Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease

Background In patients with both heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and coronary artery disease (CAD), whether adopting an initial invasive strategy benefits better in clinical outcomes compared with those who received an initial conservative strategy remains inconclusive. Methods With data from the heart failure (HF) cohort study, we analyzed patients who had HFpEF and CAD amenable to the invasive intervention using propensity score matching of 1:1 ratio to compare the initial invasive strategy and the initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone. The primary outcome was the composite endpoints of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. Results Of 1,718 patients, 706 were treated with the invasive strategy and 1,012 with the conservative strategy initially. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a matched cohort of 1,320 patients receiving the invasive intervention (660 patients) or the medical therapy alone (660 patients). With a follow-up of 5 years, 378 (57.3%) in the invasive-strategy group and 403 (61.1%) in the conservative-strategy group reached the primary endpoint, and there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary endpoint (P = 0.162). The initial invasive strategy only improved the secondary outcome of cardiovascular hospitalization (P = 0.035). Also, the multivariable Cox regression model revealed that antiplatelet therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB), or statin prescription was associated with a decreased risk of the primary outcome. Conclusion In this well-profiled, propensity-matched cohort of patients with HFpEF and CAD, the addition of invasive intervention to medical therapy did not improve the long-term composite of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization.