Bress AP, et al. – This historical cohort study of veterans with chronic stable angina evaluated the time to coronary revascularization procedures, hospitalizations, and 1-year health-care costs between new users of ranolazine vs users of conventional antianginal treatments (ie, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, or long-acting nitrates) as second- or third-line therapy. Adjusted hazard ratios at up to eight-years follow up and adjusted incremental costs in the first year were calculated using weighted regression models. Results showed that, compared with individuals treated with conventional antianginal drugs, lower rates of coronary artery bypass grafting as well as all-cause and atrial fibrillation hospitalizations were observed among ranolazine users. Rates of percutaneous coronary intervention and hospitalization due to acute coronary syndrome were, however, higher among ranolazine users vs conventional antianginal treatment users. Findings indicated that both ranolazine and conventional antianginal users had similar health-care costs.