Faculty Bibliography

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).

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA 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 cardiovascular (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 ISCHEMIA, 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.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE: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/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/BACKGROUND:ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01471522.

The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) found that there was no statistical difference in cardiovascular events with an initial invasive strategy as compared with an initial conservative strategy of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with moderate to severe ischemia on noninvasive testing. In this study, we describe the reasons that potentially eligible patients who were screened for participation in the ISCHEMIA trial did not advance to enrollment, the step prior to randomization. Of those who preliminarily met clinical inclusion criteria on screening logs submitted during the enrollment period, over half did not participate due to physician or patient refusal, a potentially modifiable barrier. This analysis highlights the importance of physician equipoise when advising patients about participation in randomized controlled 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:<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.

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:=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.

BACKGROUND:Fine-particulate-matter (i.e. with an aerodynamic diameter of ≤2.5 µm, PM2.5) air pollution is commonly treated as if it had 'equivalent toxicity', irrespective of the source and composition. We investigate the respective roles of fossil-fuel- and biomass-combustion particles in the PM2.5 relationship with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality using tracers of sources in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Results provide insight into the often observed levelling of the PM2.5 exposure-response curve at high-pollution levels. METHODS:A time-series regression model, adjusted for potentially confounding influences, was applied to 340 758 cardiovascular disease (CVD) emergency-department visits (EDVs) during January 2014 to December 2017, 253 407 hospital admissions during September 2013 to December 2017 and 16 858 CVD deaths during January 2014 to October 2017. RESULTS:Significant associations were confirmed between PM2.5-mass exposures and increased risk of cardiovascular EDV [0.27%, (0.07% to 0.47%)] at lag-0, hospitalizations [0.32% (0.08% to 0.55%)] at lag-0 and deaths [0.87%, (0.27% to 1.47%)] at lag-1 per 10-μg/m3 increase in PM2.5. However, the relationship of PM2.5 with morbidity and mortality effect slopes was less steep and non-significant at higher PM2.5 concentrations (during crop-burning-dominated exposures) and varied with PM2.5 source. Fossil-fuel-combustion PM2.5 had roughly a four times greater effect on CVD mortality and double the effect on CVD hospital admissions on a per-µg/m3 basis than did biomass-combustion PM2.5. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Biomass burning was responsible for most PM2.5 air pollution in Dhaka, but fossil-fuel-combustion PM2.5 dominated the CVD adverse health impacts. Such by-source variations in the health impacts of PM2.5 should be considered in conducting ambient particulate-matter risk assessments, as well as in prioritizing air-pollution-mitigation measures and clinical advice.

Little information is available regarding the glycemic effects of inorganic arsenic (iAs) exposure in urban populations. We evaluated the association of total arsenic and the relative proportions of arsenic metabolites in urine with glycemia as measured by glycated blood hemoglobin (HbA1c) among 45 participants with prediabetes (HbA1c ≥ 5.7-6.4%), 65 with diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%), and 36 controls (HbA1c < 5.7%) recruited from an academic medical center in New York City. Each 10% increase in the proportion of urinary dimethylarsinic acid (DMA%) was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-1.26) for prediabetes, 0.46 (0.22-0.94) for diabetes, and 0.51 (0.26-0.99) for prediabetes and diabetes combined. Each 10% increase in the proportion of urinary monomethylarsonic acid (MMA%) was associated with a 1.13% (0.39, 1.88) increase in HbA1c. In contrast, each 10% increase in DMA% was associated with a 0.76% (0.24, 1.29) decrease in HbA1c. There was no evidence of an association of total urinary arsenic with prediabetes, diabetes, or HbA1c. These data suggest that a lower arsenic methylation capacity indicated by higher MMA% and lower DMA% in urine is associated with worse glycemic control and diabetes. Prospective, longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the glycemic effects of low-level iAs exposure in urban populations.