Comparison of patients undergoing enhanced external counterpulsation and percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina pectoris

Abstract

Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) has recently emerged as a treatment option for angina in selected patients suitable for revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared baseline characteristics and 1-year outcome in 2 cohorts of PCI candidates presenting with stable symptoms: 323 patients treated with EECP in the International EECP Patient Registry (IEPR), and 448 NHLBI Dynamic Registry patients treated with elective PCI. Compared with patients receiving PCI, IEPR patients had a higher prevalence of many risk factors including prior PCI (53.0% vs 33.3%, p <0.001), prior coronary artery bypass grafting (42.1% vs 18.6%, p <0.001), prior myocardial infarction (56.4% vs 27.8%, p <0.001), history of congestive heart failure (16.8% vs 9.2%, p <0.01), and history of diabetes (37.9% vs 23.5%, p <0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction was lower among IEPR patients (mean 50.3% vs 59.2%, p <0.001). At 1 year, survival was comparable in the 2 cohorts (98.7% IEPR vs 96.8% PCI, p = NS), as were rates of coronary artery bypass grafting during follow-up (4.5% IEPR vs 5.7% PCI, p = NS). At 1 year, 43.7% of IEPR patients reported no anginal symptoms compared with 73.4% of Dynamic Registry patients (p <0.001). Rates of severe symptoms (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III, IV, or unstable) at 1 year were 15.5% among IEPR patients and 9.5% in the Dynamic Registry (p = 0.02). PCI candidates suitable for and treated with EECP had 1-year major event rates comparable to patients receiving elective PCI. Although PCI was associated with substantially lower rates of 1-year symptoms, EECP may be a safe treatment option for selected patients with obstructive coronary disease.