How and When to Decide on Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease
Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. While an invasive strategy of early revascularization reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes, there is no convincing evidence that this strategy leads to an incremental survival advantage for patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) beyond that achieved by optimal medical therapy. Two landmark trials, COURAGE and BARI 2D, suggest that a strategy of aggressive medical therapy is a reasonable initial approach to such patients. However, there remain certain groups of patients, those with at least moderate ischemia on baseline stress testing, where there is still clinical equipoise. Major society guidelines favor revascularization based on observational data and trials of CABG conducted decades ago, yet data from modern randomized trials are lacking. Ongoing trials such as ISCHEMIA should provide clinicians with evidence to guide selection of the appropriate initial management strategy for patients with SIHD.
KeywordsIschemia Optimal medical therapy Revascularization Stable ischemic heart disease
A. Mecklai: none. S. Bangalore: Consultancy for Daiichii Sankyo and Boehringer Ingelheim, travel/accommodations expenses covered or reimbursed by Pfizer; J. Hochman: Consultancy for Eli Lilly and Company and Glaxo Smith Kline.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance: •• Of major importance
- 2.World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index2.html. Accessed August 2012.
- 3.Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival data. Circulation. 1983;68:939–50.Google Scholar
- 4.Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina. The Veterans Administration Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:1333–9.Google Scholar
- 10.Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002;324:71–86.Google Scholar
- 11.Al-Mallah MH, Tleyjeh IM, Abdel-Latif AA, Weaver WD. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in coronary artery disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1576–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.••Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–16. The COURAGE trial included 2287 patients with stable angina or ischemia with anatomy suitable for PCI, assigned to undergo PCI with OMT or OMT alone. At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome of death and MI.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.••Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2503–15. BARI 2D included 2368 patients with type 2 diabetes and investigated whether PCI or CABG was better than OMT alone. At 5 years, the rate of the primary outcome, death from any cause, did not differ significantly between the revascularization group and the medical-therapy groupGoogle Scholar
- 18.•Pursnani S, Korley F, Gopaul R. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy in stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Circ Cardiovasc Intervent 2012;5(4):476–90. A meta-analysis of clinical trials randomizing those with SIHD to either PCI and medical therapy or medical therapy alone included 12 trials for a total of 7182 participants. The analysis found no difference in mortality, cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, or need for symptom driven subsequent revascularization. In the anlaysis, PCI was associated with a greater freedom from angina compared with medical therapy.Google Scholar
- 19.••Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1607–16. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial found no overall difference in the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, between CABG vs medical therapy alone in patients previously considered to be a subgroup at high risk of death (those with an ejection fraction ≤ 35 % and coronary artery disease).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.••Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44–e122. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2011 guidelines for revascularization.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness criteria for coronary revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:530–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 Appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:857–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Maron DJ, Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, et al. Intensive multifactorial intervention for stable coronary artery disease: optimal medical therapy in the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1348–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. MRC Working Party. BMJ. 1992;304:405–12.Google Scholar
- 43.Messerli FH, Grossman E. Beta-blocker therapy and depression. JAMA 2002;288:1845–6; author reply 1846.Google Scholar
- 47.•Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–72. This article discusses the SYNTAX score, an anatomic scoring system based on the coronary angiogram, which predicts outcomes after PCI in patients with multivessel disease and/or left main disease and helps guide the method of revascularization.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.••Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, et al. Angiographic vs functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve vs angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2816–21. The FAME trial randomly assigned 1005 patients with multivessel coronary disease to anatomically complete revascularization (PCI of lesions >50 % in adequately sized vessels) vs physiologically driven revascularization (fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.80). Stenting only those stenoses with FFR ≤ 0.80 yielded better clinical outcomes than stenting all angiographically severe lesions.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:177–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B,. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI vs medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):991–1001.Google Scholar
- 55.Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation. 2003;107:2900–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117:1283–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 60.Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, et al. The economic consequences of available diagnostic and prognostic strategies for the evaluation of stable angina patients: an observational assessment of the value of precatheterization ischemia. Economics of Noninvasive Diagnosis (END) Multicenter Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:661–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Hachamovitch RJJ, Hlatky MA, et al. Short-term referral rates to catheterization after noninvasive cardiac imaging: Results from the study of myocardial perfusion and coronary anatomy imaging roles in cad (sparc) trial 90day follow-up. Circulation. 2009;120:S486.Google Scholar
- 63.Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography is clinically effective and cost effective in risk stratification of patients with a high likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) but no known CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:200–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 64.Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, et al. Is there a referral bias against catheterization of patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction? Influence of ejection fraction and inducible ischemia on post-single-photon emission computed tomography management of patients without a history of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1286–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 67.International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) home page. Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01471522, NIH Grant: 1U01HL105907. Accessed August 2012.
- 68.Smith Jr SC, Benjamin EJ, Bonow RO, et al. AHA/ACCF Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients with Coronary and other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2011;124:2458–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar