Aims: Patients suffering from coronary heart disease with ventricular systolic dysfunction present a bad prognosis and should be potentially revascularized. Up to now, surgery appeared to be the most feasible revascularization technique for such patients. Aims of this study were to assess the influence of different treatments (surgery, angioplasty or exclusively medical treatment) on clinical outcome and to establish a prognostic score practitioners to select the most appropriate therapy adapted to their patient profiles.
Method: From 1995 to 2000, 492 patients were included in this cohort: 365 in the angioplasty group, 96 in the surgical group and 31 in the medical group. Kaplan Meier curves were made with a multivariate analysis to determine the significant predictive factors of mortality and major adverse cardiac events.
Results: After a mean follow-up of 32 +/- 19 months, there was no statistical difference in mortality rate between the groups. However, the survival rate without MACE is higher in the surgical group, intermediate in the angioplasty group and lower in the medical group. Using the significant predictive factors of MACE in multivariate analysis, a prognostic score has been established in order to discriminate three categories of severity. For each category, angioplasty was compared with surgery in terms of the event-free-survival rate. For the two extreme categories (severe and non-severe), both treatments were equal. For the intermediate category, surgery obtained greater results.
Conclusion: This prognostic score could help physicians in choosing the appropriate revascularization technique to treat patients with severe ischemic heart failure.