Background: There has been a continuous debate about the survival benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) and moderate to severe ischemia. In this study we aimed to summarize the currently available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PCI versus medical therapy (MT) for patients with SIHD.
Methods: An electronic database search was conducted for RCTs that compared PCI on top of MT versus MT alone. A random effects model was used to calculate relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results: A total of 7 RCTs with 10,043 patients with a mean age of 62.54 ± 1.56 years and a median follow up of 3.9 years were identified. Among patients with SIHD and moderate to severe ischemia by stress testing, PCI didn't show any benefit for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality compared to MT(RR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.646-1.12; p = 0.639). There was also no benefit in cardiovascular (CV) death (RR = 0.88 ; 95% CI 0.71-1.09; p = 0.18) or myocardial infarction (MI) (RR = 0.271; 95% CI 0.782-1.087; P = 0.327) in the PCI group as compared to MT.
Conclusion: Among patients with SIHD and evidence of moderate to severe ischemia by stress testing, PCI on top of MT appears to add no mortality benefit as compared to with MT alone.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.