.75% vs. 25.72%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the invasive strategy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction. This approach demonstrated lower rates of all-cause mortality (40.61% vs. 46.52%, p = 0.004), CV death (28.75% vs. 35.82%, p = 0.0004), and MI (8.19% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals diagnosed with chronic CHD and preserved LV EF, the initial invasive approach did not demonstrate a clinical advantage over OMT. Conversely, in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction, myocardial revascularization was found to reduce the risks of CV events and enhance the overall outcomes. These findings hold significant clinical relevance for optimizing treatment strategies in patients with chronic CHD, contingent upon myocardial contractility status.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Not Superior to Optimal Medical Therapy in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis

(1) Background and Aim: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on survival and symptomatic relief of patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT). This meta-analysis is to evaluate the short- and long-term clinical benefit of PCI over and above OMT in CCS. (2) Methods: Main endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, stroke hospitalization, and quality of life (QoL). Clinical endpoints at very short (≤3 months), short- (<12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months) follow-up were evaluated. (3) Results: Fifteen RCTs with a total of 16,443 patients with CCS (PCI n = 8307 and OMT n = 8136) were included in the meta-analysis. At mean follow-up of 27.7 months, the PCI group had similar risk of MACE (18.2 vs. 19.2 %; p < 0.32), all-cause mortality (7.09 vs. 7.88%; p = 0.56), CV mortality (8.74 vs. 9.87%; p = 0.30), MI (7.69 vs. 8.29%; p = 0.32), revascularization (11.2 vs. 18.3%; p = 0.08), stroke (2.18 vs. 1.41%; p = 0.10), and hospitalization for anginal symptoms (13.5 vs. 13.9%; p = 0.69) compared with OMT. These results were similar at short- and long-term follow-up. At the very short-term follow-up, PCI patients had greater improvement in the QoL including physical limitation, angina frequency, stability, and treatment satisfaction (p < 0.05 for all) but such benefits disappeared at the long-term follow-up. (4) Conclusions: PCI treatment of CCS does not provide any long-term clinical benefit compared with OMT. These results should have significant clinical implications in optimizing patient's selection for PCI treatment.

Efficacy of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Cornary Intervention for Patients with Angina Pectoris

Evaluation of hemodynamic parameters, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), is recommended before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with angina pectoris (AP). However, the advantage of FFR-guided PCI has not been fully established. This study was performed to confirm whether FFR-guided PCI improves the prognosis compared with other treatments. Multiple databases were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2018, and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare outcomes of FFR-guided PCI, non-FFR-guided PCI, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and medical treatment (MT) for AP based on estimated odds ratios (ORs). The study included 18,093 patients from 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No evidence of inconsistency was observed among the studies. The NMA showed that the all-cause mortality of FFR-guided PCI was not significantly different from that of the other treatment groups (CABG: OR, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.7; non-FFR-guided PCI: OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.53-1.4; and MT: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.52-1.3). The NMA for the composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction, which included 15,454 patients from 12 RCTs, showed that FFR-guided PCI significantly reduced the composite outcome compared with non-FFR-guided PCI and MT (non-FFR-guided PCI: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95 and MT: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95). Although FFR-guided PCI for AP did not show significant prognostic improvement compared with non-FFR-guided PCI, CABG, and MT, FFR-guided PCI may significantly reduce the composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction compared with non-FFR-guided PCI and MT.

Optimal Medical Treatment vs. Invasive Approach in Patients with Significantly Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia

INTRODUCTION

Stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) is a condition that develops in subjects after myocardial infarction. Evidence suggests that optimal medical treatment (OMT) is not inferior to intervention (INT) using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

AIM

To compare clinical outcomes in subjects with SIHD who only received OMT and those who received INT+OMT.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined subjects with SIHD who underwent myocardial perfusion study-SPECT/CT in a reference center in Mexico. We assigned two branches: INT+OMT (subjects with previous PCI or CABG) and OMT (subjects with antiplatelet drugs, β-blockers, renin-angiotensin-system blockade, nitrates, calcium-channel blockers, and aggressive lipid-lowering therapy). Clinical outcomes at follow-up were angina relief, functional class improvement, hospitalization, myocardial reinfarction and death from any cause.

RESULTS

We included 100 subjects; 51 with OMT and 49 with INT+OMT. 54 subjects had 1 affected vessel and 46 more than 2. INT+OMT group had up to 14 fold likelihood (95% CI: 3.38-63.35) of achieving angina relief and 2.2 fold likelihood (95% CI: 0.92-5.57, p = 0.077) for functional class improvement. No differences were found in hospitalization, myocardial infarction and death from any cause compared to OMT.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with OMT have no higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes compared to INT+OMT. However, the INT+OMT provides angina relief and functional class improvement compared to OMT.

Management of stable angina pectoris in private healthcare settings in South Africa

Aim

Angina pectoris continues to affect multitudes of people around the world. In this study the management of stable angina pectoris in private healthcare settings in South Africa (SA) was investigated. In particular, we reviewed the frequency of medical versus surgical interventions when used as first-line therapy.

Methods

This was a retrospective inferential study carried out using records of patients in private healthcare settings. All cases that were authorised for reimbursement by medical aid schemes for revascularisation between 2009 and 2014 were retrieved and a database was created. Data were analysed using MicrosoftR Excel and GraphPad PrismR version 5. The differences (where applicable) were considered statistically significant if the p-value was ≤ 0.05.

Results

Nine hundred and twenty-two patients, consisting of 585 males (average age 64.7 years; SD 12.9) and 337 females (average age 65.5 years; SD 14.3), met the inclusion criteria. One hundred and seventy-eighty or 54%, 156 (43%) and 86 (63%) patients with hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes, respectively, were treated with surgery only. For these patients, percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) were significantly (p < 0.0001) preferred first-line interventions over optimal medical therapy (OMT). Four hundred and thirty-six or 47% of all patients studied were managed with surgery only, while only 25% (227) were managed with OMT. It took 60 months (five years) for patients who were treated with OMT before their first surgical intervention(s) to require the second revascularisation. About 71% of patients who received medical therapy were placed on only one drug, the so called sub-optimal medical therapy (SOMT).

Conclusion

The management of stable angina pectoris in private healthcare settings in SA is skewed towards surgical interventions as opposed to OMT. This is contrary to what consistent scientific evidence and international treatment guidelines suggest.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between the Right and Left Radial Artery Approaches from the Korean Transradial Coronary Intervention Registry

PURPOSE

Transradial intervention (TRI) shows anatomical and technical differences between the right radial approach (RRA) and left radial approach (LRA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety using LRA, compared with RRA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1653 consecutive patients who underwent TRI from November 2004 to October 2010 were enrolled in the Korean multicenter TRI registry. The patients were divided into two groups: the RRA group (n=792 patients) and the LRA group (n=861 patients). To adjust for any potential confounders, propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed (C-statistic: 0.726). After PSM, a total of 1100 patients were enrolled for analysis.

RESULTS

After PSM, the RRA group exhibited a larger contrast volume (259.3±119.6 mL vs. 227.0±90.7 mL, p<0.001), a longer fluoroscopic time (22.5±28.0 minutes vs. 17.1±12.6 minutes) and higher access site change (12.3% vs. 1.0%, p<0.001) than the LRA group. Meanwhile, the LRA group showed a shorter procedure time (49.2±30.4 minutes vs. 55.4±28.7 minutes, p=0.003) than the RRA group. After PSM, in-hospital complications and 12-month cumulative clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Of the two TRI methods, LRA was associated with better procedural efficacy, including shorter procedural time, smaller contrast volume, and less access site change than RRA. However, both methods showed similar 12-month cumulative clinical outcomes. Therefore, LRA was deemed superior to RRA in terms of procedural feasibility without a significant difference in clinical outcomes.