Effect of PCI on health status in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: insights from REVIVED-BCIS2

Background In the REVIVED-BCIS2 (Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction) trial, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not reduce the incidence of death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Objectives This prespecified secondary analysis investigated the effect of PCI on health status measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) combined with the primary outcome in a win ratio. Methods Participants with severe ischemic left ventricular dysfunction were randomized to either PCI in addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT) (PCI) or OMT alone (OMT). The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, HHF, and KCCQ–Overall Summary Score (OSS) at 24 months analyzed using the unmatched win ratio. The key secondary endpoint was a KCCQ-OSS responder analysis. Results A total of 347 participants were randomized to PCI and 353 to OMT. Median age was 70.0 years (Q1-Q3: 63.3-76.1 years). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 27.0 ± 6.7%. PCI did not improve the primary endpoint (win ratio for PCI vs OMT: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.88-1.26; P = 0.58). PCI resulted in more KCCQ-OSS responders than OMT at 6 months (54.1% vs 40.7%; OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.41-2.71; P < 0.001) and fewer deteriorators (25.2% vs 31.4%; OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47-1.00; P = 0.048). PCI did not impact KCCQ-OSS responders or deteriorators at 12 or 24 months. Conclusions PCI did not improve the hierarchical composite of death, HHF, and health status at 2 years. PCI improved KCCQ-OSS at 6 months, but this benefit was not sustained to 1- or 2-year follow-up

Impact of Anatomical and Viability-guided Completeness of Revascularization on Clinical Outcomes in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization of coronary disease has been linked to improved outcomes in patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) function. OBJECTIVES: To identify the impact of complete revascularization in patients with severe LV dysfunction. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial were eligible if baseline/procedural angiograms and viability studies were available for analysis by independent core laboratories. Anatomical and viability-guided completeness of revascularization were measured by the coronary and myocardial revascularization indices (RIcoro and RImyo) respectively, where RIcoro=[change in BCIS Jeopardy Score (BCIS-JS)] / [baseline BCIS-JS] and RImyo=[number of revascularized viable segments] / [ number of viable segments supplied by diseased vessels]. The PCI group was classified as having complete or incomplete revascularization by median RIcoro and RImyo. The primary outcome was death or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Of 700 randomized patients, 670 were included. The baseline BCIS-JS and SYNTAX scores were 8 (6 to 10) and 22 (15 to 29) respectively. In those assigned to PCI, median RIcoro and RImyo values were 67% and 85%. Compared to the group assigned to optimal medical therapy alone, there was no difference in the likelihood of the primary outcome in those receiving complete anatomical or viability-guided revascularization (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62-1.32 and HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66-1.35 respectively). A sensitivity analysis by residual SYNTAX score showed no association with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, neither complete anatomical nor viability-guided revascularization were associated with improved event-free survival compared to incomplete revascularization or treatment with medical therapy alone

Arrhythmia and Death Following Percutaneous Revascularization in Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Prespecified Analyses From the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmia is an important cause of mortality in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention is often recommended for these patients before implantation of a cardiac defibrillator because it is assumed that this may reduce the incidence of fatal and potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias, although this premise has not been evaluated in a randomized trial to date. METHODS: Patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, extensive coronary disease, and viable myocardium were randomly assigned to receive either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical and device therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. The composite primary outcome was all-cause death or aborted sudden death (defined as an appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy or a resuscitated cardiac arrest) at a minimum of 24 months, analyzed as time to first event on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death or aborted sudden death, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy or sustained ventricular arrhythmia, and number of appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: Between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, 700 patients were enrolled across 40 centers in the United Kingdom. A total of 347 patients were assigned to the PCI+OMT group and 353 to the OMT alone group. The mean age of participants was 69 years; 88% were male; 56% had hypertension; 41% had diabetes; and 53% had a clinical history of myocardial infarction. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 28%; 53.1% had an implantable defibrillator inserted before randomization or during follow-up. All-cause death or aborted sudden death occurred in 144 patients (41.6%) in the PCI group and 142 patients (40.2%) in the OMT group (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.82-1.30]; P=0.80). There was no between-group difference in the occurrence of any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or aborted sudden death. In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, PCI is not beneficial solely for the purpose of reducing potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920048

Viability and Outcomes With Revascularization or Medical Therapy in Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

IMPORTANCE: In the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED-BCIS2) trial, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not improve outcomes for patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Whether myocardial viability testing had prognostic utility for these patients or identified a subpopulation who may benefit from PCI remained unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium on the effectiveness of PCI, prognosis, and improvement in left ventricular function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective open-label randomized clinical trial recruiting between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR, 2.3-5.0 years). A total of 40 secondary and tertiary care centers in the United Kingdom were included. Of 700 randomly assigned patients, 610 with left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%, extensive coronary artery disease, and evidence of viability in at least 4 myocardial segments that were dysfunctional at rest and who underwent blinded core laboratory viability characterization were included. Data analysis was conducted from March 31, 2022, to May 1, 2023. INTERVENTION: Percutaneous coronary intervention in addition to optimal medical therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Blinded core laboratory analysis was performed of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging scans and dobutamine stress echocardiograms to quantify the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium, expressed as an absolute percentage of left ventricular mass. The primary outcome of this subgroup analysis was the composite of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and improved left ventricular function at 6 months. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the participants was 69.3 (9.0) years. In the PCI group, 258 (87%) were male, and in the optimal medical therapy group, 277 (88%) were male. The primary outcome occurred in 107 of 295 participants assigned to PCI and 114 of 315 participants assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. There was no interaction between the extent of viable or nonviable myocardium and the effect of PCI on the primary or any secondary outcome. Across the study population, the extent of viable myocardium was not associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio per 10% increase, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04) or any secondary outcome. The extent of nonviable myocardium was associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and improvement in left ventricular function. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that viability testing does not identify patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who benefit from PCI. The extent of nonviable myocardium, but not the extent of viable myocardium, is associated with event-free survival and likelihood of improvement of left ventricular function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01920048

Percutaneous revascularization for ischemic left ventricular dysfunction

Background: Whether revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve event-free survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, as compared with optimal medical therapy (i.e., individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure) alone, is unknown.Methods : We randomly assigned patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, extensive coronary artery disease amenable to PCI, and demonstrable myocardial viability to a strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or optimal medical therapy alone (optimal-medical-therapy group). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. Major secondary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 and 12 months and quality-of-life scores.Results: A total of 700 patients underwent randomization — 347 were assigned to the PCI group and 353 to the optimal-medical-therapy group. Over a median of 41 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the optimal-medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.27; P=0.96). The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar in the two groups at 6 months (mean difference, −1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.7 to 3.4). Quality-of-life scores at 6 and 12 months appeared to favor the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 monthsConclusions: Among patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received optimal medical therapy, revascularization by PCI did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program; REVIVED-BCIS2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920048.

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Whether revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve event-free survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, as compared with optimal medical therapy (i.e., individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure) alone, is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, extensive coronary artery disease amenable to PCI, and demonstrable myocardial viability to a strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or optimal medical therapy alone (optimal-medical-therapy group). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. Major secondary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 and 12 months and quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: A total of 700 patients underwent randomization - 347 were assigned to the PCI group and 353 to the optimal-medical-therapy group. Over a median of 41 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the optimal-medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.96). The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar in the two groups at 6 months (mean difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 3.4). Quality-of-life scores at 6 and 12 months appeared to favor the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received optimal medical therapy, revascularization by PCI did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program; REVIVED-BCIS2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920048.)