Revascularization versus medical therapy in patients aged 80 and older with stable ischemic heart disease

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Q. Phan ◽  
Ray Zadegan ◽  
Ming‐Sum Lee
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Ischemic Heart Disease ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Ischemic Heart ◽  
Stable Ischemic Heart Disease ◽  
Aged 80 And Older

scholarly journals Routine Revascularization Versus Initial Medical Therapy for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (9) ◽  
pp. 841-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sripal Bangalore ◽  
David J. Maron ◽  
Gregg W. Stone ◽  
Judith S. Hochman
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Ischemic Heart Disease ◽  
Unstable Angina ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ischemic Heart ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Background: Revascularization is often performed in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, whether revascularization reduces death and other cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain. Methods: We conducted PUBMED/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches for randomized trials comparing routine revascularization versus an initial conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The primary outcome was death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, stroke, unstable angina, and freedom from angina. Trials were stratified by percent stent use and by percent statin use to evaluate outcomes in contemporary trials. Results: Fourteen randomized clinical trials that enrolled 14 877 patients followed up for a weighted mean of 4.5 years with 64 678 patient-years of follow-up fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most trials enrolled patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function and low symptom burden, and excluded patients with left main disease. Revascularization compared with medical therapy alone was not associated with a reduced risk of death (relative risk [RR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90–1.09]). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary, indicating firm evidence for lack of a 10% or greater reduction in death. Revascularization was associated with a reduced nonprocedural MI (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67–0.85]) but also with increased procedural MI (RR, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.86–3.31]) with no difference in overall MI (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83–1.03]). A significant reduction in unstable angina (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45–0.92]) and increase in freedom from angina (RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05–1.15]) was also observed with revascularization. There were no treatment-related differences in the risk of heart failure or stroke. Conclusions: In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, routine revascularization was not associated with improved survival but was associated with a lower risk of nonprocedural MI and unstable angina with greater freedom from angina at the expense of higher rates of procedural MI. Longer-term follow-up of trials is needed to assess whether reduction in these nonfatal spontaneous events improves long-term survival.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness for imaging stable ischemic disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (1113) ◽  
pp. 20190764 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silanath Terpenning ◽  
Arthur Stillman
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Ischemic Heart Disease ◽  
Ct Angiography ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Coronary Ct Angiography ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Ischemic Heart ◽  
Stable Ischemic Heart Disease ◽  
Coronary Ct ◽  
Cost Effective Approach

Stable ischemic heart disease remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although there are multiple imaging modalities to diagnose and/or assist in the clinical management, the most cost-effective approach remains unclear. We reviewed the relevant and recent evidence-based clinical studies and trials to suggest the most cost-effective approach to stable ischemic heart disease. The limitations of these studies are discussed. Incorporating the results of recent multicenter trials, we suggest that for appropriate patients with coronary artery disease with any degree of stenosis or presence of coronary calcium, optimal medical therapy may be most cost-effective. Invasive coronary angiography and/or coronary revascularization would be primarily for non-responders or >/=50% left main stenosis. Stress cardiac magnetic imaging would be performed for those patients with non-diagnostic coronary CT angiography from motion and non-responders from optimal medical therapy in non-diagnostic coronary CT angiography group from high coronary calcium. These paths seem to be safe and cost-effective but requires modeling for confirmation.

scholarly journals Medical and Revascularization Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: An Overview

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qais Radaideh ◽  
Nicolas W. Shammas ◽  
Ghassan E. Daher ◽  
Rayan Jo Rachwan
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Ischemic Heart Disease ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Coronary Revascularization ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Lifestyle Changes ◽  
Ischemic Heart ◽  
Risk Factor Modification ◽  
Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

AbstractStable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) affects approximately 10 million Americans with 500,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Patients with SIHD are primarily managed in the outpatient setting with aggressive cardiovascular risk factor modification via medical therapy and lifestyle changes. Currently, this approach is considered as the mainstay of treatment. The recently published ISCHEMIA trial has established the noninferiority of medical therapy in comparison to coronary revascularization in patients with moderate to severe ischemia. Percutaneous coronary intervention is currently recommended for patients with significant left main disease, large ischemic myocardial burden, and patients with severe refractory angina despite maximal medical therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document