Advertisement

How and When to Decide on Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

  • Alicia Mecklai
  • Sripal Bangalore
  • Judith Hochman
Coronary Artery Disease (PG Steg, Section Editor)

Opinion statement

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.

Keywords

Ischemia Optimal medical therapy Revascularization Stable ischemic heart disease 

Notes

Disclosure

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

  1. 1.
    Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125:e2–e220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index2.html. Accessed August 2012.
  3. 3.
    Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival data. Circulation. 1983;68:939–50.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Varnauskas E. Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European Coronary Surgery Study. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:332–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Serruys PW, Kutryk MJ, Ong AT. Coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:483–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feldman DN, Gade CL, Slotwiner AJ, et al. Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in patients of three age groups (<60, 60 to 80, and >80years) (from the New York State Angioplasty Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:1334–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty vs intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet. 2003;361:13–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;366:1267–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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
  12. 12.
    Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985;27:335–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet. 1994;344:563–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 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
  16. 16.
    Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, et al. Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:677–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dagenais GR, Lu J, Faxon DP, et al. Effects of optimal medical treatment with or without coronary revascularization on angina and subsequent revascularizations in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2011;123:1492–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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
  20. 20.
    Bonow RO, Maurer G, Lee KL, et al. Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1617–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaw LJ, Weintraub WS, Maron DJ, et al. Baseline stress myocardial perfusion imaging results and outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2012;164:243–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:221–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents vs standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1315–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kedhi E, Joesoef KS, McFadden E, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomized trial. Lancet. 2010;375:201–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stone GW, Rizvi A, Newman W, et al. Everolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1663–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007;370:937–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117,762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012;125:2873–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chaitman BR, Pepine CJ, Parker JO, et al. Effects of ranolazine with atenolol, amlodipine, or diltiazem on exercise tolerance and angina frequency in patients with severe chronic angina: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291:309–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stone PH, Gratsiansky NA, Blokhin A, Huang IZ, Meng L. Antianginal efficacy of ranolazine when added to treatment with amlodipine: the ERICA (Efficacy of Ranolazine in Chronic Angina) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:566–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Design and rationale of the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive DruG Evaluation (COURAGE) trial Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program no. 424. Am Heart J. 2006;151:1173–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spertus JA. Predictors and outcomes of optimal medically-treated COURAGE patients who crossed over to coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:A264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 33.
    Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2501–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mancini GB, Bates ER, Maron DJ, et al. Quantitative results of baseline angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in the COURAGE trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcome. 2009;2:320–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. 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
  37. 37.
    Chan PS, Patel MR, Klein LW, et al. Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2011;306:53–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hannan EL, Cozzens K, Samadashvili Z, et al. Appropriateness of coronary revascularization for patients without acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1870–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 40.
    Ahmed B, Dauerman HL, Piper WD, et al. Recent changes in practice of elective percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcome. 2011;4:300–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Borden WB, Redberg RF, Mushlin AI, Dai D, Kaltenbach LA, Spertus JA. Patterns and intensity of medical therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2011;305:1882–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. 43.
    Messerli FH, Grossman E. Beta-blocker therapy and depression. JAMA 2002;288:1845–6; author reply 1846.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lin GA, Dudley RA, Redberg RF. Cardiologists' use of percutaneous coronary interventions for stable coronary artery disease. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1604–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rothberg MB, Sivalingam SK, Ashraf J, et al. Patients' and cardiologists' perceptions of the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:307–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, et al. Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1117–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 48.
    Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ, et al. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2125–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Buda AJ, Macdonald IL, Anderson MJ, Strauss HD, David TE, Berman ND. Long-term results following coronary bypass operation. Importance of preoperative actors and complete revascularization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1981;82:383–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hannan EL, Racz M, Holmes DR, et al. Impact of completeness of percutaneous coronary intervention revascularization on long-term outcomes in the stent era. Circulation. 2006;113:2406–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Genereux P, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, et al. Quantification and Impact of Untreated Coronary Artery Disease After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Residual SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) Score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:2165–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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. 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. 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. 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
  56. 56.
    Bangalore S, Messerli FH. Is there an ischemic threshold beyond which percutaneous coronary intervention is beneficial in the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) Trial? Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:1495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. 58.
    Nallamothu N, Pancholy SB, Lee KR, Heo J, Iskandrian AS. Impact on exercise single-photon emission computed tomographic thallium imaging on patient management and outcome. J Nucl Cardiol. 1995;2:334–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bateman TM, O'Keefe Jr JH, Dong VM, Barnhart C, Ligon RW. Coronary angiographic rates after stress single-photon emission computed tomographic scintigraphy. J Nucl Cardiol. 1995;2:217–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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. 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
  62. 62.
    Berman DS, Kang X, Hayes SW, et al. Adenosine myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography in women compared with men. Impact of diabetes mellitus on incremental prognostic value and effect on patient management. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1125–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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. 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
  65. 65.
    Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Heller GV, et al. Noninvasive strategies for the estimation of cardiac risk in stable chest pain patients. The Economics of Noninvasive Diagnosis (END) Study Group. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Thomas GS, Miyamoto MI, Morello 3rd AP, et al. Technetium 99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging predicts clinical outcome in the community outpatient setting. The Nuclear Utility in the Community (NUC) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:213–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia Mecklai
    • 1
  • Sripal Bangalore
    • 2
  • Judith Hochman
    • 2
  1. 1.Leon Charney Division of CardiologyNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center, Leon Charney Division of CardiologyNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations