Volume 188 - Issue 2

How should stable coronary artery disease be managed in the modern era?

Authors:  Richard W Harper, Esther M Briganti and Brett H R Forge

Med J Aust 2008; 188 (2): 122-123. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01541.x
Published online: 21 January 2008

To the Editor: The editorial by Woollard and Newman1 discussing the best management of stable coronary artery disease is welcome and timely, but we believe their conclusions undervalue the benefits of optimal medical therapy.

The authors correctly point out that the early trials comparing surgery with medical treatment did not include aspirin, β-blockers or lipid-lowering drugs in the medical treatment group. Clearly, the benefits of these treatments have been so dramatic as to make these original trials irrelevant to current practice.

After reviewing trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and discussing their limitations, the authors conclude that:

We believe this conclusion is only appropriate for those patients in whom an adequate trial of medical therapy has failed to achieve sufficient relief of anginal symptoms.

Based on current evidence, including that from the MASS II2 (comparing medical therapy with both CABG and PCI), COURAGE3 (comparing PCI with medical therapy) and AVERT4 (comparing intensive lipid-lowering therapy using atorvastatin with PCI) trials, we conclude the following about the management of stable coronary artery disease:

Performing PCI and CABG in patients with stable angina consumes a significant portion of the Medicare budget. We believe many patients with absent or relatively minor symptoms consent to these procedures in the mistaken belief that their lives will be prolonged. Application of evidence-based guidelines would significantly reduce the number of interventions currently performed and make much needed resources available for prevention strategies and for selected patients with acute coronary syndromes in whom this expensive treatment has proven benefit.

Lastly, we strongly support the implication by Woollard and Newman that patients should “undertake consultation with other providers” regarding treatment options — including medical therapy.


Authors


References