Coronary revascularisation after stress CMR in primary prevention patients with inducible ischaemia was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.26-0.39; p<0.001).
Cohort (n=36,778)
Yes
Does coronary revascularisation improve all-cause mortality in primary prevention patients with inducible ischaemia on stress CMR?
Coronary revascularisation in primary prevention patients with inducible ischaemia on stress CMR is associated with significantly improved long-term survival.
Hazard Ratio: 0.32 (95% CI 0.26–0.39)
p-value: p=<0.001
Abstract Background The impact of coronary revascularisation after stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with no prior cardiovascular history remains controversial. Purpose To evaluate the long-term prognostic impact of coronary revascularisation after stress CMR on all-cause mortality in all consecutive primary prevention patients without prior cardiovascular disease from a multicentre study. Methods From 2008 to 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing stress CMR for primary prevention, without prior cardiovascular disease, were included from three French centres. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality ascertained through the French National Registry of Death. Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the prognostic value of myocardial ischaemia and stress CMR guided revascularisation. Results A total of 36,778 patients were included (mean age 64±12 years, 68% male). Over a median follow-up of 7.2 years (interquartile range IQR 3-11 years), 2,102 deaths (5.7%) occurred. Inducible ischaemia was detected in 5,232 (14.2%) patients referred for primary prevention stress-CMR, of whom 4,661 (89%) underwent coronary revascularisation (Figure 1A). Patients who underwent revascularisation after stress CMR were younger (63 vs 64 years), but had similar traditional cardiovascular risk factors, LVEF and number of inducible ischaemic segments. After adjustment for traditional prognosticators, inducible ischaemia was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio [HR 3.72, 95% confidence interval CI 3.18-4.35, p0.001). In multivariable analysis, revascularisation after stress CMR was an independent predictor of improved survival in the ischaemic population (HR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26–0.39, p0.001). Revascularisation after stress CMR was associated with a significantly improved survival rate in patients with a low amount of inducible ischaemia (1-4 segments) and in patients with a high inducible amount of ischaemia (5-8 segments) (HR 0.29; 99% CI 0.20-0.41, p0.001 and OR 0.21; 99% CI 0.15-0.30, p0.001 respectively). Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to revascularisation after stress CMR assessment are shown in Figure 1B. Conclusion In this multicentre registry of consecutive primary prevention patients without prior cardiovascular disease referred for stress CMR, coronary revascularisation was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality.
Hudelo et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Primary prevention without prior cardiovascular disease (n=36,778). Coronary revascularisation vs. No revascularisation was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.26-0.39, p=<0.001). Coronary revascularisation after stress CMR in primary prevention patients with inducible ischaemia was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.26-0.39; p<0.001).