Percutaneous coronary intervention plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in chronic coronary syndrome: a propensity score-matched analysis from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry

BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently used for patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). However, the role of PCI beyond symptom relief in CCS remains controversial. The objective of this study was to determine whether PCI is associated with better outcomes, compared with medical therapy (MT) alone.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study. Using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry, we included all patients with CCS undergoing coronary angiography in Sweden between 2010 and 2020. Two groups were formed based on treatment strategy: PCI+MT versus MT alone. One-to-one propensity score (PS) matching was used to address confounding. Outcome was assessed using matched win ratio analysis, a statistical method that ranks the components of the composite by clinical importance. The primary outcome was net adverse clinical event (NACE) within 5 years. In the win ratio analysis, the components of NACE were ranked as follows: (1) all-cause mortality, (2) myocardial infarction (MI), (3) bleeding and (4) urgent revascularisation. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of NACE, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiovascular mortality.ResultsAfter PS matching, two groups of 7220 patients each were formed. The hierarchical outcome analysis of NACE and MACE showed that PCI was associated with improved outcome (matched win ratio: 1.28 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.36, p