UCSF

Ischemic heart disease is the largest cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of heart failure (HF). The incidence and prevalence of HF are increasing owing to an aging population and improvements in the acute cardiac care of previously fatal conditions such as myocardial infarction. Strategies to improve outcomes in patients with ischemic systolic HF are urgently needed. There is systematic underutilization of testing for coronary artery disease in patients with HF, and revascularization is performed in an even smaller minority despite evidence for reduced mortality with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over medical therapy in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a less-invasive approach to coronary revascularization; however, the recent Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED)-British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS2) trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of PCI compared with that of medical therapy in patients with ischemic systolic HF. The comparative effectiveness of PCI and CABG for patients with ischemic systolic HF remains unknown, particularly in the era of contemporary medical therapy. In this review, we discuss the benefit of CABG in ischemic systolic HF, its underutilization, and the unmet clinical need. We also review the recent REVIVED-BCIS2 trial comparing PCI to medical therapy, as well as upcoming randomized controlled trials of PCI for ischemic systolic HF and persistent evidence gaps that will exist despite anticipated data from ongoing trials. There remains a need for an adequately powered randomized controlled trials to establish the comparative clinical effectiveness of PCI vs CABG in ischemic systolic HF in the era of contemporary revascularization approaches and medical therapy, as well as trials of coronary revascularization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction or less severe forms of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.