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.).

Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown. METHODS: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. RESULTS: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

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.

Continuous intracoronary versus standard intravenous infusion of adenosine for fractional flow reserve assessment: the HYPEREMIC trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a continuous intracoronary (IC) adenosine infusion, administered through the novel HYPEREM™IC over-the-wire microcatheter, to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The HYPEREMIC trial was a randomised, non-inferiority, crossover study in which patients with intermediate coronary lesions were enrolled for sequential pressure wire studies. FFR was measured using intravenous (IV) (140-180 mcg/kg/min) versus continuous non-weight-adjusted IC (360 mcg/min) adenosine. Patients were randomised and blinded to the order in which they received the adenosine, separated by a washout period. The primary endpoint was the mean hyperaemic FFR. Forty-one patients were enrolled at three UK sites between June and November 2016. The mean (standard deviation) FFR was 0.82 (±0.09) after IC versus 0.84 (±0.09) after IV adenosine. The difference of -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.03 to -0.01) confirmed the non-inferiority (margin <0.05) of IC to IV adenosine. Intracoronary adenosine was associated with a shorter mean time to maximal hyperaemia (difference -44 [95% CI: -59 to -29] seconds; p<0.0001). Chest discomfort was reported in 32/41 (78.0%) patients during IV adenosine versus 12/41 (29.3%) patients during IC adenosine. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous IC adenosine was a reliable, faster and better tolerated method of achieving maximal hyperaemia compared to IV adenosine.

Association of Sex With Severity of Coronary Artery Disease, Ischemia, and Symptom Burden in Patients With Moderate or Severe Ischemia: Secondary Analysis of the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: While many features of stable ischemic heart disease vary by sex, differences in ischemia, coronary anatomy, and symptoms by sex have not been investigated among patients with moderate or severe ischemia. The enrolled ISCHEMIA trial cohort that underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) was required to have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for randomization. Objective: To describe sex differences in stress testing, CCTA findings, and symptoms in ISCHEMIA trial participants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the multicenter ISCHEMIA randomized clinical trial analyzed baseline characteristics of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Individuals were enrolled from July 2012 to January 2018 based on local reading of moderate or severe ischemia on a stress test, after which blinded CCTA was performed in most. Core laboratories reviewed stress tests and CCTAs. Participants with no obstructive CAD or with left main CAD of 50% or greater were excluded. Those who met eligibility criteria including CCTA (if performed) were randomized to a routine invasive or a conservative management strategy (N = 5179). Angina was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire. Analysis began October 1, 2018. Interventions: CCTA and angina assessment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sex differences in stress test, CCTA findings, and symptom severity. Results: Of 8518 patients enrolled, 6256 (77%) were men. Women were more likely to have no obstructive CAD (<50% stenosis in all vessels on CCTA) (353 of 1022 [34.4%] vs 378 of 3353 [11.3%]). Of individuals who were randomized, women had more angina at baseline than men (median [interquartile range] Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency score: 80 [70-100] vs 90 [70-100]). Women had less severe ischemia on stress imaging (383 of 919 [41.7%] vs 1361 of 2972 [45.9%] with severe ischemia; 386 of 919 [42.0%] vs 1215 of 2972 [40.9%] with moderate ischemia; and 150 of 919 [16.4%] vs 394 of 2972 [13.3%] with mild or no ischemia). Ischemia was similar by sex on exercise tolerance testing. Women had less extensive CAD on CCTA (205 of 568 women [36%] vs 1142 of 2418 men [47%] with 3-vessel disease; 184 of 568 women [32%] vs 754 of 2418 men [31%] with 2-vessel disease; and 178 of 568 women [31%] vs 519 of 2418 men [22%] with 1-vessel disease). Female sex was independently associated with greater angina frequency (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76). Conclusions and Relevance: Women in the ISCHEMIA trial had more frequent angina, independent of less extensive CAD, and less severe ischemia than men. These findings reflect inherent sex differences in the complex relationships between angina, atherosclerosis, and ischemia that may have implications for testing and treatment of patients with suspected stable ischemic heart disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522.

Diagnostic Concordance and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve and Stress Echocardiography for the Assessment of Coronary Stenosis of Intermediate Severity.

BACKGROUND: The ischemic consequences of coronary artery stenosis can be assessed by invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) or by noninvasive imaging. We sought to determine (1) the concordance between wall thickening assessment during clinically indicated stress echocardiography (SE) and FFR measurements and (2) the factors associated with hard events in these patients. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-three consecutive patients who underwent SE and invasive FFR measurements in close succession were analyzed retrospectively for diagnostic concordance and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: At the vessel level, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of SE for identifying significant disease as assessed by FFR was 68%, 75%, 43%, and 89%, respectively. The greatest discordance was seen in patients with wall thickening abnormalities (WTAs) and negative FFR. During a follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.2 years, there were 23 cardiovascular (CV) events (death and nonfatal myocardial infarction). The number of wall segments with inducible WTAs emerged as the strongest factor associated with CV events (hazard ratio, 1.18 [1.05-1.34]; P = .008). FFR was not associated with outcome. There was a significant increase in event rate in patients with WTA/negative FFR versus no WTA/negative FFR (P = .01), but no significant difference versus WTA/positive FFR (P = .85). CONCLUSIONS: In a patient population with significant CV risk factors, a normal SE had a high negative predictive value for excluding abnormal FFR. WTAs were associated with outcomes regardless of FFR value, suggesting that this is a superior marker of ischemia to FFR.

The clinical impact of contemporary stress echocardiography in morbid obesity for the assessment of coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Non-invasive cardiac imaging may suffer from poor image quality in morbidly obese individuals. This study aimed to determine the clinical value of contemporary stress echocardiography (SE) in morbidly obese patients referred for assessment of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: This prospective, multicentre observational study was conducted in two district hospitals and one tertiary centre in London, UK. Individuals with body mass index ≥35 kg/m(2) referred for SE were evaluated. The percentage of patients with obstructive CAD on coronary angiography, following abnormal SE, was assessed. Patient outcomes were determined with follow-up for the composite end-point of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and late revascularisation. RESULTS: Over a 13-month period, 209 morbidly obese patients underwent SE, and contrast agent was used in 96% of patients. A diagnostic result was obtained in 200/209 (96%) patients. Of 32 (15%) patients with inducible ischaemia, 25 underwent angiography, 22 (88%) had corresponding significant CAD and, of these, 16 (77%) underwent revascularisation. Conversely, only 2/157 patients (1.3%) with normal SE underwent angiography, and none underwent revascularisation. Over a mean follow-up period of 17.8±5.4 months, there were nine events. The annualised cardiac event rate after a normal SE was 0.95%. Events were more frequent in patients with inducible ischaemia versus those without ischaemia (5/32 (15.6%) vs 4/153 (2.6%); p=0.002). Ejection fraction <50% (HR 9.5; 95% CI 2.4 to 38.0; p=0.002) and inducible ischaemia (HR 9.4; 95% CI 2.5 to 35.8; p=0.001) were predictors of outcome on univariable Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary SE has excellent feasibility and positive predictive value and resulted in appropriate risk stratification of symptomatic patients with significant obesity. A normal SE portends an excellent outcome over the short-intermediate term in this high-risk patient population.

Initial invasive versus conservative management of stable ischemic heart disease patients with a history of heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction: Insights from the ISCHEMIA trial

Background: It is unknown whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in patients with a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when EF >35%, but <45%. Methods: Among 5179 participants randomized into the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA), all of whom had LVEF >35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in those with a history of HF or LV dysfunction (HF/LVD) at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow up was 3.2 years. Results: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline of whom 177 had HF/LVEF>45%, 28 had HF/LVEF 35-45% and 193 had LVEF 35-45% but no prior history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly prior myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and hypertension. Compared to those without HF/LVD, those with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest; four-year cumulative incidence rate (22.7% vs. 13.8%), cardiovascular death or MI (19.7% vs. 12.3%), and all-cause death or HF (15.0% vs. 6.9%). Those with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% vs. 29.3%, difference in 4- year event rate -12.1%; 95% CI: -22.6, -1.6%), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% vs. 14.6%, difference in 4-year event rate -1.6%; 95% CI: -3.8%, 0.7%; p-interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and CV mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for those with and without prior HF. Conclusions: ISCHEMIA trial participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35-45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with a better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis generating.