Coronary revascularisation in stable patients after an acute coronary syndrome: a propensity analysis of early invasive versus conservative management in a register-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of in-hospital medical therapy versus coronary revascularisation added to medical therapy in patients who stabilised after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). DESIGN: Propensity score-matched cohort study from the database of the Tampere ACS registry. SETTING: A single academic hospital in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: 1149 patients with a recent ACS, but no serious coexisting conditions: recurrent ischaemic episodes despite adequate medical therapy, haemodynamic instability, overt congestive heart failure and serious ventricular arrhythmias. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The composite endpoint of major acute cardiovascular events (MACEs): unstable angina requiring rehospitalisation, stroke, myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality, at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with standard medical treatment, revascularisation was associated with a lower rate of MACEs at 6 months in patients of the first quintile (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99), but a higher rate of MACEs in the fifth quintile (HR 4.74, CI 1.36 to 16.49; p=0.014). There were no significant differences in the rates of MACEs in the remaining three quintiles. Patients of the first quintile were the oldest (79.7±8.3 years) and had a more significant (p<0.001) history of prior myocardial infarction (37%) and poor renal function (creatine, µmol/l: 114.9±70.7). They also showed the highest C reactive protein (7.3±9.5 mg/l) levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that in-hospital coronary revascularisation did not lead to any advantage with signal of possible harm in the great majority of patients who stabilised after an ACS. An early invasive management strategy may be best reserved for elderly patients having high-risk clinical features and biochemical evidence of a strong inflammatory activity.