Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. METHODS: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

ISCHEMIA-EXTEND studies: Rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA and the ISCHEMIA-CKD trials found no statistical difference in the primary clinical endpoint between initial invasive management and initial conservative management of patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate to severe ischemia on stress testing without or with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). In ISCHEMIA, there was numerically lower cardiovascular mortality but higher non-cardiovascular mortality with no significant difference in all-cause death with an initial invasive strategy when compared with a conservative strategy. However, an invasive strategy increased peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) but decreased spontaneous MI with continued separation of curves over time, which potentially may lead to reduced risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Thus, the long-term effect of invasive management strategy on mortality remains unclear. In ISCHEMIA-CKD, the treatment and cause-specific mortality rates were similar during follow-up. METHODS: Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the ISCHEMIA-EXTEND observational study is the long-term follow-up of surviving participants (projected median of 10 years) with chronic coronary disease from the ISCHEMIA trial. In the ISCHEMIA trial, 5,179 participants with moderate or severe stress-induced ischemia were randomized to initial invasive management with angiography, revascularization when feasible, and guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), or initial conservative management with GDMT alone and angiography reserved for failure of medical therapy. ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND is the long-term follow-up of surviving participants (projected median of 9 years) from the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, a companion trial that included 777 patients with advanced CKD. Ascertainment of death will be conducted via direct participant contact, medical record review, and/or vital status registry search. The overarching objective of long-term follow-up is to assess whether there are between-group differences in long-term all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality, and increase precision around the treatment effect estimates for risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality. We will conduct Bayesian survival modeling to take advantage of rich inferences using the posterior distribution of the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term effect of an initial invasive versus conservative strategy on all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality will be assessed. The findings of ISCHEMIA-EXTEND and ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND will inform patients, practitioners, practice guidelines, and health policy.

Screening for participants in the ISCHEMIA trial: Implications for clinical research.

The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) found that there was no statistical difference in cardiovascular events with an initial invasive strategy as compared with an initial conservative strategy of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with moderate to severe ischemia on noninvasive testing. In this study, we describe the reasons that potentially eligible patients who were screened for participation in the ISCHEMIA trial did not advance to enrollment, the step prior to randomization. Of those who preliminarily met clinical inclusion criteria on screening logs submitted during the enrollment period, over half did not participate due to physician or patient refusal, a potentially modifiable barrier. This analysis highlights the importance of physician equipoise when advising patients about participation in randomized controlled trials.

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS: We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS: At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS: In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).