Factors Associated With Coronary Angiography Performed Within 6 Months of Randomization to the Conservative Strategy in the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) did not find an overall reduction in cardiovascular events with an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy in chronic coronary disease; however, there were conservative strategy participants who underwent invasive coronary angiography early postrandomization (within 6 months). Identifying factors associated with angiography in conservative strategy participants will inform clinical decision-making in patients with chronic coronary disease. METHODS: Factors independently associated with angiography performed within 6 months of randomization were identified using Fine and Gray proportional subdistribution hazard models, including demographics, region of randomization, medical history, risk factor control, symptoms, ischemia severity, coronary anatomy based on protocol-mandated coronary computed tomography angiography, and medication use. RESULTS: Among 2591 conservative strategy participants, angiography within 6 months of randomization occurred in 8.7% (4.7% for a suspected primary end point event, 1.6% for persistent symptoms, and 2.6% due to protocol nonadherence) and was associated with the following baseline characteristics: enrollment in Europe versus Asia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81 [95% CI, 1.14-2.86]), daily and weekly versus no angina (HR, 5.97 [95% CI, 2.78-12.86] and 2.63 [95% CI, 1.51-4.58], respectively), poor to fair versus good to excellent health status (HR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.23-3.32]) assessed with Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and new/more frequent angina prerandomization (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.34-2.40]). Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL was associated with a lower risk of angiography (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91) but not baseline ischemia severity nor the presence of multivessel or proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis >70% on coronary computed tomography angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Among ISCHEMIA participants randomized to the conservative strategy, angiography within 6 months of randomization was performed in <10% of patients. It was associated with frequent or increasing baseline angina and poor quality of life but not with objective markers of disease severity. Well-controlled baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was associated with a reduced likelihood of angiography. These findings point to the importance of a comprehensive assessment of symptoms and a review of guideline-directed medical therapy goals when deciding the initial treatment strategy for chronic coronary disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522. GRAPHIC ABSTRACT: A graphic abstract is available for this article

Relationship Between Severity of Ischemia and Coronary Artery Disease for Different Stress Test Modalities in the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND: The relationship between the extent and severity of stress-induced ischemia and the extent and severity of anatomic coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with obstructive CAD is multifactorial and includes the intensity of stress achieved, type of testing used, presence and extent of prior infarction, collateral blood flow, plaque characteristics, microvascular disease, coronary vasomotor tone, and genetic factors. Among chronic coronary disease participants with site-determined moderate or severe ischemia, we investigated associations between ischemia severity on stress testing and the extent of CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography. METHODS: Clinically indicated stress testing included nuclear imaging, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, or nonimaging exercise tolerance test. Among those with preserved renal function who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, we examined relationships between ischemia and CAD by coronary computed tomography angiography, overall, and by stress test modality, regardless of subsequent randomization. Core laboratories categorized ischemia as severe, moderate, mild, or none, while the extent and severity of anatomic CAD were categorized based on the modified Duke prognostic index. RESULTS: Among 3601 participants with interpretable stress tests and coronary computed tomography angiography, ischemia severity was weakly associated with CAD extent/severity (r=0.27), with modest variability in strength of association by modality: nuclear (n=1532; r=0.40), echocardiography (n=827; r=0.15), cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (n=108; r=0.31), and exercise tolerance test (n=1134; r=0.18). The extent of infarction on nuclear imaging and echocardiography was weakly associated with CAD extent/severity. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ischemia severity on stress testing showed weak to moderate associations with the anatomic extent of CAD in this cohort with moderate or severe ischemia on local interpretation and controlled symptoms

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

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, 120.4 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, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 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

Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND: The appropriate use criteria for revascularization of stable ischemic heart disease have not been evaluated using randomized data. Using data from the randomized ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches; July 2012 to January 2018, 37 countries), the health status benefits of an invasive strategy over a conservative one were examined within appropriate use criteria scenarios. METHODS: Among 1833 participants mapped to 36 appropriate use criteria scenarios, symptom status was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 at 1 year for each scenario and for each of the 6 patient characteristics used to define the scenarios. Coronary anatomy and SYNTAX(Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery) scores were measured using coronary computed tomography angiography. Treatment effects are expressed as an odds ratio for a better health status outcome with an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy using Bayesian hierarchical proportional odds models. Differences in the primary clinical outcome were similarly examined. RESULTS: The mean age was 63 years, 81% were male, and 71% were White. Diabetes was present in 28% and multivessel disease in 51%. Most clinical scenarios favored invasive for better 1-year health status. The benefit of an invasive strategy on Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores was reduced for asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 1.16 [0.66-1.71] versus 2.26 [1.75-2.80]), as well as for those on no antianginal medications. Diabetes, number of diseased vessels, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery location, and SYNTAX score did not effectively identify patients with better health status after invasive treatment, and minimal differences in clinical events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the randomization scheme from the ISCHEMIA trial to appropriate clinical scenarios revealed baseline symptoms and antianginal therapy to be the primary drivers of health status benefits from invasive management. Consideration should be given to reducing the patient characteristics collected to generate appropriateness ratings to improve the feasibility of future data collection

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, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 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

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