Almanac 2012: Cardiovascular risk scores: The national society journals present selected research that has driven recent advances in clinical cardiology

Abstract

Almanah 2012 serijaPercutaneous coronary intervention versus medical treatment P ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has guide line recommendations for treatment of ST elevation and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI).1 However, its role in stable coronary disease has been the subject of reappraisal following publication of the COURAGE trial, which showed that, in patients receiving optimal medical therapy, PCI does not improve cardiovascular outcomes, while incremental benefits for quality of life disappear by 36 months.2 3 A more recent meta-analysis of eight trials of optimal medical therapy versus PCI involving 7229 patients bears out the COURAGE conclusions by showing no significant differences between the groups with regard to death (9.1% vs 8.9%), non-fatal MI (8.1% vs 8.9%), unplanned revascularisation (30.7% vs 21.4%) and persistent angina (33% vs 29%).4 Drug-eluting stents (DESs) were used in only a minority of these patients and may have reduced the need for further revascularisation while improving symptomatic responses. Nevertheless, the meta-analysis reinforces contemporary guideline advice for optimal medical treatment as the initial treatment for stable angina.5 Whether this will change current practice remains to be seen, but early signs are not encouraging. Thus a US registry analysis of patients undergoing PCI before (n=173416) and after (n=293 795) the COURAGE report showed no change in the proportions receiving optimal medical treatment (43.5% vs 44.7%). 6 PCI versus coronary bypass surgery