Key result
PCI shows no benefit over OMT for MACE in chronic coronary syndrome.
Why the study?
Conflicting evidence exists regarding the benefits of PCI on survival and symptomatic relief compared with optimal medical therapy in patients with chronic coronary syndrome.
Does percutaneous coronary intervention reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome compared to optimal medical therapy?
Meta-Analysis (n=16,443)
Does percutaneous coronary intervention reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome compared to optimal medical therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: 18.2% vs 19.2%
p-value: p=< 0.32
PCI does not provide long-term clinical or symptomatic benefit over optimal medical therapy in patients with chronic coronary syndrome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports optimal medical therapy first in chronic coronary syndrome; confirms prior randomized evidence against routine PCI for MACE reduction.
Bytyçi et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) (n=16,443). percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. optimal medical therapy (OMT) was evaluated on major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (p=< 0.32). Percutaneous coronary intervention was not superior to optimal medical therapy in chronic coronary syndrome, with similar risk of MACE (18.2% vs. 19.2%; p<0.32) at a mean follow-up of 27.7 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: