Predictors of outcome in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial: Anatomy versus ischemia.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) trial found no advantage to an invasive strategy compared to conservative management in reducing all-cause death or myocardial infarction (D/MI). However, the prognostic influence of angiographic coronary artery disease (CAD) burden and ischemia severity remains unknown in this population. We compared the relative impact of CAD extent and severity of myocardial ischemia on D/MI in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: Participants randomized to invasive management with available data on coronary angiography and stress testing were included. Extent of CAD was defined by the number of major epicardial vessels with ≥50% diameter stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography. Ischemia severity was assessed by site investigators as moderate or severe using trial definitions. The primary endpoint was D/MI. RESULTS: Of the 388 participants, 307 (79.1%) had complete coronary angiography and stress testing data. D/MI occurred in 104/307 participants (33.9%). Extent of CAD was associated with an increased risk of D/MI (P < .001), while ischemia severity was not (P = .249). These relationships persisted following multivariable adjustment. Using 0-vessel disease (VD) as reference, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 1VD was 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 3.68, P = .073; 2VD: HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.12, P = .025; 3VD: HR 4.00, 95% CI 2.06 to 7.76, P < .001. Using moderate ischemia as the reference, the HR for severe ischemia was 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30, P = .427. CONCLUSION: Among ISCHEMIA-CKD participants randomized to the invasive strategy, extent of CAD predicted D/MI whereas severity of ischemia did not.

Cancer-related deaths among different treatment options in chronic coronary artery disease: results of a 6-year follow-up of the MASS II study.

INTRODUCTION: The primary end points of randomized clinical trials evaluating the outcome of therapeutic strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) have included nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, the need for further revascularization, and overall mortality. Noncardiac causes of death may distort the interpretation of the long-term effects of coronary revascularization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This post-hoc analysis of the second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study evaluates the cause of mortality of patients with multivessel CAD undergoing medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention, or surgical myocardial revascularization [coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG)] after a 6-year follow-up. Mortality was classified as cardiac and noncardiac death, and the causes of noncardiac death were reported. RESULTS: Patients were randomized into CABG and non-CABG groups (percutaneous coronary intervention plus medical treatment). No statistical differences were observed in overall mortality (P=0.824). A significant difference in the distribution of causes of mortality was observed among the CABG and non-CABG groups (P=0.003). In the CABG group, of the 203 randomized patients, the overall number of deaths was 34. Sixteen patients (47.1%) died of cardiac causes and 18 patients (52.9%) died of noncardiac causes. Of these, seven deaths (20.6%) were due to neoplasia. In the non-CABG group, comprising 408 patients, the overall number of deaths was 69. Fifty-three patients (77%) died of cardiac causes and 16 patients (23%) died of noncardiac causes. Only five deaths (7.2%) were due to neoplasia. CONCLUSION: Different treatment options for multivessel coronary artery disease have similar overall mortality: CABG patients had the lowest incidence of cardiac death, but the highest incidence of noncardiac causes of death, and specifically a higher tendency toward cancer-related deaths.