Abstract
The impact of baseline exercise capacity on clinical outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to an initial strategy of optimal medical therapy (OMT) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial has not been studied. A post hoc analysis was performed in 1,052 patients of COURAGE (PCI + OMT: n = 527, OMT: n = 525) who underwent exercise treadmill testing at baseline. Patients were categorized into 2 exercise capacity groups based on metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved during baseline exercise treadmill testing (<7 METs: n = 464, ≥7 METs: n = 588) and were followed for a median of 4.6 years. The primary composite end point of death or myocardial infarction was similar in the PCI + OMT group and the OMT group for patients with exercise capacity <7 METs (19.1% vs 16.1%, p = 0.31) and ≥7 METs (13.3% vs 10.3%, p = 0.27). After adjusting for baseline covariates, the hazard ratio (99% confidence interval) for the primary end point for the PCI + OMT group versus the OMT group was 1.42 (0.90 to 2.23, p = 0.05) and for the exercise capacity subgroups of ≥7 METs and <7 METs was 0.75 (0.46 to 1.22, p = 0.13). There was no statistically significant interaction between the original treatment arm allocation (PCI + OMT vs OMT) and baseline exercise capacity. In conclusion, there was no difference in the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with exercise capacity <7 METs compared with ≥7 METs, irrespective of whether they were assigned to initial PCI. Patients with exercise capacity <7 METs did not derive a proportionately greater clinical benefit from PCI + OMT compared with those patients who received OMT alone.