Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Not Superior to Optimal Medical Therapy in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis

(1) Background and Aim: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on survival and symptomatic relief of patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT). This meta-analysis is to evaluate the short- and long-term clinical benefit of PCI over and above OMT in CCS. (2) Methods: Main endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, stroke hospitalization, and quality of life (QoL). Clinical endpoints at very short (≤3 months), short- (<12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months) follow-up were evaluated. (3) Results: Fifteen RCTs with a total of 16,443 patients with CCS (PCI = 8307 and OMT = 8136) were included in the meta-analysis. At mean follow-up of 27.7 months, the PCI group had similar risk of MACE (18.2 vs. 19.2 %; < 0.32), all-cause mortality (7.09 vs. 7.88%; = 0.56), CV mortality (8.74 vs. 9.87%; = 0.30), MI (7.69 vs. 8.29%; = 0.32), revascularization (11.2 vs. 18.3%; = 0.08), stroke (2.18 vs. 1.41%; = 0.10), and hospitalization for anginal symptoms (13.5 vs. 13.9%; = 0.69) compared with OMT. These results were similar at short- and long-term follow-up. At the very short-term follow-up, PCI patients had greater improvement in the QoL including physical limitation, angina frequency, stability, and treatment satisfaction ( < 0.05 for all) but such benefits disappeared at the long-term follow-up. (4) Conclusions: PCI treatment of CCS does not provide any long-term clinical benefit compared with OMT. These results should have significant clinical implications in optimizing patient's selection for PCI treatment.