Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Medical therapy and outcomes in REVIVED-BCIS2 and STICHES: an individual patient data analysis
Pooled resultResult — go to the resultAdjusted hazard ratio 0.60 95% CI 0.48–0.74Authors' conclusion
Patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving medical therapy in REVIVED-BCIS2 had better outcomes than those in STICHES, with or without CABG surgery.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with LVEF ≤35% and CAD receiving medical therapy
- Participants
- 1,912 patients2 RCTs
- Comparison
- Medical therapy alone in REVIVED-BCIS2 vs medical therapy alone in STICHES
- Outcome
- All-cause death or HF hospitalization
- Follow-up
- Over all available
Methodological detailsmulticentre, adjusted, 98.3% completeness of follow-up for the primary outcome
- Multicentre
- Adjusted
- 98.3% completeness of follow-up for the primary outcome
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted hazard ratio
0.60
95% CI 0.48–0.74
P < 0.001
REVIVED-BCIS2 medical therapyvs STICHES medical therapy
adjusted HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.48–0.74); P < 0.001
Further pooled results
Primary outcome, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (REVIVED-BCIS2) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (STICHES)
- PCI in REVIVED-BCIS2 less likely to have a primary outcome event than CABG in STICHES
Primary outcome, CABG (STICHES) vs medical therapy alone (REVIVED-BCIS2)
- Adjusted outcomes worse with CABG in STICHES than medical therapy alone in REVIVED-BCIS2
Original publication
Medical therapy and outcomes in REVIVED-BCIS2 and STICHES: an individual patient data analysis. Eur Heart J. Published 6 March 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →