Abstract
Introduction: There has been a continuous debate about the survival benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the management of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate to severe ischemia. To address this, we performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing PCI plus MT vs. MT alone in stable CAD patients to evaluate endpoints of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and MI in a larger cohort of patients with objective evidence of myocardial ischemia. 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 (CAD) 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. Conclusions: Among patients with (CAD) 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.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call