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.).

Effects of initial invasive vs. initial conservative treatment strategies on recurrent and total cardiovascular events in the ISCHEMIA trial.

AIMS: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial prespecified an analysis to determine whether accounting for recurrent cardiovascular events in addition to first events modified understanding of the treatment effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischaemia on stress testing were randomized to either initial invasive (INV) or initial conservative (CON) management. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or cardiac arrest. The Ghosh-Lin method was used to estimate mean cumulative incidence of total events with death as a competing risk. The 5179 ISCHEMIA patients experienced 670 index events (318 INV, 352 CON) and 203 recurrent events (102 INV, 101 CON). A single primary event was observed in 9.8% of INV and 10.8% of CON patients while ≥2 primary events were observed in 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively. Patients with recurrent events were older; had more frequent hypertension, diabetes, prior MI, or cerebrovascular disease; and had more multivessel CAD. The average number of primary endpoint events per 100 patients over 4 years was 18.2 in INV [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-20.9] and 19.7 in CON (95% CI 17.5-22.2), difference -1.5 (95% CI -5.0 to 2.0, P = 0.398). Comparable results were obtained when all-cause death was substituted for cardiovascular death and when stroke was added as an event. CONCLUSIONS: In stable CAD patients with moderate or severe myocardial ischaemia enrolled in ISCHEMIA, an initial INV treatment strategy did not prevent either net recurrent events or net total events more effectively than an initial CON strategy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01471522.

Natural History of Patients With Ischemia and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: The CIAO-ISCHEMIA Study.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) is common and has an adverse prognosis. We set out to describe the natural history of symptoms and ischemia in INOCA. METHODS: CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One Year in ISCHEMIA Trial Screen Failures With INOCA) was an international cohort study conducted from 2014 to 2019 involving angina assessments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and stress echocardiograms 1 year apart. This was an ancillary study that included patients with a history of angina who were not randomly assigned in the ISCHEMIA trial. Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were determined by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to symptoms, coronary artery disease status, and test timing. Medical therapy was at the discretion of treating physicians. The primary outcome was the correlation between the changes in the Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score and changes in echocardiographic ischemia. We also analyzed predictors of 1-year changes in both angina and ischemia, and we compared CIAO participants with ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease who had stress echocardiography before enrollment, as CIAO participants did. RESULTS: INOCA participants in CIAO were more often female (66% of 208 versus 26% of 865 ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease, P<0.001), but the magnitude of ischemia was similar (median 4 ischemic segments [interquartile range, 3-5] both groups). Ischemia and angina were not significantly correlated at enrollment in CIAO (P=0.46) or ISCHEMIA stress echocardiography participants (P=0.35). At 1 year, the stress echocardiogram was normal in half of CIAO participants, and 23% had moderate or severe ischemia (≥3 ischemic segments). Angina improved in 43% and worsened in 14%. Change in ischemia over 1 year was not significantly correlated with change in angina (ρ=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in ischemia and angina were common in INOCA but not correlated. Our INOCA cohort had a degree of inducible wall motion abnormalities similar to concurrently enrolled ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease. Our results highlight the complex nature of INOCA pathophysiology and the multifactorial nature of angina. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02347215.

Outcomes of Participants With Diabetes in the ISCHEMIA Trials.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with diabetes and chronic coronary disease, it is unclear if invasive management improves outcomes when added to medical therapy. METHODS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trials (ie, ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease) randomized chronic coronary disease patients to an invasive (medical therapy + angiography and revascularization if feasible) or a conservative approach (medical therapy alone with revascularization if medical therapy failed). Cohorts were combined after no trial-specific effects were observed. Diabetes was defined by history, hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or use of glucose-lowering medication. The primary outcome was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). Heterogeneity of effect of invasive management on death or MI was evaluated using a Bayesian approach to protect against random high or low estimates of treatment effect for patients with versus without diabetes and for diabetes subgroups of clinical (female sex and insulin use) and anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function). RESULTS: Of 5900 participants with complete baseline data, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range, 57-70), 24% were female, and the median estimated glomerular filtration was 80 mL·min-1·1.73-2 (interquartile range, 64-95). Among the 2553 (43%) of participants with diabetes, the median percent hemoglobin A1c was 7% (interquartile range, 7-8), and 30% were insulin-treated. Participants with diabetes had a 49% increased hazard of death or MI (hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.31-1.70]; P<0.001). At median 3.1-year follow-up the adjusted event-free survival was 0.54 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.48-0.60) and 0.66 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.61-0.71) for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, respectively, with a 12% (95% bootstrapped CI, 4%-20%) absolute decrease in event-free survival among participants with diabetes. Female and male patients with insulin-treated diabetes had an adjusted event-free survival of 0.52 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56) and 0.49 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56), respectively. There was no difference in death or MI between strategies for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, or for clinical (female sex or insulin use) or anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function) of patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk for death or MI, chronic coronary disease patients with diabetes did not derive incremental benefit from routine invasive management compared with initial medical therapy alone. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS: We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS: Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

Peak treadmill exercise echocardiography for ischemia detection.

Of the stress echocardiographic methods, exercise should be the first choice for patients able to exercise, according to guidelines. Among ExE modalities, treadmill ExE with acquisition of images at peak exercise has several advantages, including high sensitivity and prognostic value. Overall, sensitivity of ExE is around 80%-85%, although figures for peak imaging on the treadmill are 85%-90%. Despite it, guidelines do not mention this method.

Exercise testing in COVID-19 era: Clinical profile, results and feasibility wearing a facemask.

BACKGROUND: No data are available about whether Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to changes in clinical profiles or results of exercise testing once the usual activity was reassumed, as well as if wearing a facemask has any impact on the tests. The aim of this study is to evaluate differences in the patients referred to exercise stress testing in the context of COVID-19 pandemic and analyse the feasibility and results of these tests wearing a facemask. METHODS: We included all patients referred for an exercise test from 1 June to 30 September 2020 and compared them with the patients attended within the same period in 2019 before and after propensity score matching. All patients referred in 2020 wore a facemask. RESULTS: A total of 854 patients were included: 398 in the 2020 group and 456 in 2019. No significant differences in baseline characteristics of the patients were observed, with the exception of dyspnoea, which was nearly twice as high in 2020 as compared with 2019. Regarding the results of the tests, no differences were observed, with almost 80% of maximal tests, similar functional capacity and over a 20% of positive exercise tests in both groups. These results remained after propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic has not changed the clinical profile of patients referred to exercise testing. In addition, performing exercise testing wearing a facemask is feasible, with no influence in functional capacity and clinical results.