Faculty Bibliography

Revascularization and medical therapy for chronic coronary disease have both evolved significantly over the last 50 years. A total of 4 contemporary randomized controlled trials- Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive drug Evaluation (COURAGE), Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D), Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2), and International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-have assessed the incremental benefit of revascularization when added to secondary prevention with intensive pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention. We reviewed these 4 seminal studies with the objective of marshaling evidence to better frame how these results should apply to clinical decision making. These studies differed in study design, end points, intensity of treatment, and revascularization techniques. Nevertheless, they all demonstrate similar rates of "hard" clinical events with invasive and conservative management, and varying degrees of benefit in angina-related quality of life with revascularization. In conclusion, although controversy persists concerning the role of revascularization because of differing interpretations of the clinical trial evidence, we contend that instead of being competing management strategies, invasive and conservative approaches are complementary.

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA and the ISCHEMIA-CKD trials found no statistical difference in the primary clinical endpoint between initial invasive management and initial conservative management of patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate to severe ischemia on stress testing without or with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). In ISCHEMIA, there was numerically lower cardiovascular mortality but higher non-cardiovascular mortality with no significant difference in all-cause death with an initial invasive strategy when compared with a conservative strategy. However, an invasive strategy increased peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) but decreased spontaneous MI with continued separation of curves over time, which potentially may lead to reduced risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Thus, the long-term effect of invasive management strategy on mortality remains unclear. In ISCHEMIA-CKD, the treatment and cause-specific mortality rates were similar during follow-up. METHODS:Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the ISCHEMIA-EXTEND observational study is the long-term follow-up of surviving participants (projected median of 10 years) with chronic coronary disease from the ISCHEMIA trial. In the ISCHEMIA trial, 5,179 participants with moderate or severe stress-induced ischemia were randomized to initial invasive management with angiography, revascularization when feasible, and guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), or initial conservative management with GDMT alone and angiography reserved for failure of medical therapy. ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND is the long-term follow-up of surviving participants (projected median of 9 years) from the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, a companion trial that included 777 patients with advanced CKD. Ascertainment of death will be conducted via direct participant contact, medical record review, and/or vital status registry search. The overarching objective of long-term follow-up is to assess whether there are between-group differences in long-term all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality, and increase precision around the treatment effect estimates for risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality. We will conduct Bayesian survival modeling to take advantage of rich inferences using the posterior distribution of the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS:The long-term effect of an initial invasive versus conservative strategy on all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality will be assessed. The findings of ISCHEMIA-EXTEND and ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND will inform patients, practitioners, practice guidelines, and health policy.

BACKGROUND:]). Our objective was to evaluate the relationship between achievement of cardiovascular guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) goals and clinical outcomes for CKD G5D versus CKD G4-5. METHODS:This was a subgroup analysis of ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) participants with CKD G4-5 or CKD G5D and moderate-to-severe myocardial ischemia on stress testing. Exposures included dialysis requirement at randomization and GDMT goal achievement during follow-up. The composite outcome was all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Individual GDMT goal (smoking cessation, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL, statin use, aspirin use) trajectory was modeled. Percentage point difference was estimated for each GDMT goal at 24 months between CKD G5D and CKD G4-5, and for association with key predictors. Probability of survival free from all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction by GDMT goal achieved was assessed for CKD G5D versus CKD G4-5. RESULTS:A total of 415 CKD G5D and 362 CKD G4-5 participants were randomized. Participants with CKD G5D were less likely to receive statin (-6.9% [95% CI, -10.3% to -3.7%]) and aspirin therapy (-3.0% [95% CI, -5.6% to -0.6%]), with no difference in other GDMT goal attainment. Cumulative exposure to GDMT achieved during follow-up was associated with reduction in all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.87-0.90]; per each GDMT goal attained over 60 days), irrespective of dialysis status. CONCLUSIONS:CKD G5D participants received statin or aspirin therapy less often. Cumulative exposure to GDMT goals achieved was associated with lower incidence of all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction in participants with advanced CKD and chronic coronary disease, regardless of dialysis status. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

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: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:The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized participants with chronic coronary disease (CCD) to guideline-directed medical therapy with or without angiography and revascularization. The study examined the association of nonadherence with health status outcomes. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The study sought to compare 12-month health status outcomes of adherent and nonadherent participants with CCD with an a priori hypothesis that nonadherent patients would have better health status if randomized to invasive management. METHODS:Self-reported medication-taking behavior was assessed at randomization with a modified 4-item Morisky-Green-Levine Adherence Scale, and participants were classified as adherent or nonadherent. Twelve-month health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7) summary score (SS), which ranges from 0 to 100 (higher score = better). The association of adherence with outcomes was evaluated using Bayesian proportional odds models, including an interaction by study arm (conservative vs invasive). RESULTS:Among 4,480 randomized participants, 1,245 (27.8%) were nonadherent at baseline. Nonadherent participants had worse baseline SAQ-7 SS in both conservative (72.9 ± 19.3 vs 75.6 ± 18.4) and invasive (71.0 ± 19.8 vs 74.2 ± 18.7) arms. In adjusted analyses, adherence was associated with higher 12-month SAQ-7 SS in both treatment groups (mean difference in SAQ-7 SS with conservative treatment = 1.6 [95% credible interval: 0.3-2.9] vs with invasive management = 1.9 [95% credible interval: 0.8-3.1]), with no interaction by treatment. CONCLUSIONS:More than 1 in 4 participants reported medication nonadherence, which was associated with worse health status in both conservative and invasive treatment strategies at baseline and 12 months. Strategies to improve medication adherence are needed to improve health status outcomes in CCD, regardless of treatment strategy. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

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.