European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) expert consensus statement on perioperative myocardial infarction after cardiac surgery.

Cardiac surgery may lead to myocardial damage and release of cardiac biomarkers through various mechanisms such as cardiac manipulation, systemic inflammation, myocardial hypoxia, cardioplegic arrest and ischaemia caused by coronary or graft occlusion. Defining perioperative myocardial infarction (PMI) after cardiac surgery presents challenges, and the association between the current PMI definitions and postoperative outcomes remains uncertain. To address these challenges, the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) facilitated collaboration among a multidisciplinary group to evaluate the existing evidence on the mechanisms, diagnosis and prognostic implications of PMI after cardiac surgery. The review found that the postoperative troponin value thresholds associated with an increased risk of mortality are markedly higher than those proposed by all the current definitions of PMI. Additionally, it was found that large postoperative increases in cardiac biomarkers are prognostically relevant even in absence of additional supportive signs of ischaemia. A new algorithm for PMI detection after cardiac surgery was also proposed, and a consensus was reached within the group that establishing a prognostically relevant definition of PMI is critically needed in the cardiovascular field and that PMI should be included in the primary composite outcome of coronary intervention trials.

JCL roundtable: Evolution of preventive cardiology and clinical lipidology.

It's a privilege to discuss preventive cardiology with 3 of the foremost U.S. leaders in this growing subspecialty. Preventive cardiology is the practice of primordial, primary, and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. It employs an integrated team of clinicians committed to preventing all forms of cardiovascular disease, including ischemic heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and other conditions. Thus, contemporary preventive cardiology extends management beyond dyslipidemic risk reduction and now commonly includes treatment of hypertension, diabetes and other related cardiometabolic disorders, novel cardiovascular risk factors, thrombotic risk, some cardiac genetic disorders, and cardiac disorders specific to women's health, as well as attention to tobacco- and drug-related risks. Preventive cardiologists may simultaneously manage cardiac rehabilitation programs. Among significant innovations are the launch of the American Journal of Preventive Cardiology in 2020, increasing validation and use of coronary artery calcium scoring, prescription of obesity and diabetes pharmaceuticals by cardiologists, and focus on pregnancy as a natural cardiovascular stress test for women with implications for future cardiovascular events. A continuing major barrier is that reimbursement for preventive cardiology services currently does not match the value benefit which accrues to patients and society. Preventive care too often is added late in the course of disease management. In addition to ongoing pharmaceutical and lifestyle research, future directions include incorporation of specific training goals for preventive cardiology in general clinical cardiology training programs and support for registered dietitian reimbursement for services to patients with clinically manifest atherosclerosis.

Impact of Complete Revascularization in the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic complete revascularization (ACR) and functional complete revascularization (FCR) have been associated with reduced death and myocardial infarction (MI) in some prior studies. The impact of complete revascularization (CR) in patients undergoing an invasive (INV) compared with a conservative (CON) management strategy has not been reported. OBJECTIVES: Among patients with chronic coronary disease without prior coronary artery bypass grafting randomized to INV vs CON management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, we examined the following: 1) the outcomes of ACR and FCR compared with incomplete revascularization; and 2) the potential impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON management. METHODS: ACR and FCR in the INV group were assessed at an independent core laboratory. Multivariable-adjusted outcomes of CR were examined in INV patients. Inverse probability weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR been achieved in all INV patients compared with CON management. RESULTS: ACR and FCR were achieved in 43.4% and 58.4% of 1,824 INV patients. ACR was associated with reduced 4-year rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared with incomplete revascularization. By inverse probability weighted modeling, ACR in all 2,296 INV patients compared with 2,498 CON patients was associated with a lower 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI (difference -3.5; 95% CI: -7.2% to 0.0%). In comparison, the event rate difference of cardiovascular death or MI for INV minus CON in the overall ISCHEMIA trial was -2.4%. Results were similar but less pronounced with FCR. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of an INV strategy may be improved if CR (especially ACR) is achieved. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How.

Background Myocardial revascularization has been advocated to improve myocardial function and prognosis in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). We discuss the evidence for revascularization in patients with ICM and the role of ischemia and viability detection in guiding treatment. Methods and Results We searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the prognostic impact of revascularization in ICM and the value of viability imaging for patient management. Out of 1397 publications, 4 randomized controlled trials were included, enrolling 2480 patients. Three trials (HEART [Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial], STICH [Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure], and REVIVED [REVascularization for Ischemic VEntricular Dysfunction]-BCIS2) randomized patients to revascularization or optimal medical therapy. HEART was stopped prematurely without showing any significant difference between treatment strategies. STICH showed a 16% lower mortality with bypass surgery compared with optimal medical therapy at a median follow-up of 9.8 years. However, neither the presence/extent of left ventricle viability nor ischemia interacted with treatment outcomes. REVIVED-BCIS2 showed no difference in the primary end point between percutaneous revascularization or optimal medical therapy. PARR-2 (Positron Emission Tomography and Recovery Following Revascularization) randomized patients to imaging-guided revascularization versus standard care, with neutral results overall. Information regarding the consistency of patient management with viability testing results was available in ≈65% of patients (n=1623). No difference in survival was revealed according to adherence or no adherence to viability imaging. Conclusions In ICM, the largest randomized controlled trial, STICH, suggests that surgical revascularization improves patients' prognosis at long-term follow-up, whereas evidence supports no benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from randomized controlled trials do not support myocardial ischemia or viability testing for treatment guidance. We propose an algorithm for the workup of patients with ICM considering clinical presentation, imaging results, and surgical risk.

Trends in Ischemic Evaluation in New-Onset Heart Failure Without Known Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend consideration of an ischemic evaluation (Class IIa-IIb) in new-onset heart failure (HF), but it is not well-known how often this is performed and leads to revascularization. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated temporal trends in ischemic evaluation and revascularization within 90 days of HF onset in Denmark 2008-2018. METHODS: From the Danish nationwide administrative registries, diagnostic tests and revascularizations within 90 days were identified among patients with new-onset HF between 2008 and 2018, alive 90 days after diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 61,475 patients (mean age: 72.6 ± 13.8 years, 46% women), 12,503 (20%) underwent an ischemic evaluation, of whom 10,547 (84%) underwent invasive coronary angiography, and 1,956 (16%) underwent an initial noninvasive test, most frequently coronary computed tomographic angiography (n = 1,813, 93%). Of those who were initially referred for coronary computed tomographic angiography, 374 (21%) had a subsequent invasive coronary angiogram undertaken. Among individuals undergoing ischemic testing, percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery were performed in 1,354 (11%) and 619 (5%), respectively, corresponding to 2.2% and 1.0% of the entire sample. Between 2008 and 2018, the number of patients referred for ischemic evaluations increased, adjusted OR for 1.07 (95% CI: 1.06-1.07) per year high, and was greater among older versus younger individuals (OR: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.99-1.03], OR: 1.04 [95% CI: 1.03-1.06], OR: 1.06 [95% CI: 1.05-1.07], OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 1.09-1.12], and OR: 1.14 [95% CI: 1.10-1.18] per year increase for age group <50, 51-60, 61-75, 76-85, and >85 years, respectively, P for interaction <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, few patients with new-onset HF are referred for an ischemic evaluation and a minority undergo revascularization. Studies are needed to establish the appropriateness of this practice.

Comparison of Outcomes of Invasive or Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in Four Randomized Controlled Trials.

Revascularization and medical therapy for chronic coronary disease have both evolved significantly over the last 50 years. A total of 4 contemporary randomized controlled trials- Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive drug Evaluation (COURAGE), Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D), Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2), and International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-have assessed the incremental benefit of revascularization when added to secondary prevention with intensive pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention. We reviewed these 4 seminal studies with the objective of marshaling evidence to better frame how these results should apply to clinical decision making. These studies differed in study design, end points, intensity of treatment, and revascularization techniques. Nevertheless, they all demonstrate similar rates of "hard" clinical events with invasive and conservative management, and varying degrees of benefit in angina-related quality of life with revascularization. In conclusion, although controversy persists concerning the role of revascularization because of differing interpretations of the clinical trial evidence, we contend that instead of being competing management strategies, invasive and conservative approaches are complementary.

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.

Effects of long-term testosterone treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in men with hypogonadism: Rationale and design of the TRAVERSE study.

BACKGROUND: Testosterone exerts some effects on the cardiovascular system that could be considered beneficial; some other effects may potentially increase the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events. Neither the long-term efficacy nor safety of testosterone treatment has been studied in an adequately-powered randomized trial. METHODS: The Testosterone Replacement therapy for Assessment of long-term Vascular Events and efficacy ResponSE in hypogonadal men (TRAVERSE) study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, non-inferiority, multicenter study. Eligible participants are men, 45 to 80 years, with serum testosterone concentration <300 ng/dL and hypogonadal symptoms, who have evidence pre-existing CV disease or increased risk of CV disease. Approximately 6,000 subjects will be randomized to either 1.62% transdermal testosterone gel or a matching placebo gel daily for an anticipated duration of up to 5 years. The primary outcome is CV safety defined by the major adverse CV event composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death due to CV causes. The trial will continue until at least 256 adjudicated major adverse CV event endpoints have occurred to assess whether the 95% (2-sided) upper confidence limit for a hazard ratio of 1.5 can be ruled out. Secondary endpoints include prostate safety defined as the incidence of adjudicated high grade prostate cancer and efficacy in domains of sexual function, bone fractures, depression, anemia, and diabetes. RESULTS: As of July 1, 2021, 5,076 subjects had been randomized. CONCLUSIONS: The TRAVERSE study will determine the CV safety and long-term efficacy of testosterone treatment in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism with or at increased risk of CV disease.

Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA Trial: Impact of Different Definitions on Incidence, Prognosis, and Treatment Comparisons.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions. RESULTS: Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Influence of LDL-Cholesterol Lowering on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Coronary Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is associated with increased cardiovascular events, especially in high-risk populations. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the influence of LDL-C on the incidence of cardiovascular events either following a coronary revascularization procedure (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) or optimal medical therapy alone in patients with established coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: Patient-level pooled analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials was undertaken. Patients with T2DM were categorized according to the levels of LDL-C at 1 year following randomization. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events ([MACCE] the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke). RESULTS: A total of 4,050 patients were followed for a median of 3.9 years after the index 1-year assessment. Patients whose 1-year LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dl experienced higher 4-year cumulative risk of MACCE (17.2% vs. 13.3% vs. 13.1% for LDL-C between 70 and <100 mg/dl and LDL-C <70 mg/dl, respectively; p = 0.016). When compared with optimal medical therapy alone, patients with PCI experienced a MACCE reduction only if 1-year LDL-C was <70 mg/dl (hazard ratio: 0.61; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.91; p = 0.016), whereas CABG was associated with improved outcomes across all 1-year LDL-C strata. In patients with 1-year LDL-C ≥70 mg/dl, patients undergoing CABG had significantly lower MACCE rates as compared with PCI. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary heart disease with T2DM, lower LDL-C at 1 year is associated with improved long-term MACCE outcome in those eligible for either PCI or CABG. When compared with optimal medical therapy alone, PCI was associated with MACCE reductions only in those who achieved an LDL-C <70 mg/dl.

Risk Prediction Tool for Assessing the Probability of Death or Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

Several risk scores in acute coronary syndromes are available, but few models exist for stable coronary artery disease to guide decision-making and prognosis. A multivariate model was developed using 23 baseline candidate variables from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Therapy EvaluationTrial (n = 2,287 patients). Discrimination of the model was evaluated by the concordance c-index. The procedure was validated using 100 random half samples. We identified 9 independent predictors of death or myocardial infarction (MI) during a 5-year follow-up. The following predictors and points contributing to the risk score were: heart failure (3), number of diseased coronary arteries (1 for each vessel), diabetes (1), age (1 for each 15 years ≥ age 45), previous revascularization (1), current smoking (1), female (1), previous MI (1), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (1: 31 to 40 mg/dL; 2: <30 mg/dL). The risk tool had a potential range from 0 to 15, corresponding to 5-year event rates of 5.8% to 56%. C-indices ranged from 0.67 for the full data set to 0.62 for the validating subsamples. Respective observed versus predicted 5-year event rates for 3 predefined risk strata revealed: 30% had a low-risk score of 0 to 3 (9.3% vs 9.3%, or 1.9%/year); 59% had an intermediate-risk score of 4-6 (18.0% vs 18.1%, or 3.6%/year); and 11% had a high-risk score of 7-11 (36% vs 36.5%, or 7.2%/year). This stable coronary artery disease risk score permitted a prognostic assessment of 5-year probability of death or MI with an approximate 4-fold range in event rates from the lowest (9.3%) to the highest (36%) terciles, thus enabling better clinical practice decisions that allow physicians to tailor the intensity of treatment to the level of risk.

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.).

Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P = 0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P = 0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney 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 death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

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.).

Attainment of Guideline-Directed Medical Treatment in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Patients With and Without Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) is prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD); however, whether guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is adequately implemented in patients with SIHD and CKD is unknown. HYPOTHESIS: Use of GDMT and achievement of treatment targets would be higher in SIHD patients without CKD than in patients with CKD. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 563 consecutive patients with SIHD (mean age 67.8 years, 84% Caucasians, 40% females). CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of < 60 mL/min/1.73m2 using the four-variable MDRD Study equation. We examined the likelihood of achieving GDMT targets (prescription of high-intensity statins, antiplatelet agents, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels < 70 mg/dL, blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg, and hemoglobin A1C < 7% if diabetes) in patients with (n = 166) and without CKD (n = 397). RESULTS: Compared with the non-CKD group, CKD patients were significantly older (72 vs 66 years; p < 0.001), more commonly female (49 vs 36%; p = 0.002), had a higher prevalence of diabetes (46 vs 34%; p = 0.004), and left ventricular systolic ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% (23 vs. 10%, p < 0.001). All GDMT goals were achieved in 26% and 24% of patients with and without CKD, respectively (p = 0.712). There were no between-group differences in achieving individual GDMT goals with the exception of RAASi (CKD vs non-CKD: adjusted risk ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Attainment of GDMT goals in SIHD patients with CKD was similar to patients without CKD, with the exception of lower rates of RAASi use in the CKD group.

Lifestyle, Glycosylated Hemoglobin A1c, and Survival Among Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The importance of glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) control as part of comprehensive risk factor management in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) is controversial. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a greater number of controlled risk factors at 1 year, including A1c, affects survival in patients with DM and SIHD. METHODS: Of 690 patients with DM followed in the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial, 592 (86%) had complete ascertainment of 7 pre-specified risk factors at baseline and after 1 year: systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, nonsmoking, physical activity, diet adherence, body mass index, and A1c. The primary outcome measure was mortality beyond 1 year after randomization. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 7.0 ± 4.2 years beyond 1 year after randomization, 186 subjects died (31.4% overall, 4.5%/year). The greater the number of risk factors controlled at 1 year, the higher the probability of survival (unadjusted log rank p = 0.002). Compared with 0 to 1 controlled risk factors, attaining 3 to 7 goals predicted progressively lower mortality (hazard ratio for control of 6 or 7 risk factors was 0.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 to 0.40). Importantly, only 10.3% of subjects achieved control of 6 or 7 risk factors. In multivariate analysis, the strongest predictors of improved survival were no smoking, regular physical activity, dietary adherence, and A1c <7%. CONCLUSIONS: In this high-risk subset of SIHD patients with DM, the number of controlled risk factors, particularly lifestyle behaviors and A1c, were associated with improved survival. (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation; NCT00007657).