Outcomes of Percutaneous Revascularization in Severe Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Purpose of Review

This article presents a comprehensive review of coronary revascularization versus optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular dysfunction.

Recent Findings

The REVIVED-BCIS2 trial randomized 700 patients with extensive coronary artery disease and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and viability in more than four dysfunctional myocardial segments to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus OMT versus OMT alone. Over a median duration of 41 months, there was no difference in the composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or improvement in LVEF with PCI plus OMT versus OMT alone at 6 and 12 months, quality of life scores at 24 months, or fatal ventricular arrhythmia. The STICH randomized trial was conducted between 2002 and 2007, involving patients with LV dysfunction and coronary artery disease. The patients were assigned to either CABG plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone. At the 5-year follow-up, the trial showed that CABG plus medical therapy reduced cardiovascular disease-related deaths and hospitalizations but no reduction in all-cause mortality. However, a 10-year follow-up showed a significant decrease in all-cause mortality with CABG.

Summary

The currently available evidence showed no apparent benefit of PCI in severe ischemic cardiomyopathy as compared to OMT, but that CABG improves outcomes in this patient population. The paucity of data on the advantages of PCI in this patient population underscores the critical need for optimization of medical therapy for better survival and quality of life until further evidence from RCTs is available.