Search

Background: Currently, there is no significant difference between OMT versus OMTR on all-cause mortality in patients with IHD. There is no data in this region. Objectives: Evaluate the impact of OMT versus OMTR on primary end point of allcause mortality in patients with IHD. Method: Data was collected, retrospectively, from the electronic database for all patients with IHD (n =2,692) attending Cardiovascular Disease Management Program (CVDMP), KAMC-Riyadh, between April 2000 and October 2011. Patients with no follow-up visits (n =59), or had non obstructive CAD (n =280) were excluded. OMT is an integral component of routine care within CVDMP. Data was analyzed using SPSS. Results: Mean age was 60±10 years, 22% were female, and average follow-up was 40±33 months. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups with exception of LVEF which was 38% versus 46% (p <0.001), and documented heart failure (HF) 60% versus 31% (p <0.001), respectively in OMT and OMTR. Of the enrolled patients (n =2353), 86% (n =2031) underwent revascularization, while 14% (n =322) remained on OMT for the following reasons; 18% (n =59) refused intervention and 82% (n =263) were declined intervention by the treating team. All-cause mortality was 3.3% (n =87) in the total population; 2.2% (45/2031) in the OMTR group versus 11% (35/322) in the OMT group (P <0.0001). Conclusion: Mortality was higher in OMT group, which had a higher prevalence of HF and lower baseline LVEF. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]