An invasive strategy of myocardial revascularization has not been clearly shown in the literature to be superior to a conservative strategy of optimized medical therapy for death and MI.
Does a conservative strategy of optimized medical therapy improve or maintain similar outcomes compared to an invasive strategy of myocardial revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Current literature suggests that a conservative strategy of optimized medical therapy yields similar prognostic outcomes to an invasive strategy in stable coronary artery disease, except in cases of left main disease.
Patients with coronary artery disease vary widely in terms of prognosis, which is mainly dependent on ventricular function. In relation to the major outcomes of death and myocardial infarction, it is not clear in the literature if an invasive strategy of myocardial revascularization is superior to a conservative strategy of optimized medical therapy. Moreover, with the exception of patients with left main coronary disease, this similarity in prognosis also occurs in different subgroups of patients.
Paulo Cury Rezende (Thu,) conducted a review in stable coronary artery disease. Conservative strategy of optimized medical therapy vs. Invasive strategy of myocardial revascularization was evaluated on death and myocardial infarction. An invasive strategy of myocardial revascularization has not been clearly shown in the literature to be superior to a conservative strategy of optimized medical therapy for death and MI.