Revascularization versus medical therapy for the treatment of stable coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of contemporary randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare clinical outcomes among stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients treated with revascularization [percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) or both] plus medical therapy (MT) versus MT alone.

METHODS

Prospective RCTs were sought from MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to April 2020. Data was extracted on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), revascularizations, rehospitalizations, or stroke; its individual components and other cardiovascular endpoints.

RESULTS

Twelve unique RCTs comprising of 15,774 patients were included. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality risk (0.95, 95% CI: 0.86-1.06); however, revascularization plus MT reduced the risk of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, MI, revascularizations, rehospitalizations, or stroke (0.69, 95% CI: 0.55-0.87); unplanned revascularization (0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.71); and fatal MI (0.65, 95% CI: 0.49-0.84). Revascularization plus MT reduced the risk of stroke at 1 year (0.44, 95% CI: 0.30-0.65) and unplanned revascularization and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, MI, revascularizations, rehospitalizations, or stroke at 2-5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Revascularization plus MT does not confer survival advantage beyond that of MT among patients with stable CAD. However, revascularization plus MT may reduce the overall risk of the combined outcome of mortality, MI, revascularizations, rehospitalizations, or stroke, which could be driven by a decrease in the risk of unplanned revascularizations or fatal MI.