Effects of Elective Coronary Revascularization vs Medical Therapy Alone on Noncardiac Mortality: A Meta-Analysis

Uncertainty exists whether coronary revascularization plus medical therapy (MT) is associated with an increase in noncardiac mortality in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) when compared with MT alone, particularly following recent data from the ISCHEMIA-EXTEND (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial.

This study conducted a large-scale meta-analysis of trials comparing elective coronary revascularization plus MT vs MT alone in patients with CCS to determine whether revascularization has a differential impact on noncardiac mortality at the longest follow-up.

We searched for randomized trials comparing revascularization plus MT vs MT alone in patients with CCS. Treatment effects were measured by rate ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs, using random-effects models. Noncardiac mortality was the prespecified endpoint. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022380664).

Eighteen trials were included involving 16,908 patients randomized to either revascularization plus MT (n = 8,665) or to MT alone (n = 8,243). No significant differences were detected in noncardiac mortality between the assigned treatment groups (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.94-1.26; P = 0.26), with absent heterogeneity (I² = 0%). Results were consistent without the ISCHEMIA trial (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84-1.18; P = 0.97). By meta-regression, follow-up duration did not affect noncardiac death rates with revascularization plus MT vs MT alone (P = 0.52). Trial sequential analysis confirmed the reliability of meta-analysis, with the cumulative Z-curve of trial evidence within the nonsignificance area and reaching futility boundaries. Bayesian meta-analysis findings were consistent with the standard approach (RR: 1.08; 95% credible interval: 0.90-1.31).

In patients with CCS, noncardiac mortality in late follow-up was similar for revascularization plus MT compared with MT alone.