Invasive therapy versus conservative therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease: An updated meta-analysis.

Background Heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Although there are clear indications for revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes, there is debate regarding the benefits of revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease. We sought to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the role of revascularization compared to conservative medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Hypothesis There is no significant difference in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality between invasive and medical arms. Methods We performed a systematic literature search from January 2000 to June 2020. Our literature search yielded seven randomized controlled trials. We analyzed a total of 12 013 patients (6109 in revascularization arm and 5904 in conservative medical therapy arm). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke), cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke. Additional subgroup analysis for all-cause mortality was performed comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent versus conservative therapy; and PCI with drug eluting stent versus conservative therapy. Results There was no statistically significant difference in primary outcome of all-cause mortality between either arm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.83 to 1.08; p = .84). There were statistically significant lower rates of MACE (death, MI or stroke) in the revascularization arm when compared to conservative arm. Conclusions Our analysis did not show any survival advantage of an initial invasive strategy over conservative medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).