Why the study?
There is no consensus among experts about the indications for coronary revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease, and contemporary data conflict with current European guidelines.
Does coronary revascularization improve prognosis and symptoms in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Does coronary revascularization improve prognosis and symptoms in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Hazard Ratio: 0.93 (95% CI 0.8–1.08)
p-value: p=0.34
This review highlights that contemporary data from the ISCHEMIA trial regarding revascularization in stable CAD conflict with current European guidelines.
May support conservative management in stable CAD; challenges European guidelines and leaves open symptom-focused questions.
Coronary revascularization is one of the most studied treatment modalities in cardiology; however, there is no consensus among experts about its indications in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD). Contemporary data regarding the role of revascularization in SCAD are in clear conflict with the current European guidelines. This article discusses the main statements of the most significant American and European Guidelines on myocardial revascularization of the last decade and also analyzes the appropriateness of revascularization to improve the prognosis and symptoms in SCAD in the light of new research data, primarily the ISCHEMIA study (NCT01471522) and the ACC/AHA 2021 Revascularization Guidelines based on them. Data on the revascularization in SCAD obtained after the completion of ISCHEMIA (including the interim analysis of ISCHEMIA-EXTEND) and their potential significance are discussed. The results of ISCHEMIA sub-analyses in the most important "controversial" subgroups (3-vessel disease, proximal left anterior descending artery disease, strongly positive stress test, etc.) are reviewed, as are the results of the ISCHEMIA-CKD substudy in patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bershtein et al. (2023) conducted a review in Stable coronary artery disease (n=5,179). Invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization) vs. Conservative strategy (optimal medical therapy) was evaluated on Composite of death from cardiovascular causes, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80-1.08, p=0.34).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: