Key result
PCI shows no long-term mortality benefit over medical therapy in stable CAD with LVEF ≤35%.
Why the study?
The role of PCI in patients with stable CAD and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction needed to be better understood.
Does percutaneous coronary intervention reduce mortality and hospitalizations in patients with stable coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% compared to medical therapy alone?
Cohort (n=901)
No
Does percutaneous coronary intervention reduce mortality and hospitalizations in patients with stable coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% compared to medical therapy alone?
Effect estimate: HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.68-1.10)
Absolute Event Rate: 58% vs 56%
In patients with stable coronary artery disease and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, adding PCI to medical therapy did not significantly improve long-term mortality or cardiovascular hospitalizations.
No mortality or hospitalization benefit with added PCI; leaves open whether RCTs would alter management in severe LV dysfunction.
AIMS: We sought to better understand the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease, we analysed patients who underwent coronary angiography at Duke University Medical Center (1995-2012) that had stable CAD amenable to PCI and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III or IV angina were excluded. We used propensity-matched Cox proportional hazards to evaluate the association of PCI with mortality and hospitalizations. Of 901 patients, 259 were treated with PCI and 642 with medical therapy. PCI propensity scores created from 24 variables were used to assemble a matched cohort of 444 patients (222 pairs) receiving PCI or medical therapy alone. Over a median follow-up of 7 years, 128 (58%) PCI and 125 (56%) medical therapy alone patients died [hazard ratio 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.68, 1.10)]; there was also no difference in the rate of a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization [hazard ratio 1.18 (95% confidence interval 0.96, 1.44)] between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this well-profiled, propensity-matched cohort of patients with stable CAD amenable to PCI and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, the addition of PCI to medical therapy did not improve long-term mortality, or the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. The impact of PCI on other outcomes in these high-risk patients requires further study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DeVore et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Stable coronary artery disease and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (n=901). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. Medical therapy alone was evaluated on Mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68-1.10). Percutaneous coronary intervention did not improve long-term mortality compared to medical therapy alone in patients with stable CAD and LVEF ≤35% (58% vs 56%; HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.68-1.10).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: