BMJ open 2017 08 117(8) e016169 doi 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016169
In stable coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary revascularisation may reduce mortality of patients with a certain amount of left ventricular myocardial ischaemia. However, revascularisation does not always follow the guidance suggested by ischaemia testing. We compared outcomes in patients without ischaemia who had either revascularisation or medical treatment.
DESIGN AND POPULATION
Based on registries, 1327 consecutive patients with normal myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) and 278 with fixed perfusion defects were followed for a median of 6.1 years. Most patients received medical therapy alone (Med), but 26 (2%) with a normal MPS and 15 (5%) with fixed perfusion defects underwent revascularisation (Revasc).
Incidence rates of all-cause death (ACD) and rates of cardiac death/myocardial infarction (CD/MI).
With a normal MPS, the ACD rate was 6.2%/year in the Revasc group versus 1.9%/year in the Med group (p=0.01); the CD/MI rates were 6.9%/year and 0.6%/year, respectively (p<0.00001). Results persisted after adjustment for predictors of revascularisation, in particular angina score, and in comparisons of matched Revasc and Med patients. With fixed defects, the ACD rate was 9.1%/year in the Revasc group and 6.7%/year in the Med group (p=0.44); the CD/MI rate was 5.0%/year versus 4.2%/year, respectively (p=0.69). If adjusted for angiographic variables or analysed in matched subsets, differences remained insignificant. CONCLUSIONS
With normal MPS, revascularisation conferred a higher risk, even after adjustment for predictors of revascularisation. With fixed defects, the Revascversus Med difference was close to equipoise. Hence, in patients with stable CAD without ischaemia, we could not find evidence to justify exceptional revascularisation.