Key result
Coronary revascularization shows no survival benefit over conservative management in ischemic heart failure.
Why the study?
The outcomes of coronary revascularization in heart failure patients with coronary artery disease remain unclear and are still debated.
Does coronary revascularization reduce all-cause mortality in patients with ischemic heart failure compared to conservative management?
Cohort (n=692)
No
Does coronary revascularization reduce all-cause mortality in patients with ischemic heart failure compared to conservative management?
Absolute Event Rate: 22.2% vs 26.7%
p-value: p=0.140
In patients with ischemic heart failure, coronary revascularization did not significantly improve short-term survival compared to optimal medical therapy alone.
No survival benefit seen with revascularization in ischaemic HF outside ACS; leaves open optimal patient selection pending randomized data.
AIMS: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of heart failure (HF). It remains unclear who, when and why to direct towards coronary revascularization. The outcomes of coronary revascularization in HF patients are still a matter of debate nowadays. This study aims to evaluate the effect of revascularization strategy on all-cause of death in the context of ischaemic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: An observational cohort was conducted on 692 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography at the University Hospital of Toulouse between January 2018 and December 2021 for either a recent diagnosis of HF or a decompensated chronic HF, and in whom coronary angiograms showed at least 50% obstructive coronary lesion. The study population was divided into two groups according to the performance or not of a coronary revascularization procedure. The living status (alive or dead) of each of the study's participants was observed by April 2022. Seventy-three per cent of the study population underwent coronary revascularization either by percutaneous coronary intervention (66.6%) or coronary artery bypass grafting (6.2%). Baseline characteristics including age, sex and cardiovascular risk factors did not differ between the invasive and conservative groups, respectively. Death occurred in 162 study participants resulting in an all-cause mortality rate of 23.5%; 26.7% of observed deaths have occurred in the conservative group versus 22.2% in the invasive group (P = 0.208). No difference in survival outcomes has been observed over a mean follow-up period of 2.5 years (P = 0.140) even after stratification by HF categories (P = 0.132) or revascularization modalities (P = 0.366). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the present study showed comparable all-cause mortality rates between groups. Coronary revascularization does not modify short-term survival outcomes in HF patients compared with optimal medical therapy alone outside the setting of acute coronary syndrome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nader et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with coronary artery disease (n=692). Coronary revascularization vs. Conservative management (no revascularization) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (p=0.140). Coronary revascularization was not associated with improved survival compared to conservative management in patients with ischemic heart failure (mortality 22.2% vs 26.7%; P=0.140).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: