Outcome of patients with stable angina pectoris treated with or without percutaneous coronary intervention
1Department of Cardiology, Puai Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. yegu2003cn@yahoo.com.cn
Insights
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offers no additional benefit for stable angina patients already receiving optimal medical therapy. Outcomes were similar between PCI-treated and medically-treated groups over 24 months.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Stable angina pectoris is a common cardiovascular condition.
- Optimal medical therapy is the cornerstone of management.
- Percutaneous coronary intervention is a treatment option for coronary stenosis.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare outcomes of stable angina patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical management.
- To evaluate the 24-month major adverse cardiac events in these patient groups.
Main Methods:
- Eighty patients with stable angina and confirmed coronary stenosis were included.
- Patients were divided into two groups: percutaneous coronary intervention (n=31) and medical management (n=49).
- All patients received optimal medical therapy and were followed for 24 months.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in baseline characteristics or coronary lesion types were observed between groups.
- Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 22.4% of the PCI group and 22.6% of the medical management group.
- There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the two treatment strategies.
Conclusions:
- Percutaneous coronary intervention did not demonstrate additional benefit over optimal medical therapy for stable angina patients.
- Standard medical treatment appears sufficient for managing major adverse outcomes in this patient cohort over 24 months.
Background:
To assess the outcome of patients with stable angina pectoris treated with percutaneous coronary intervention versus medically treated patients.
Methods:
Eighty patients with stable angina pectoris and coronary stenosis as confirmed in coronary angiography were treated with (n = 31) or without (n = 49) percutaneous coronary intervention in our department. All patients received optimal medical therapy and were followed up for a period of 24 months.
Results:
Baseline clinical characteristics, including risk factors of coronary heart disease and coronary lesion type did not differ between the two groups (all p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (22.4% vs. 22.6%) during the 24 month follow-up between the two groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
Percutaneous coronary intervention did not provide extra benefit in this group of patients with stable angina pectoris receiving standard medical treatment in terms of 24 months major adverse outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
Angina IV: Management
Angina II: Classification
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Angina V: Nursing Management
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Angina III: Clinical Manifestations and Assessment
