Percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy in stable angina: a matched cohort study

It is uncertain whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT) can reduce adverse clinical events in the long term as compared with OMT alone in patients with pure stable angina.We enrolled patients from 2006 to 2010 using the Korean national insurance data. 58 742 patients with pure stable angina with no history of myocardial infarction (MI) nor PCI were candidate, and finally, 5673 patients in the PCI plus OMT group and 5673 in the OMT alone group were selected with 1:1 propensity matching. They were followed up for 9.3 years.Primary endpoint, a composite of MI, stroke and cardiac death rate was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the OMT group, 13.5/1000 vs 11.5/1000 person-year with HR of 1.18 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.32, p=0.003). Individual event rate of MI and cardiac death rate was higher in the PCI group than in the OMT group at 9.3 years, 2.9 vs 2.1 (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.7, p=0.009) and 4.8 vs 3.4/1000 person-year (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.69, p=0.001), respectively. Revascularisation and total death occurred more in the PCI group as compared with the OMT group, 30.3 vs 8.2 (HR 3.64, 95% CI 3.27 to 4.05, p<0.001) and 13.5 vs 10.6/1000 person-year (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40, p<0.001), respectively. In subgroup analysis, the same trend of more event in the PCI group was detected.PCI plus OMT was associated with higher rate of primary endpoint of MI, stroke, cardiac death as compared with OMT alone in patients with pure stable angina at 9.3-year follow-up in large population.