Faculty Bibliography

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Prior trials of invasive vs conservative management of chronic coronary disease (CCD) have not enrolled patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). As such, outcomes across kidney function are not well characterized. Objectives/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate clinical and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes across the spectrum of CKD following conservative and invasive treatment strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:Participants from the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) trials were categorized by CKD stage: stage 1 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 90 mL/min/1.73m2 or greater), stage 2 (eGFR 60-89 mL/min/1.73m2), stage 3 (eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73m2), stage 4 (eGFR 15-29 mL/min/1.73m2), or stage 5 (eGFR less than 15 mL/min/1.73m2 or receiving dialysis). Enrollment took place from July 26, 2012, through January 31, 2018, with a median follow-up of 3.1 years. Data were analyzed from January 2020 to May 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Initial invasive management of coronary angiography and revascularization with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs initial conservative management of GDMT alone. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary clinical outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI). The primary QoL outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. Results/UNASSIGNED:Among the 5956 participants included in this analysis (mean [SD] age, 64 [10] years; 1410 [24%] female and 4546 [76%] male), 1889 (32%), 2551 (43%), 738 (12%), 311 (5%), and 467 (8%) were in CKD stages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. By self-report, 18 participants (<1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 1676 (29%), Asian; 267 (5%), Black; 861 (16%), Hispanic or Latino; 18 (<1%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 3884 (66%), White; and 13 (<1%), multiple races or ethnicities. There was a monotonic increase in risk of the primary composite end point (3-year rates, 9.52%, 10.72%, 18.42%, 34.21%, and 38.01% respectively), death, cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke in individuals with higher CKD stages. Invasive management was associated with an increase in stroke (3-year event rate difference, 1%; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.7) and procedural MI (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3) and a decrease in spontaneous MI (-2.5%; 95% CI, -3.9 to -1.1) with no difference in other outcomes; the effect was similar across CKD stages. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect for QoL outcomes such that invasive management was associated with an improvement in angina-related QoL in individuals with CKD stages 1 to 3 and not in those with CKD stages 4 to 5. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Among participants with CCD, event rates were inversely proportional to kidney function. Invasive management was associated with an increase in stroke and procedural MI and a reduced risk in spontaneous MI, and the effect was similar across CKD stages with no difference in other outcomes, including death. The benefit for QoL with invasive management was not observed in individuals with poorer kidney function.

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/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

BACKGROUND:for predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause mortality in kidney transplant candidates. METHODS:was defined as; normal >0.80 and abnormal ≤0.80. The primary endpoint was MACE (cardiac death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction or revascularization). The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS:values were not associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:may improve cardiac evaluation prior to transplantation.

Background The role of invasive management compared with medical management in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is uncertain, given the increased risk of procedural complications in patients with CKD. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of invasive management with medical management in patients with NSTEMI-CKD. Methods and Results We identified NSTEMI and CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease admissions using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes from the Nationwide Readmission Database 2016 to 2018. Patients were stratified into invasive and medical management. Primary outcome was mortality (in-hospital and 6 months after discharge). Secondary outcomes were in-hospital postprocedural complications (acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, major bleeding) and postdischarge 6-month safety and major adverse cardiovascular events. Out of 141 052 patients with NSTEMI-CKD, 85 875 (60.9%) were treated with invasive management, whereas 55 177 (39.1%) patients were managed medically. In propensity-score matched cohorts, invasive strategy was associated with lower in-hospital (CKD 3: odds ratio [OR], 0.47 [95% CI, 0.43-0.51]; P<0.001; CKD 4: OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.89]; P<0.001; CKD 5: OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.49-1.06]; P=0.096; end-stage renal disease: OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.46-0.56]; P<0.001) and 6-month mortality. Invasive management was associated with higher in-hospital postprocedural complications but no difference in postdischarge safety outcomes. Invasive management was associated with a lower hazard of major adverse cardiovascular events at 6 months in all CKD groups compared with medical management. Conclusions Invasive management was associated with lower mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events but minimal increased in-hospital complications in patients with NSTEMI-CKD compared with medical management, suggesting patients with NSTEMI-CKD should be offered invasive management.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of coronary artery bifurcation lesions entails technical challenges and carries a higher risk of adverse events on follow-up, driven by repeat revascularisation and stent thrombosis. While most bifurcations can be tackled with a provisional (single-stent) approach, more complex lesions involving both branches (true bifurcation lesions) require a two-stent approach. In the latter context, several techniques have been proposed. Among them, the crush technique has dramatically evolved in recent years, and its more recent iterations have been shown to provide excellent and durable results, both for left main and non-left main bifurcations. The aim of the present work is to discuss the technical aspects and outcomes of the variants of the crush technique from the first description in the early 2000s to the present day.

BACKGROUND:Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and oral anticoagulation (OAC) failure may benefit from left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), however, the evidence is scarce. We report outcomes of LAAC in patients with OAC failure compared to those with classic indications of OAC contraindications. METHODS:Prospective registry of LAAC with Amplatzer or WATCHMAN device followed by dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was analyzed (05.2014-11.2019). The study group included patients with OAC failure defined as stroke/TIA/PE/LAA thrombus (n = 39) during OAC, whereas the control group consisted of patients with OAC contraindications (n = 156). Structured follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months was done. RESULTS:-VASc predicted to observed annual stroke/TIA/PE rate was markedly smaller in the study vs control group (14% vs 77%) with 10.3% vs 1.9% stroke/TIA/PE respectively (P = 0.031). The reduction from HAS-BLED predicted to observed annual major nonprocedural bleeding rate was higher (100% vs 7.4%) with 0.0% vs 5.1% major bleedings respectively (P = 0.361). The device-related thrombosis remained similar (13.2% vs 11.3%, P = 0.778). CONCLUSIONS:Patients after LAAC for OAC failure and unremarkable prior bleeding history presented with high residual stroke and low bleeding risks. Therefore concomitant long-term OAC or prolonged DAPT should strongly be considered in this population.

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/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

BACKGROUND:Patients with significant (≥50%) left main disease (LMD) have a high risk of cardiovascular events, and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (stenosis, 25%-49%) on outcomes is unclear. METHODS:Randomized ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline were categorized into those with (25%-49%) and without (<25%) intermediate LMD. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The primary quality of life outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score. RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS:In the ISCHEMIA trial, there was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment benefit from an invasive strategy regardless of intermediate LMD status except for a greater absolute risk reduction in nonprocedural MI with invasive management in those with intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI, reduced nonprocedural MI, and improved angina-related quality of life. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.