Randomized trial investigates how baseline risk affects outcomes in patients receiving PCI or standard therapy, suggesting variability in treatment benefits.
Background Randomized trials have failed to show a consistent benefit of revascularization in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. This study aimed to investigate whether a participant’s baseline risk introduces heterogeneity in the treatment effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results The REVIVED-BCIS2 trial randomised 700 participants with ischaemic cardiomyopathy to PCI plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone, 263 (37.6%) of whom experienced the primary outcome (all-cause mortality or hospitalisation due to heart failure) during a median follow-up of 41 months. Pre-randomisation data were used to develop a prediction model for the primary outcome and evidence for heterogeneity of the trial intervention effect was investigated. The prediction model included 12 predictors and showed acceptable discrimination (C statistic: 0.69, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.72) and calibration (calibration slope: 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.95). Overall, there was no statistical evidence that the baseline risk score modified the trial intervention effect (pinteraction=0.21) on the primary outcome. For the secondary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation due to heart failure, weak evidence emerged that the baseline risk modified the trial intervention effect (pinteraction=0.044). Participants with lower baseline risk trended towards a greater benefit from PCI compared to participants with higher risk scores. Conclusion Baseline risk did not influence the effect of revascularisation in preventing all-cause mortality or hospitalisation due to heart failure. A trend was observed that lower baseline risk might be associated with more benefit of revascularisation in preventing cardiovascular death or hospitalisation due to heart failure. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01920048
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ovesen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: