Percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy in stable coronary artery disease: the unresolved conundrum.

One of the major dilemmas facing physicians is what diagnostic and therapeutic approaches should be recommended to those stable coronary artery disease patients whose symptoms are adequately controlled on medical therapy. This study sought to assess the evidence-based data relating to whether: 1) all patients with significant coronary lesions (i.e., ischemia-producing) should undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); 2) the best therapeutic approach is optimal medical therapy; or 3) PCI should be performed, but only in certain subsets of patients. We reviewed all recent meta-analyses of prospective randomized trials that compared the outcomes of medical therapy and PCI in stable, symptomatically controlled, coronary artery disease patients. To provide greater insights to the clinician, we then analyzed, in depth, 3 comprehensive and widely quoted randomized trials. Review of recently published (2012) meta-analyses, and the detailed analyses of 3 widely quoted individual studies, indicate no difference exists between PCI and medical therapy in nonfatal MI or in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. Thus, clinical equipoise exists: in other words, there is no evidence-based justification for adopting 1 therapeutic strategy over the other. Therefore, it is not inappropriate, until additional evidence emerges, for the responsible, experienced physician to weigh several sources of information in formulating a recommendation to the patient, even though definitive evidence-based data are not as yet available. Such sources may include assessment of the individual patient's clinical presentation, assessment of the severity of ischemia, and the patient's precise coronary anatomy. Critical for more-reliable decision making will be future development of accurate measures of the individual patient's risk of MI and/or death, whether by biomarker, imaging, or ischemia assessments.