Medical therapy takes COURAGE: No benefit of PCI over optimal drugs for preventing events in stable CAD
March 26, 2007 | Shelley Wood
Click here to see The Cardiology Show: The COURAGE trial, moderated by Dr Valentin Fuster (Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY). Click here to view videotaped commentary on the COURAGE trial by Dr Eugene Braunwald (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) and Dr Judith S Hochman (New York University School of Medicine, NY).

New Orleans, LA - PCI plus stenting and optimal medical therapy is no better at preventing future events than optimal medical therapy alone in patients with stable coronary disease, according to the results of the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial [1]. The much-anticipated results add fat to the mounting fire over whether stents, including drug-eluting stents, are being overused for the treatment of stable CAD or for the prevention of future cardiac events.



After embargo break, COURAGE results released early

Originally slated for presentation on the final day of the American College of Cardiology 2007 Scientific Sessions, COURAGE trial results were published in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal on Monday, prompting the ACC to permit early publication of the results by other news organizations. According to the Journal, results of the study were discussed at a Boston Scientific-sponsored symposium Sunday night; perhaps not surprisingly, the Journal story is largely dismissive of the trial results. The Journal story quotes Dr Martin Leon as calling COURAGE a "critically flawed study." The article also states that Leon "had reviewed the COURAGE study after it was submitted to a medical journal."

In an interview with heartwire, Leon was adamant that the material discussed at last night's symposium did not constitute an embargo break. "[My] comments . . . were taken out of context and woven into a story that is a distortion of what went on at that meeting," Leon told heartwire. "Nothing went on at that meeting that should justify the embargo having been broken. People commented on the trial design and what they expected the results to show, and everyone agreed we expected that there would be no difference."


Lead investigator Dr William E Boden (Buffalo General Hospital, NY) will present the results Tuesday morning, with full results of the study published simultaneously online March 27, 2007 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Although the addition of PCI to optimal medical therapy reduced the prevalence of angina, it did not reduce long-term rates of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndromes," Boden et al conclude in the published paper.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Drs Judith S Hochman (New York University School of Medicine, NY) and P Gabriel Steg (Université Paris, France) say the study findings are practice-changing [2].

PCI has an established place in treating angina but is not superior to intensive medical therapy to prevent myocardial infarction and death.

"The COURAGE trial should lead to changes in the treatment of patients with stable coronary artery disease, with expected substantial healthcare savings," they write. "PCI has an established place in treating angina but is not superior to intensive medical therapy to prevent myocardial infarction and death in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients such as those in this study."

Other commentators suggested the findings are not unexpected. "PCI has never been shown to reduce death or MI compared with medical therapy," Dr Eric Topol (Scripps Translational Science Institute, La Jolla, CA) told heartwire. "COURAGE really does not present anything new but simply reinforces that the basis for revascularization is for control of ischemia. There is no surprise with this trial."

Likewise, Dr Christopher Cannon (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA) called the trial confirmation of a "back-to-basics approach."

"This is actually what many people would have expected, thinking about the pathophysiology of stable CAD, but it runs a little bit counter to the current sucking sound of patients being drawn to the cath lab," he told heartwire. "Anyone with ACS ends up being cathed appropriately, but many other people have ended up in the cath lab as well."

But many cardiologists—interventionalists in particular—may not be easily persuaded by the results. "The real question is whether cardiologists will have the 'courage' to change the way they practice, which in 2007 flies in the face of the evidence," said Dr James Stein (University of Wisconsin, Madison). "We know PCI in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome saves lives, but 85% of PCIs in the US are done in stable patients, and of those I'd bet that at least 25% are asymptomatic patients. This study clearly shows something we all knew—but many did not want to believe—that angioplasties don't save lives, except in acutely ill patients, and don't prevent heart attacks. Cardiologists say yes, we know that, we are relieving symptoms, but why are so many done on people who are asymptomatic? And why all the 'screening' stress tests?"

Dr Eric Cohen (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON), who was a site investigator for COURAGE, commented, "COURAGE does not tell us that there is no role for PCI in the management of stable CAD, but I think it is telling us to be more selective in targeting only those patients with very significant symptoms and to be more modest in our expectation of what is achieved."

Cohen also pointed out that Canadian centers made a "disproportionately large" contribution to the COURAGE study, "perhaps because the momentum leading directly to PCI was slightly less intense in Canada at the time and thus patients and physicians were somewhat more amenable to randomization."

The implications from COURAGE are good news for Canada and other countries where PCI is not available to large portions of the population. "Utilization of PCI has grown substantially in Canada during the [duration] of the COURAGE trial but remains below most of the US.  The results of COURAGE suggest that despite a lower rate of PCI in Canada, our patients with stable CAD are not being disadvantaged in terms of hard outcomes. It also suggests that in the US, particularly in some regions with very high rates of PCI, utilization could likely be reduced without a detrimental impact on clinical outcome."


Summoning COURAGE

Between 1999 and 2004, the COURAGE trial enrolled and randomized 2287 patients either to PCI plus optimal medical therapy or to optimal medical therapy alone. Over a follow-up period ranging from 2.5 to 7.0 years, a total of 211 all-cause deaths or nonfatal MIs (the primary outcome of COURAGE) occurred in the PCI group, compared with 202 in the medical-therapy group, a statistically nonsignificant difference. When stroke was added to the composite end point, again there were no differences seen between the two groups. When outcomes were analyzed individually, there were no differences in rates of deaths, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for acute coronary syndromes between the PCI and medical-therapy groups.

COURAGE: Cumulative event rates*

Outcome
PCI (%)
Medical therapy (%)
Hazard ratio
95% CI
p
Death, MI
19
18.5
1.05
0.87-1.27
0.62
Death, MI, stroke
20
19.5
1.05
0.87-1.27
0.62
Death
7.6
8.3
0.87
0.65-1.16
0.38
Nonfatal MI
13.2
12.3
1.13
0.89-1.43
0.33
Stroke
2.1
1.8
1.56
0.80-3.04
0.19
Hospitalization for ACS
12.4
11.8
1.07
0.84-1.37
0.56
Revascularization (PCI or CABG)
21.1
32.6
0.60
0.51-0.71
<0.001

*At a median of 4.6 years

Over the median 4.6 years of follow-up, more medical-therapy patients than PCI-treated patients underwent subsequent revascularization, usually due to refractive angina or objective, noninvasive evidence of worsening ischemia.

The only statistically significant difference between the two treatment strategies was reduced prevalence of angina, which was greater in the PCI group at one and three years. However, by five years—in part a reflection of subsequent revascularization in the medical-therapy group—there was no significant difference in freedom from angina, with roughly 73% of both groups reporting no angina at five years.

COURAGE: Freedom from angina

Time point (y)
PCI (%)
Medical therapy (%)
p
Baseline
12
13
NS
1
66
58
<0.001
3
72
67
0.02
5
74
72
NS

To download table as a slide, click on slide logo below

Boden and colleagues propose that their findings can be explained, in part, by the fact that plaque morphology and vascular remodeling are different in ACS—where stenting has proved superior to medical therapy—than in stable coronary disease. Focal management of stable lesions through PCI would not lead to a reduction of clinical events if the lesions themselves were in no danger of triggering an acute coronary event, they explain; by contrast, systemic medical therapy and risk-factor management may have the effect of reducing plaque vulnerability.

While the authors identify the low numbers of women and nonwhites in COURAGE as limitations of the study, they reject the idea that the lack of drug-eluting stents (DES) should restrict the generalizability of their results to current-day PCI. "Published data indicate no benefit (either short-term or long-term) with respect to death and MI in patients with stable CAD who receive DES, as compared with those who receive bare-metal stents," they write.


Shaking things up

Commenting on the study, Cannon predicted that COURAGE "is going to shake things up in the cath labs," pointing out that the trial addresses a very important segment of the population: the 30% to 40% of patients undergoing catheterization and PCI for stable disease.

But the results will be viewed differently for patients with and without manageable symptoms, Cannon emphasized. While freedom from angina was similar in both groups in COURAGE at five years, a full third of medically managed patients underwent PCI or CABG during the follow-up period, he noted. As such, COURAGE specifically showed a lack of benefit for PCI over medical therapy for preventing future events but did not speak to the treatment of patients with refractory symptoms.

"Many people undergo stenting for symptoms, and that's appropriate," says Cannon. "So of the stable 30% to 40% of patients undergoing cath, many should continue to do so; it's perfectly valid for them to undergo revascularization to improve their symptoms. If patients have real angina, and if they're on one or two meds, or they're very bothered by their symptoms, and if the goal is to relieve those symptoms, not prevent future events, then that's okay."

Several experts emphasized to heartwire that the COURAGE results will provide hard data for physicians concerned about the medicolegal repercussions of not opting to revascularize on the basis of screening results.

"The problem is fear of malpractice: docs are afraid of getting sued if they don't do a stress test and if they don't do a cath in response to an abnormality," Stein explained.

Cannon agreed: "Now we have something to fall back on," he told heartwire.

Whether PCI rates take a dip based on COURAGE remains to be seen. "Economic incentives favor procedures rather than medical therapy with lifestyle and medications. PCIs are very lucrative for hospitals and doctors; talking to patients and taking care of their risk factors, unfortunately, is not," Stein said.

Patients, too, may not want to accept that drugs may be all they need, Stein added. "Patients don't understand that minor blockages, not seen on stress tests or opened by PCI, cause the vast majority of heart attacks. Most docs know that, but many don't practice that way. A major educational effort is needed."

Sources
  1. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; DOI:10.1056/NEJMe070829. Available at: http://www.nejm.org.
  2. Hochman JS and Steg PG. Does preventive PCI work? N Engl J Med 2007; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe078036. Available at: http://www.nejm.org.



Your comments
Medical therapy takes COURAGE: No benefit of PCI over optimal drugs for preventing events in stabl
# 1 of 15
March 26, 2007 03:06 (EDT)
david filips
courage
"perhaps not surprisingly, the Journal story is largely dismissive of the trial results."

I like the WSJ. It's a great paper.
But they are heavily invested in "investments." (They seem to favor medical device companies, new drugs, etc.) Like any medical article published in the mainstream media, I take it with a grain of salt.

I'm glad someone had the courage to do the COURAGE study. Hopefully this will become the standard of care.
# 2 of 15
March 26, 2007 03:41 (EDT)
Joe Rindone
courage
I hope my father is listening to the media reports ... he just had a DES placed for minimal stable angina symptoms, contrary to my objection
# 3 of 15
March 26, 2007 04:07 (EDT)
david filips
amen
Amen Dr. Rindone.
amen.
# 4 of 15
March 29, 2007 01:16 (EDT)
Matthew Carr
functional class
I notice that the median treadmill time was 7 minutes. In my estimation this is class one to two . Perhaps the results apply only to well collateralized patients? Pehhaps there was a selection bias to pts with what appears to be mild symptoms? I am not trying to dismiss the study but most of my patients with angian of effort can not go that far on the treadmill.
MLC
# 5 of 15
March 29, 2007 09:12 (EDT)
luis lopez
Functional Class.
I am very glad for the results of COURAGE TRIAL. It seems to be a little of true and a stop for the illogical advance of interventional cardiology in this issues. If we learn something from pathophisiology is that ACS, AMI, and death are events related with coronary thrombosis, and that mechanical procedures are not way to resolve this problem. Medical therapy has shown in previous trials, that can change the outcomes in stable angina and in ACS. ( AAS. LMWH. Clopidogrel. B Blockers. IIb IIIa inhibitors).
This is a hit to the oculo-stenotic reflex.
And I agree with Dr Hackam, in other forum when he said, intervention is sexy, but medical therapy is as effective.

Sorry for my poor english

Luis Lopez
Cardiologyst
Buenos Aires Argentina.
# 6 of 15
March 29, 2007 02:04 (EDT)
Bradley Bale
not surprised
The information from COURAGE is not surprising. Hopefully there are a lot of cardiologist who will pay attention and practice evidence based medicine. The other issue I hope they pay attention to is what is called "optimal" medical therapy. Within 4.6 years fully 20% of either group either died, had a coronary or cerebral event. That calculates out to >40% ten year Framingham risk!!!! This is what they are calling "optimal" therapy. I am glad our Bale Method does not practice that type of therapy!
# 7 of 15
March 29, 2007 10:45 (EDT)
Umesh Khot
Patient Pressure to Perform PCI
Although much has been said about cardiologists driving the PCI train, what has not been mentioned is how strongly patients (at least in the USA) desire and at times pressure cardiologists to perform PCI.

Patients are extremely worried of having any "blockage" in their heart and if they do have "blockage" they want it "fixed". For them "fixed" means undergoing a balloon/stent or having bypass surgery. Taking medications in their minds does not "fix" the blockage and is second-rate care at its best and quackery at its worst ("that doctor only gave me a pill but didn't fix me"). I am doubtful that the Courage results will have much impact on patient's perception as it is more emotive rather than evidence-based.

Interventionalists (I am not one) probably feel this pressure more directly because they have to actively withhold a skill they have from patients when they do not perform PCI.

A thoughtful cardiologist can spend much time fighting this perception on a daily basis but it is clearly challenging. Think of how often you have to answer the simple question "but will the medicine get rid of the blockage?" and you will understand the dilemma and difficulties involved.





# 8 of 15
March 29, 2007 10:53 (EDT)
Rob Davidson
Background therapy
"Within 4.6 years fully 20% of either group either died, had a coronary or cerebral event"

30-40% of these patients had DM or a prior MI and 10% had a previous CABG. The nice thing about this study is that it isn't a group of primary prevention patients, it's what I see in my clinic.

The fact that many went on to have poor outcomes doesn't mean they weren't on good background therapy. Over 80% received ACEi/ARB, close to 95% statin therapy and over 85% received a BB. LDL averages were close to 70 by the end of the trial (baseline close to 100) and A1cs hovered around 7. In our age on noncompliance,contraindications, and intolerances to medication, these are fairly admirable numbers for a large trial.

As for patients desiring PCI, I'm not sure when a patient became entitled to a procedure that doesn't have a mortality benefit. We clearly wouldn't operate on someone just because a patient's impression was that surgery could be helpful. I think this is finally a study that gives physicians the ability to say medical therapy may be the best option for certain patients.

# 9 of 15
March 30, 2007 12:23 (EDT)
Bradley Bale
good background treatment but more is needed
The background or "foundation" treatment as I call it was good. Most (70% - 80%) of these patients have problems that need treatment beyond this foundation. The majority of ASVD is rooted in insulin resistance which is going to leave significant residual lipid issues after the LDL is taken care of. To correct those abnormalities medications like niacin are needed. As INTERHEART told us the number one risk factor is apoB/ApoA-1; the statins by themselves cannot cover this risk factor. Then we have eight more significant risk factors to deal with after the lipid issues. In this secondary prevention group very aggressive global comprehensive treatment is needed. The population we treat contains about 20% CHD or equivalent patients and we have had one documented non-fatal MI in the last six years and no CHD deaths. I would argue leaving these patients with a 40% ten year risk is far from "optimal".
# 10 of 15
March 30, 2007 04:03 (EDT)
Sunil Rao
COURAGE trial is good but has major flaws
The COURAGE trial is an important trial and the investigators really did a great job. Having said that, there are major issues with the design. Amazingly everyone seems to have drunk the popular press kool-aid instead of actually reading the trial manuscript.

First of all, the authors state very clearly in the Introduction that all of the prior studies show no effect of PCI on mortality or MI. Then the next line is "therefore the effect of PCI on mortality remains unclear." No it doesn't!! You just said that there is no effect. Second, there is absolutely no justification for the power calculation. Given that all of the prior studies show no effect of PCI on mortality, why in the world would one expect a 22% reduction in mortality with PCI? It doesn't make sense and is not at all supported by the paper's introduction. Second, 30,000+ patients were screened and only 2287 patients were enrolled. It seems to me that any study that excludes >90% of patients has limited generalizability. Third, everyone seems impressed with how well medical therapy worked. Well, 32.6% of patients in the medical therapy arm required revascularization. A 32.6% failure rate doesn't seem so great to me.

Overall, this trial supports my current practice. PCI doesn't impact mortality or MI, but does control symptoms when medical therapy doesn't work or stops working. I spend a lot of time in the cath lab and I've never heard any physician tell a patient with stable angina that a stent is going to save their life. We tell them that their symptoms are going to improve and that there is a risk that they may need further medical therapy or another PCI in the future.

One needs to read the paper instead of listening to the popular press that has misinterpreted this trial.
# 11 of 15
March 31, 2007 12:20 (EDT)
George Fehrenbacher
many questions
1, Why was there such a huge difference in the Hazard ratio in U.S. non-VA vs. Canadian and VA hospitals in whether PCI or medical therapy was better?
2.What percent of patients were completely revascularized?
3. Overall clinical procedural success was only 89% in this group of elective outpatients. What was the success rate at individual hospitals? Was there a correlation between success, complete revascularization, procedural complications, and final outcomes?
4. What were the requirements to be a PCI operator in COURAGE?
# 12 of 15
April 4, 2007 09:01 (EDT)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
Don't be fooled into thinking your pt. understands this information
I cannot emphasize enough how terribly the lay public has been misinformed about COURAGE. In the past week I've been asked 1. Aren't you guys able to just give medication to dissolve the blockages now? 2. Family member of a patient with ST elevation on the way to the cath lab: Is it correct that I've been reading that you should just give medication for this? 3. A physician with a stent---I'm not certain what to think after reading the state's largest newspaper and the local news paper article covering COURAGE. Even by trying to dictate to the journalist what the headlines should be: Angioplasty --a case by case basis was what came out of it....no clarification at all.
I finally wrote a piece for the local newspaper and a patient called me today and thanked me for it.
My opening statement: paraphrase: Stents still treatment of choice for heart attack patients, patients with detectable heart protein in the blood stream and unstable symptoms, and patients with worsening chest pain despite good medical therapy.
If you think your patients understand the COURAGE trial.......don't be fooled. your fellow noncardiology physicians don't either.
Melissa
# 13 of 15
April 5, 2007 08:25 (EDT)
William Dixon
Clinical judgment takes courage
It seems like after the realease of the Courage results, a common response has been "AHA!!, we knew the interventionalists were stenting too many lesions!". But, before every PCI there's a diagnostic angiogram, and before every diagnostic study, there is usually a nuclear study. It's now ok to do a non-invasive study and cath everyone to see what their disease burden is, and if they have lesions amenable to PCI, we can treat medically first. Why cath a patient with stable disease and low-risk non-invasive study? If LV function is normal, there is likely no benefit from even surgical revascularization. Nucs studies get ordered in just about everyone with discomfort between the waist and shoulders, and this is followed by cath for any abnormality. With this inertia, why would anyone be surprised if the patient gets PCI for an obstructive lesion? Finally, isn't one reason we went into medicine to relieve suffering? If a guy can't play with his grandchildren without taking NTG, does it really matter what Courage says? I apologize in advance for the generalizations, and include the obvious disclaimer that I do PCI, in addition to good medical therapy.
# 14 of 15
April 5, 2007 06:33 (EDT)
Jay Geoghagan
Agree with Bill Dixon and Bill Rollefson
After nearly 7 years of lurking on this site, I finally feel moved to make my first post.

As an invasive, non-interventional cardiologist who trained with Dr Dixon, and both of us trained under Dr Rollefson, I would like to agree with Dr Dixon. In my own practice, I spend an enormous amount of time telling patients and PCM's why I am not cathing the atypical CP with normal GXT and minimal inferior perfusion defect with normal EF. However, it becomes a losing battle each time the patient shows up and everyone asks why I don't just cath them. PCM's have never seen a cath complication in a person who might not have needed the procedure in the first place.

Patients are generally very easy with this decision once you explain it to them and emphasize the importance of medical therapy. I generally involve the patient in the decision process by telling them that I can "offer" them a cath versus telling them that they "need" one. This leaves the door open and many come back for the "patient needs to know" indication. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of agressive invasive management. I just hate being forced into it when a perfusion scan is misread or was ordered inappropriately in the first place for a clearly low risk patient with bogus symptoms who has modifiable risk factors. Trying to talk an interventionalist out of fixing a moderate lesion in a person with atypical symptoms who goes 9-12 mins on a treadmill is not my preferred method if I can stop the process earlier.

However, I do have to give credit to Bill Rollefson who once told me one of my favorite quotes on this subject: "the heart runs on blood, not beta-blockers and ACEI."
# 15 of 15
April 6, 2007 08:36 (EDT)
Daniel Tarditi
Misinformation
I just gave a lecture on STEMI to medical residents and interns. The overwhelming questions were with regard to data from COURAGE and how it is applied in this setting.

I explained the study in greater detail, but I am not sure everyone still gets it. I agree with Jay Geoghagan. I think the best way to implement this in practice, is to explain it to patients and give them a choice if you think there is one.

Dan

You have to be logged in to add a comment to this article
Login
Username 
Password 
  Forgot your password?
 
Remember me on this computer
 
Join theheart.org community
Five reasons to become a member of the most trusted source of cardiology news:
1Be part of the conversation in our blogs and discussion forum
2Share your thoughts on our news or educational programs
3Receive exclusive newsletters related to your field of interest
4Access unique continuous medical education content
5See and read what leaders have to say about cardiology today
It is free and it only takes five minutes to join!
 
button
Previews
Featured CME