Angiogenic Gene Therapy for Refractory Angina: Results of the EXACT Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: XC001 is a novel adenoviral-5 vector designed to express multiple isoforms of VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) and more safely and potently induce angiogenesis. The EXACT trial (Epicardial Delivery of XC001 Gene Therapy for Refractory Angina Coronary Treatment) assessed the safety and preliminary efficacy of XC001 in patients with no option refractory angina. METHODS: In this single-arm, multicenter, open-label trial, 32 patients with no option refractory angina received a single treatment of XC001 (1×1011 viral particles) via transepicardial delivery. RESULTS: There were no severe adverse events attributed to the study drug. Twenty expected severe adverse events in 13 patients were related to the surgical procedure. Total exercise duration increased from a mean±SD of 359.9±105.55 seconds at baseline to 448.2±168.45 (3 months), 449.2±175.9 (6 months), and 477.6±174.7 (12 months; +88.3 [95% CI, 37.1-139.5], +84.5 [95% CI, 34.1-134.9], and +115.5 [95% CI, 59.1-171.9]). Total myocardial perfusion deficit on positron emission tomography imaging decreased by 10.2% (95% CI, -3.1% to 23.5%), 14.3% (95% CI, 2.8%-25.7%), and 10.2% (95% CI, -0.8% to -21.2%). Angina frequency decreased from a mean±SD 12.2±12.5 episodes to 5.2±7.2 (3 months), 5.1±7.8 (6 months), and 2.7±4.8 (12 months), with an average decrease of 7.7 (95% CI, 4.1-11.3), 6.6 (95% CI, 3.5-9.7), and 8.8 (4.6-13.0) episodes at 3, 6, and 12 months. Angina class improved in 81% of participants at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: XC001 administered via transepicardial delivery is safe and generally well tolerated. Exploratory improvements in total exercise duration, ischemic burden, and subjective measures support a biologic effect sustained to 12 months, warranting further investigation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04125732.

Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline-directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline-directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive-assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive-assigned men; P<0.001). Women had less coronary artery disease: multivessel in 60.0% of invasive-assigned women and 74.8% of invasive-assigned men, and no ≥50% stenosis in 12.3% versus 4.5% (P<0.001). In the conservative group, 4-year catheterization rates were 26.3% of women versus 25.6% of men (P=0.72). Guideline-directed medical therapy use was lower among women with fewer risk factor goals attained. There were no sex differences in the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women versus men, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13]; P=0.47) or the major secondary outcome of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.49), with no significant sex-by-treatment-group interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Women had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial. REGISTRATION: URL: http://wwwclinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia.

BACKGROUND: A strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level. METHODS: In this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).

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).

Impact of complete revascularization in the IschemiaTrial

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).

Cause-Specific Mortality in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.

BACKGROUND: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, 777 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic coronary disease had similar all-cause mortality with either an initial invasive or conservative strategy (27.2% vs 27.8%, respectively). OBJECTIVES: This prespecified secondary analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) was conducted to determine whether an initial invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy decreased the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) vs non-CV causes of death. METHODS: Three-year cumulative incidences were calculated for the adjudicated cause of death. Overall and cause-specific death by treatment strategy were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. The association between cause of death, risk factors, and treatment strategy were identified. RESULTS: A total of 192 of the 777 participants died during follow-up, including 94 (12.1%) of a CV cause, 59 (7.6%) of a non-CV cause, and 39 (5.0%) of an undetermined cause. The 3-year cumulative rates of CV death were similar between the invasive and conservative strategies (14.6% vs 12.6%, respectively; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.75-1.70). Non-CV death rates were also similar between the invasive and conservative arms (8.4% and 8.2%, respectively; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.75-2.09). Sudden cardiac death (46.8% of CV deaths) and infection (54.2% of non-CV deaths) were the most common cause-specific deaths and did not vary by treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, CV death was more common than non-CV or undetermined death during the 3-year follow-up. The randomized treatment assignment did not affect the cause-specific incidences of death in participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).

Rationale and design for the myocardial ischemia and transfusion (MINT) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence from clinical trials suggests that a lower (restrictive) hemoglobin threshold (<8 g/dL) for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, compared with a higher (liberal) threshold (≥10 g/dL) is safe. However, in anemic patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), maintaining a higher hemoglobin level may increase oxygen delivery to vulnerable myocardium resulting in improved clinical outcomes. Conversely, RBC transfusion may result in increased blood viscosity, vascular inflammation, and reduction in available nitric oxide resulting in worse clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that a liberal transfusion strategy would improve clinical outcomes as compared to a more restrictive strategy. METHODS: We will enroll 3500 patients with acute MI (type 1, 2, 4b or 4c) as defined by the Third Universal Definition of MI and a hemoglobin <10 g/dL at 144 centers in the United States, Canada, France, Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia. We randomly assign trial participants to a liberal or restrictive transfusion strategy. Participants assigned to the liberal strategy receive transfusion of RBCs sufficient to raise their hemoglobin to at least 10 g/dL. Participants assigned to the restrictive strategy are permitted to receive transfusion of RBCs if the hemoglobin falls below 8 g/dL or for persistent angina despite medical therapy. We will contact each participant at 30 days to assess clinical outcomes and at 180 days to ascertain vital status. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death or recurrent MI through 30 days following randomization. Secondary end points include all-cause mortality at 30 days, recurrent adjudicated MI, and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, nonfatal recurrent MI, ischemia driven unscheduled coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting), or readmission to the hospital for ischemic cardiac diagnosis within 30 days. The trial will assess multiple tertiary end points. CONCLUSIONS: The MINT trial will inform RBC transfusion practice in patients with acute MI.

Ischemia With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) is common clinically, particularly among women, but its prevalence among patients with at least moderate ischemia and the relationship between ischemia severity and non-obstructive atherosclerosis severity are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated predictors of INOCA in enrolled, nonrandomized participants in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), sex differences, and the relationship between ischemia and atherosclerosis in patients with INOCA. METHODS: Core laboratories independently reviewed screening noninvasive stress test results (nuclear imaging, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance testing), and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), blinded to results of the screening test. INOCA was defined as all stenoses <50% on CCTA in a patient with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. INOCA patients, who were excluded from randomization, were compared with randomized participants with ≥50% stenosis in ≥1 vessel and moderate or severe ischemia. RESULTS: Among 3,612 participants with core laboratory-confirmed moderate or severe ischemia and interpretable CCTA, 476 (13%) had INOCA. Patients with INOCA were younger, were predominantly female, and had fewer atherosclerosis risk factors. For each stress testing modality, the extent of ischemia tended to be less among patients with INOCA, particularly with nuclear imaging. There was no significant relationship between severity of ischemia and extent or severity of nonobstructive atherosclerosis on CCTA. On multivariable analysis, female sex was independently associated with INOCA (odds ratio: 4.2 [95% CI: 3.4-5.2]). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants enrolled in ISCHEMIA with core laboratory-confirmed moderate or severe ischemia, the prevalence of INOCA was 13%. Severity of ischemia was not associated with severity of nonobstructive atherosclerosis. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Cardiovascular and Renal Implications of Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) reported an initial invasive treatment strategy did not reduce the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) compared with a conservative treatment strategy in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, stable coronary disease, and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. The cumulative frequency of different MI type after randomization and subsequent prognosis have not been reported. METHODS: MI classification was based on the Third Universal Definition for MI. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary MI definition used cTn (cardiac troponin); both definitions included elevated biomarker-only events with higher thresholds than nonprocedural MIs. The cumulative frequency of MI type according to treatment strategy was determined. The association of MI with subsequent all-cause death and new dialysis initiation was assessed by treating MI as a time-dependent covariate. RESULTS: The 3-year incidence of type 1 or 2 MI with the primary MI definition was 11.2% in invasive treatment strategy and 13.6% in conservative treatment strategy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.42-1.02]). Procedural MIs were more frequent in invasive treatment strategy and accounted for 9.8% and 28.3% of all MIs with the primary and secondary MI definitions, respectively. Patients had an increased risk of all-cause death after type 1 MI (adjusted HR, 4.35 [95% CI, 2.73-6.93]) and after procedural MI with the primary (adjusted HR, 2.75 [95% CI, 0.99-7.60]) and secondary MI definitions (adjusted HR, 2.91 [95% CI, 1.73-4.88]). Dialysis initiation was increased after a type 1 MI (HR, 6.45 [95% CI, 2.59-16.08]) compared with patients without an MI. CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, the invasive treatment strategy had higher rates of procedural MIs, particularly with the secondary MI definition, and lower rates of type 1 and 2 MIs. Procedural MIs, type 1 MIs, and type 2 MIs were associated with increased risk of subsequent death. Type 1 MI increased the risk of dialysis initiation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes of Veterans With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Enrolled in the COURAGE Trial Versus the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.

Randomized clinical trials have not demonstrated a survival benefit with percutaneous coronary intervention in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). We evaluated the generalizability of the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial findings to the broader population of veterans with SIHD. Veterans who underwent coronary angiography between 2005 and 2013 for SIHD were identified from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting and Tracking Program (VA CART). Patient-level comparisons were made between patients from VA CART who met the eligibility criteria for COURAGE and veterans enrolled in COURAGE between 1999 and 2004. All-cause mortality over long-term follow-up was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. COURAGE-eligible patients from VA CART (n = 59,758) were older, had a higher body mass index, a greater prevalence of co-morbidities, but fewer diseased vessels on index coronary angiography, and were less likely to be on optimal medical therapy at baseline and on 1-year follow-up compared with VA COURAGE participants (n = 968). Patients from VA CART (median follow-up 6.5 years) had higher all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.98 [1.61 to 2.43]) than participants from VA COURAGE (median follow-up: 4.6 years). Risks of mortality were greater in the 56.4% patients from CART who were medically managed (aHR 1.94 [1.49 to 2.53]) and in the 43.6% who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (aHR 1.99 [1.45 to 2.74]), compared with their respective VA COURAGE arms. In conclusion, in this noncontemporaneous patient-level analysis, veterans in the randomized COURAGE trial had more favorable outcomes than the population of veterans with SIHD at large.

Predictors of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Detection of ≥50% diameter stenosis left main coronary artery disease (LMD) has prognostic and therapeutic implications. Noninvasive stress imaging or an exercise tolerance test (ETT) are the most common methods to detect obstructive coronary artery disease, though stress test markers of LMD remain ill-defined. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify markers of LMD as detected on coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), using clinical and stress testing parameters. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), including randomized and nonrandomized participants who had locally determined moderate or severe ischemia on nonimaging ETT, stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging, or stress echocardiography followed by CTA to exclude LMD. Stress tests were read by core laboratories. Prior coronary artery bypass grafting was an exclusion. In a stepped multivariate model, the authors identified predictors of LMD, first without and then with stress testing parameters. RESULTS: Among 5,146 participants (mean age 63 years, 74% male), 414 (8%) had LMD. Predictors of LMD were older age (P < 0.001), male sex (P < 0.01), absence of prior myocardial infarction (P < 0.009), transient ischemic dilation of the left ventricle on stress echocardiography (P = 0.05), magnitude of ST-segment depression on ETT (P = 0.004), and peak metabolic equivalents achieved on ETT (P = 0.001). The models were weakly predictive of LMD (C-index 0.643 and 0.684). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate or severe ischemia, clinical and stress testing parameters were weakly predictive of LMD on CTA. For most patients with moderate or severe ischemia, anatomical imaging is needed to rule out LMD. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; 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.

Clinical events classification (CEC) in clinical trials: Report on the current landscape and future directions - proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation. OBSERVATIONS: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: (1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; (2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; (3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and (4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.

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.

Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy. METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest). RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

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.

Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy. METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory­interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest). RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61­1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57­1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86­1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98­1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06­6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63­8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%­12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup.

Myocardial infarct size and sex-related angiographic differences in myocardial infarction in nonobstructive coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction in nonobstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA) is a recently described infarct subtype. There are few studies that examine coronary artery disease (CAD) extent, MI size and type, and treatment differences at hospital discharge compared to myocardial infarction in obstructive coronary artery disease (MICAD), or that explore sex-specific MINOCA attributes of coronary anatomy and infarct size. METHODS: Our study population consisted of a single tertiary-center of consecutive patients that had coronary angiography for acute MI between 2005 and 2015. The MI type at presentation, MI size and ejection fraction (post-MI), and gender differences between MINOCA patients were examined. RESULT: Among 1698 cases with acute MI, 95 had MINOCA (5.6%). MINOCA patients were younger, more often had NSTEMI, lower peak cardiac troponin (cTn) values, and greater ejection fraction than MICAD patients (all P-values <0.005). At hospital discharge, 30-day re-admission rates were similar. MINOCA patients less frequently received optimal medical therapy. When women were analyzed, the 45 women with MINOCA had smaller MIs (P < 0.001) and greater ejection fraction (P = 0.002) than the 358 women with MICAD. Sex comparisons of the 95 MINOCA patients revealed women were older than men (P < 0.001), had lower mean peak cTn values (P < 0.001), greater ejection fraction (P = 0.02), and more single-vessel disease involvement than men (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The average MI size is smaller in MINOCA than MICAD patients, and there are sex-related differences in clinical presentation, coronary artery disease extent, and MI size. Re-admission rates are similar and MINOCA patients are less likely to receive guideline recommended medical therapy at discharge.