Benchmarking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator.

Quantum systems have entered a competitive regime in which classical computers must make approximations to represent highly entangled quantum states1,2. However, in this beyond-classically-exact regime, fidelity comparisons between quantum and classical systems have so far been limited to digital quantum devices2-5, and it remains unsolved how to estimate the actual entanglement content of experiments6. Here, we perform fidelity benchmarking and mixed-state entanglement estimation with a 60-atom analogue Rydberg quantum simulator, reaching a high-entanglement entropy regime in which exact classical simulation becomes impractical. Our benchmarking protocol involves extrapolation from comparisons against an approximate classical algorithm, introduced here, with varying entanglement limits. We then develop and demonstrate an estimator of the experimental mixed-state entanglement6, finding our experiment is competitive with state-of-the-art digital quantum devices performing random circuit evolution2-5. Finally, we compare the experimental fidelity against that achieved by various approximate classical algorithms, and find that only the algorithm we introduce is able to keep pace with the experiment on the classical hardware we use. Our results enable a new model for evaluating the ability of both analogue and digital quantum devices to generate entanglement in the beyond-classically-exact regime, and highlight the evolving divide between quantum and classical systems.

Preparing random states and benchmarking with many-body quantum chaos.

Producing quantum states at random has become increasingly important in modern quantum science, with applications being both theoretical and practical. In particular, ensembles of such randomly distributed, but pure, quantum states underlie our understanding of complexity in quantum circuits1 and black holes2, and have been used for benchmarking quantum devices3,4 in tests of quantum advantage5,6. However, creating random ensembles has necessitated a high degree of spatio-temporal control7-12 placing such studies out of reach for a wide class of quantum systems. Here we solve this problem by predicting and experimentally observing the emergence of random state ensembles naturally under time-independent Hamiltonian dynamics, which we use to implement an efficient, widely applicable benchmarking protocol. The observed random ensembles emerge from projective measurements and are intimately linked to universal correlations built up between subsystems of a larger quantum system, offering new insights into quantum thermalization13. Predicated on this discovery, we develop a fidelity estimation scheme, which we demonstrate for a Rydberg quantum simulator with up to 25 atoms using fewer than 104 experimental samples. This method has broad applicability, as we demonstrate for Hamiltonian parameter estimation, target-state generation benchmarking, and comparison of analogue and digital quantum devices. Our work has implications for understanding randomness in quantum dynamics14 and enables applications of this concept in a much wider context4,5,9,10,15-20.

Forecasting the Economic Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the economic burden of cardiovascular disease and stroke over the coming decades may inform policy, health system, and community-level interventions for prevention and treatment. METHODS: We used nationally representative health, economic, and demographic data to project health care costs attributable to key cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia) and conditions (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) through 2050. The human capital approach was used to estimate productivity losses from morbidity and premature mortality due to cardiovascular conditions. RESULTS: One in 3 US adults received care for a cardiovascular risk factor or condition in 2020. Annual inflation-adjusted (2022 US dollars) health care costs of cardiovascular risk factors are projected to triple between 2020 and 2050, from $400 billion to $1344 billion. For cardiovascular conditions, annual health care costs are projected to almost quadruple, from $393 billion to $1490 billion, and productivity losses are projected to increase by 54%, from $234 billion to $361 billion. Stroke is projected to account for the largest absolute increase in costs. Large relative increases among the Asian American population (497%) and Hispanic American population (489%) reflect the projected increases in the size of these populations. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of cardiovascular risk factors and overt cardiovascular disease in the United States is projected to increase substantially in the coming decades. Development and deployment of cost-effective programs and policies to promote cardiovascular health are urgently needed to rein in costs and to equitably enhance population health.

Atherosclerosis quantification and cardiovascular risk: the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived atherosclerotic plaque analysis in ISCHEMIA. METHODS: Atherosclerosis imaging quantitative computed tomography (AI-QCT) was performed on all available baseline CCTAs to quantify plaque volume, composition, and distribution. Multivariable Cox regression was used to examine the association between baseline risk factors (age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, ejection fraction, prior coronary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and statin use), number of diseased vessels, atherosclerotic plaque characteristics determined by AI-QCT, and a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction over a median follow-up of 3.3 (interquartile range 2.2-4.4) years. The predictive value of plaque quantification over risk factors was compared in an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Analysable CCTA data were available from 3711 participants (mean age 64 years, 21% female, 79% multivessel coronary artery disease). Amongst the AI-QCT variables, total plaque volume was most strongly associated with the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.97 per interquartile range increase [559 mm3]; P = .001). The addition of AI-QCT plaque quantification and characterization to baseline risk factors improved the model's predictive value for the primary outcome at 6 months (AUC 0.688 vs. 0.637; P = .006), at 2 years (AUC 0.660 vs. 0.617; P = .003), and at 4 years of follow-up (AUC 0.654 vs. 0.608; P = .002). The findings were similar for the other reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, total plaque volume was associated with cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. In this highly diseased, high-risk population, enhanced assessment of atherosclerotic burden using AI-QCT-derived measures of plaque volume and composition modestly improved event prediction.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vericiguat in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The VICTORIA trial (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) demonstrated that, in patients with high-risk heart failure, vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization relative to placebo. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07). In a prespecified analysis, treatment effects varied substantially as a function of baseline NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels, with survival benefit for vericiguat in the lower NT-proBNP quartiles (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]) and no benefit in the highest NT-proBNP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.38]). An economic analysis was a major secondary objective of the VICTORIA research program. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all VICTORIA patients (N=5050). Costs were estimated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts. Life expectancy was projected from patient-level empirical trial survival results with the use of age-based survival modeling methods. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on prospectively collected EQ-5D-based utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing vericiguat with placebo, assessed from the US health care sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the total VICTORIA cohort, both with and without interaction between treatment and baseline NT-proBNP. RESULTS: Life expectancy modeling results varied according to whether the observed heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline NT-proBNP values was incorporated into the modeling. Including the interaction term, the vericiguat arm had an estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy of 4.56 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with 4.13 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.43). Without the treatment heterogeneity/interaction term, vericiguat had 4.50 QALYs compared with 4.33 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.17). Incremental discounted costs (vericiguat minus placebo) were $28 546 with the treatment interaction and $20 948 without it. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $66 509 per QALY allowing for treatment heterogeneity and $124 512 without heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Vericiguat use in the VICTORIA trial met criteria for intermediate value, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were sensitive to whether the analysis accounted for observed NT-proBNP treatment effect heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness of vericiguat was driven by the projected incremental life expectancy among patients in the lowest 3 quartiles of NT-proBNP. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease." METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. STRUCTURE: This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

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.

Regional differences in outcomes with ablation versus drug therapy for atrial fibrillation: Results from the CABANA trial.

BACKGROUND: The finding of unexpected variations in treatment benefits by geographic region in international clinical trials raises complex questions about the interpretation and generalizability of trial findings. We observed such geographical variations in outcome and in the effectiveness of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation versus drug therapy in the Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial. This paper describes these differences and investigates potential causes. METHODS: The examination of treatment effects by geographic region was a prespecified analysis. CABANA enrolled patients from 10 countries, with 1,285 patients at 85 North American (NA) sites and 919 at 41 non-NA sites. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Death and first atrial fibrillation recurrence were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: At least 1 primary endpoint event occurred in 157 patients (12.2%) from NA and 33 (3.6%) from non-NA sites over a median 54.9 and 40.5 months of follow-up, respectively (NA/non-NA adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-3.21, P < .001). In NA patients, 78 events occurred in the ablation and 79 in the drug arm, (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66, 1.24) while 11 and 22 events occurred in non-NA patients (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25,1.05, interaction P = .154). Death occurred in 53 ablation and 51 drug therapy patients in the NA group (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65,1.42) and in 5 ablation and 16 drug therapy patients in the non-NA group (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12,0.86, interaction P = .044). Adjusting for baseline regional differences or prognostic risk variables did not account for the regional differences in treatment effects. Atrial fibrillation recurrence was reduced by ablation in both regions (NA: HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46, 0.63; non-NA: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30, 0.64, interaction P = .322). CONCLUSIONS: In CABANA, primary outcome events occurred significantly more often in the NA group but assignment to ablation significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the non-NA group only. These differences were not explained by regional variations in procedure effectiveness, safety, or patient characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0091150; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00911508.

Baseline characteristics including blood and urine metal levels in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy 2 (TACT2).

BACKGROUND: The reduction in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events with edetate disodium (EDTA) in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) suggested that chelation of toxic metals might provide novel opportunities to reduce CVD in patients with diabetes. Lead and cadmium are vasculotoxic metals chelated by EDTA. We present baseline characteristics for participants in TACT2, a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial designed as a replication of the TACT trial limited to patients with diabetes. METHODS: TACT2 enrolled 1,000 participants with diabetes and prior myocardial infarction, age 50 years or older between September 2016 and December 2020. Among 959 participants with at least one infusion, 933 had blood and/or urine metals measured at the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention using the same methodology as in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We compared metal levels in TACT2 to a contemporaneous subset of NHANES participants with CVD, diabetes and other inclusion criteria similar to TACT2's participants. RESULTS: At baseline, the median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 67 (60, 72) years, 27% were women, 78% reported white race, mean (SD) BMI was 32.7 (6.6) kg/m2, 4% reported type 1 diabetes, 46.8% were treated with insulin, 22.3% with GLP1-receptor agonists or SGLT-2 inhibitors, 90.2% with aspirin, warfarin or P2Y12 inhibitors, and 86.5% with statins. Blood lead was detectable in all participants; median (IQR) was 9.19 (6.30, 13.9) µg/L. Blood and urine cadmium were detectable in 97% and median (IQR) levels were 0.28 (0.18, 0.43) µg/L and 0.30 (0.18, 0.51) µg/g creatinine, respectively. Metal levels were largely similar to those in the contemporaneous NHANES subset. CONCLUSIONS: TACT2 participants were characterized by high use of medication to treat CVD and diabetes and similar baseline metal levels as in the general US population. TACT2 will determine whether chelation therapy reduces the occurrence of subsequent CVD events in this high-risk population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02733185. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02733185.

RAndomized Cluster Evaluation of Cardiac ARrest Systems (RACE-CARS) trial: Study rationale and design.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) occurs in nearly 350,000 people each year in the United States (US). Despite advances in pre and in-hospital care, OHCA survival remains low and is highly variable across systems and regions. The critical barrier to improving cardiac arrest outcomes is not a lack of knowledge about effective interventions, but rather the widespread lack of systems of care to deliver interventions known to be successful. The RAndomized Cluster Evaluation of Cardiac ARrest Systems (RACE-CARS) trial is a 7-year pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial of 62 counties (57 clusters) in North Carolina using an established registry and is testing whether implementation of a customized set of strategically targeted community-based interventions improves survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic function in OHCA relative to control/standard care. The multifaceted intervention comprises rapid cardiac arrest recognition and systematic bystander CPR instructions by 9-1-1 telecommunicators, comprehensive community CPR training and enhanced early automated external defibrillator (AED) use prior to emergency medical systems (EMS) arrival. Approximately 20,000 patients are expected to be enrolled in the RACE CARS Trial over 4 years of the assessment period. The primary endpoint is survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic outcome defined as a cerebral performance category (CPC) of 1 or 2. Secondary outcomes include the rate of bystander CPR, defibrillation prior to arrival of EMS, and quality of life. We aim to identify successful community- and systems-based strategies to improve outcomes of OHCA using a cluster randomized-controlled trial design that aims to provide a high level of evidence for future application.

Public access defibrillator locations and details in Forsyth County, North Carolina: Results of a telephone survey canvas of large businesses to facilitate out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treatment.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on locations of public access defibrillation programs across communities in the United States, despite their widespread presence. Our goal was to determine publicly available AED locations of large businesses in a mixed urban-rural county. We then compared our survey results to a NC state-mandated AED registry and the county's emergency medical dispatch center AED registry. METHODS: We conducted structured phone surveys of all large businesses (>19 employees) and select small businesses (healthcare, government, childcare, educational, and religious organizations with 1-19 employees) in Forsyth County, NC (n = 1702) to determine AED ownership and location. In addition, AED lists were elicited from multi-building organizations (e.g., health systems, universities, and local government), the NC Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS), and the Forsyth County emergency medical dispatch center. RESULTS: Our survey yielded a response rate of 79.1 % and identified 411 businesses with ≥ 1 AEDs. An additional 162 AED locations were contained in AED lists from multi-building organizations and registries. In total, our canvas identified 963 AEDs at 573 unique locations. The majority of AEDs (65.1 % [627/963]) were not previously registered in the NC OEMS AED registry. Few identified AEDs (11.8 % [114/963]) were listed in the county emergency medical dispatch center registry.

Edetate Disodium-Based Chelation for Patients With a Previous Myocardial Infarction and Diabetes: TACT2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In 2013, the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) reported that edetate disodium (EDTA)-based chelation significantly reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events by 18% in 1708 patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI). Objective: To replicate the finding of TACT in individuals with diabetes and previous MI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2 × 2 factorial, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial at 88 sites in the US and Canada, involving participants who were 50 years or older, had diabetes, and had experienced an MI at least 6 weeks before recruitment compared the effect of EDTA-based chelation vs placebo infusions on CVD events and compared the effect of high doses of oral multivitamins and minerals with oral placebo. This article reports on the chelation vs placebo infusion comparisons. Interventions: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to 40 weekly infusions of an EDTA-based chelation solution or matching placebo and to twice daily oral, high-dose multivitamin and mineral supplements or matching placebo for 60 months. This article addresses the chelation study. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Median follow-up was 48 months. Primary comparisons were made from patients who received at least 1 assigned infusion. Results: Of the 959 participants (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 27% females; 78% White, 10% Black, and 20% Hispanic), 483 received at least 1 chelation infusion and 476 at least 1 placebo infusion. A primary end point event occurred in 172 participants (35.6%) in the chelation group and in 170 (35.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.16; P = .53). The 5-year primary event cumulative incidence rates were 45.8% for the chelation group and 46.5% for the placebo group. CV death, MI, or stroke events occurred in 89 participants (18.4%) in the chelation group and in 94 (19.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19). Death from any cause occurred in 84 participants (17.4%) in the chelation group and in 84 (17.6%) in the placebo group (adjusted HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30). Chelation reduced median blood lead levels from 9.03 µg/L at baseline to 3.46 µg/L at infusion 40 (P < .001). Corresponding levels in the placebo group were 9.3 µg/L and 8.7 µg/L, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite effectively reducing blood lead levels, EDTA chelation was not effective in reducing cardiovascular events in stable patients with coronary artery disease who have diabetes and a history of MI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02733185.

Association Between Age and Outcomes of Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that catheter ablation may be safe and effective to treat younger and older patients with atrial fibrillation. No large, randomized trial has examined this issue. This report describes outcomes according to age at entry in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: Patients with atrial fibrillation ≥65 years of age, or <65 with ≥1 risk factor for stroke, were randomly assigned to catheter ablation versus drug therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Treatment effect estimates were adjusted for baseline covariables using proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of 2204 patients randomly assigned in CABANA, 766 (34.8%) were <65 years of age, 1130 (51.3%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 308 (14.0%) were ≥75 years of age. Catheter ablation was associated with a 43% reduction in the primary outcome for patients <65 years of age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.30-1.09]), a 21% reduction for 65 to 74 years of age (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]), and an indeterminate effect for age ≥75 years of age (aHR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.75-2.58]). Four-year event rates for ablation versus drug therapy across age groups, respectively, were 3.2% versus 7.8%, 7.8% versus 9.6%, and 14.8% versus 9.0%. For every 10-year increase in age, the primary outcome aHR increased (ie, less favorable to ablation) an average of 27% (interaction P value=0.215). A similar pattern was seen with all-cause mortality: for every 10-year increase in age, the aHR increased an average of 46% (interaction P value=0.111). Atrial fibrillation recurrence rates were lower with ablation than with drug therapy across age subgroups (aHR 0.47, 0.58, and 0.49, respectively). Treatment-related complications were infrequent for both arms (<3%) regardless of age. CONCLUSIONS: We found age-based variations in clinical outcomes for catheter ablation compared with drug therapy, with the largest relative and absolute benefits of catheter ablation in younger patients. No prognostic benefits for ablation were seen in the oldest patients. No differences were found by age in treatment-related complications or in the relative effectiveness of catheter ablation in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Medicine in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduced all-cause mortality rates out to 10 years compared with medical therapy alone (MED) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤35%). We examined the economic implications of these results. METHODS: We used a decision-analytic patient-level simulation model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of CABG and MED using patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the STICH trial. Patient-level costs were calculated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts during trial follow-up. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: For the CABG arm, we estimated 6.53 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 5.70-7.53) and a lifetime cost of $140 059 (95% CI, $106 401 to $180 992). For the MED arm, the corresponding estimates were 5.52 (95% CI, 5.06-6.09) quality-adjusted life-years and $74 894 lifetime cost (95% CI, $58 372 to $93 541). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG compared with MED was $63 989 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, CABG was found to be economically favorable compared with MED in 87% of microsimulations. CONCLUSIONS: In the STICH trial, in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function, CABG was economically attractive relative to MED at current benchmarks for value in the United States. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA.

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS: We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS: Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

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.).