Invasive strategies reduced all-cause mortality by 6% in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction compared to optimal medical therapy (40.61% vs. 46.52%, p = 0.004).
Does an invasive strategy reduce all-cause mortality compared to optimal medical therapy in patients with chronic coronary heart disease with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction?
An initial invasive strategy reduces mortality and cardiovascular events in chronic coronary heart disease patients with LV systolic dysfunction, but offers no survival advantage over optimal medical therapy in those with preserved ejection fraction.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
In this meta-analysis, we examine the advantages of invasive strategies for patients diagnosed with chronic coronary heart disease (CHD) and preserved left ventricular (LV) function, as well as those with significant LV systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction (EF) < 45%). Material and methods: We conducted a systematic search to identify all randomized trials directly comparing invasive strategies with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients diagnosed with chronic CHD. Data from these trials were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was the all-cause mortality, while secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization. This study was designed to assess the benefits of both invasive strategies and OMT in patients with preserved LV function and in those with LV systolic dysfunction. The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using the Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). Results: Twelve randomized studies enrolling 13,912 patients were included in the final analysis. Among the patients with chronic CHD and preserved LV systolic function, revascularization did not demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality (8.52% vs. 8.45%, p = 0.45), CV death (3.41% vs. 3.62%, p = 0.08), or the incidence of MI (9.88% vs. 10.49%, p = 0.47). However, the need for unplanned myocardial revascularization was significantly lower in the group following the initial invasive approach compared to patients undergoing OMT (14.75% vs. 25.72%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the invasive strategy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction. This approach demonstrated lower rates of all-cause mortality (40.61% vs. 46.52%, p = 0.004), CV death (28.75% vs. 35.82%, p = 0.0004), and MI (8.19% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: In individuals diagnosed with chronic CHD and preserved LV EF, the initial invasive approach did not demonstrate a clinical advantage over OMT. Conversely, in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction, myocardial revascularization was found to reduce the risks of CV events and enhance the overall outcomes. These findings hold significant clinical relevance for optimizing treatment strategies in patients with chronic CHD, contingent upon myocardial contractility status.
Голухова et al. (Mon,) reported a other. Invasive strategies reduced all-cause mortality by 6% in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction compared to optimal medical therapy (40.61% vs. 46.52%, p = 0.004).