Revascularization strategies versus optimal medical therapy in chronic coronary syndrome: A network meta-analysis

Background: The impact of myocardial revascularization on outcomes and prognosis in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) without left main (LM) disease or reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) may be influenced by the revascularization strategy adopted. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis including 18 randomized controlled trials comparing different revascularization strategies, including angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), physiology-guided PCI and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), in patients with CCS without LM disease or reduced LVEF. Results: Compared with medical therapy, all revascularization strategies were associated with a reduction of the primary endpoint, as defined in each trial, the extent of which was modest with angiography-guided PCI (IRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99) and greater with physiology-guided PCI (IRR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77) and CABG (IRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48-0.70). Moreover, angiography-guided PCI was associated with an increase of the primary endpoint compared to physiology-guided PCI (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14-1.79) and CABG (IRR 1.49, 95% CI 1.27-1.74). CABG was the only strategy associated with reduced myocardial infarction (IRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.90), cardiovascular death (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.89), and all-cause death (IRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.99), but increased stroke (IRR 1.69, 95% CI 1.04-2.76). Conclusions: In CCS patients without LM disease or reduced LVEF, physiology-guided PCI and CABG are asso-ciated with better outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. Compared with medical therapy, CABG is the only revascularization strategy associated with a reduction of myocardial infarction and death rates, at the cost of higher risk of stroke.