Key result
An initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce the 5-year risk of ischemic events compared to a conservative strategy in the overall population of patients with stable coronary artery disease (HR 0.83), though benefits were observed in a moderate-to-high-risk subset.
Why the study?
Whether PCI improves long-term prognosis compared to conservative treatment in stable coronary artery disease patients remains controversial.
Does an initial invasive strategy (PCI) reduce ischemic events at 5 years in patients with stable coronary artery disease compared to conservative treatment?
Observational (n=3,045)
Yes
Does an initial invasive strategy (PCI) reduce ischemic events at 5 years in patients with stable coronary artery disease compared to conservative treatment?
An initial invasive strategy with PCI does not improve long-term ischemic outcomes in the overall population of patients with stable coronary artery disease but may offer significant benefit in those at moderate-to-high risk.
BACKGROUND: Whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve the long-term prognosis of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) in comparison to conservative treatment remains controversial. The present study sought to evaluate the impacts of initial invasive versus conservative strategy on long-term clinical outcomes for patients with SCAD stratified by risk scores. METHODS: This was a sub-analysis of the multicenter, observational Optimal antiPlatelet Therapy for Chinese patients with Coronary Artery Disease (OPT-CAD) study. Clinical outcomes were compared in SCAD patients who initially received PCI (invasive strategy) or conservative treatment according to risk stratification by OPT-CAD score. The primary outcome was ischemic events at 5 years, composed of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5, and 3 or 5 bleeding. RESULTS: The conservative group comprised 1767 (58.0%) patients and the invasive group comprised 1278 (42.0%) patients. Overall, invasive strategy did not reduce the risk of ischemic events compared with conservative strategy but was associated with an increased risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.26; P = 0.009). Similar results were observed in the low-risk patient subset (N = 2030). While in the moderate-to-high-risk subset (N = 1015), invasive strategy was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic events (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95; P = 0.02) and all-cause death (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; P = 0.07), and with no excessive risk of bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive strategy could not confer additional clinical benefits in patients with SCAD compared to conservative strategy, except in patients at moderate-to-high risk. The OPT-CAD risk score may be valuable to the guidance of optimal treatment strategy in SCAD patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qi et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) (n=3,045). Invasive strategy (percutaneous coronary intervention) vs. Conservative strategy (medical therapy alone) was evaluated on Ischemic events at 5 years (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke) (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67-1.04, p=0.11). An initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce the 5-year risk of ischemic events compared to a conservative strategy in the overall population of patients with stable coronary artery disease (HR 0.83), though benefits were observed in a moderate-to-high-risk subset.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: