Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) is common clinically, particularly among women, but its prevalence among patients with at least moderate ischemia and the relationship between ischemia severity and non-obstructive atherosclerosis severity are unknown. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The authors investigated predictors of INOCA in enrolled, nonrandomized participants in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), sex differences, and the relationship between ischemia and atherosclerosis in patients with INOCA. METHODS:Core laboratories independently reviewed screening noninvasive stress test results (nuclear imaging, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance testing), and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), blinded to results of the screening test. INOCA was defined as all stenoses <50% on CCTA in a patient with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. INOCA patients, who were excluded from randomization, were compared with randomized participants with ≥50% stenosis in ≥1 vessel and moderate or severe ischemia. RESULTS:Among 3,612 participants with core laboratory-confirmed moderate or severe ischemia and interpretable CCTA, 476 (13%) had INOCA. Patients with INOCA were younger, were predominantly female, and had fewer atherosclerosis risk factors. For each stress testing modality, the extent of ischemia tended to be less among patients with INOCA, particularly with nuclear imaging. There was no significant relationship between severity of ischemia and extent or severity of nonobstructive atherosclerosis on CCTA. On multivariable analysis, women female sex was independently associated with INOCA (odds ratio: 4.2 [95% CI: 3.4-5.2]). CONCLUSIONS:Among participants enrolled in ISCHEMIA with core laboratory-confirmed moderate or severe ischemia, the prevalence of INOCA was 13%. Severity of ischemia was not associated with severity of nonobstructive atherosclerosis. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Aims/UNASSIGNED:We aimed to use optical coherence tomography (OCT) to identify differences in atherosclerotic culprit lesion morphology in women with myocardial infarction (MI) with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) compared with MI with obstructive coronary artery disease (MI-CAD). Methods and results/UNASSIGNED:Women with an OCT-determined atherosclerotic aetiology of non-ST segment elevation (NSTE)-MINOCA (angiographic diameter stenosis <50%) who were enrolled in the multicentre Women's Heart Attack Research Program (HARP) study were compared with a consecutive series of women with NSTE-MI-CAD who underwent OCT prior to coronary intervention at a single institution. Atherosclerotic pathologies identified by OCT included plaque rupture, plaque erosion, intraplaque haemorrhage (IPH, a region of low signal intensity with minimum attenuation adjacent to a lipidic plaque without fibrous cap disruption), layered plaque (superficial layer with clear demarcation from the underlying plaque indicating early thrombus healing), or eruptive calcified nodule.We analysed 58 women with NSTE-MINOCA and 52 women with NSTE-MI-CAD. Optical coherence tomography features of underlying vulnerable plaque (thin-cap fibroatheroma) were less common in MINOCA (3 vs. 35%) than in MI-CAD. Intraplaque haemorrhage (47 vs. 2%) and layered plaque (31 vs. 12%) were more common in MINOCA than MI-CAD, whereas plaque rupture (14 vs. 67%), plaque erosion (8 vs. 14%), and calcified nodule (0 vs. 6%) were less common in MINOCA. The angle of ruptured cavity was smaller and thrombus burden was lower in MINOCA. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:The prevalence of atherothrombotic culprit lesion subtype varied substantially between MINOCA and MI-CAD. A majority of culprit lesions in MINOCA had the appearance of IPH or layered plaque. Clinical Trial Registration Information/UNASSIGNED:

BACKGROUND:Male sex, elevated troponin levels, and elevated D-dimer levels are associated with more complicated COVID-19 illness and greater mortality; however, while there are known sex differences in the prognostic value of troponin and D-dimer in other disease states, it is unknown whether they exist in the setting of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE:We assessed whether sex modified the relationship between troponin, D-dimer, and severe COVID-19 illness (defined as mechanical ventilation, ICU admission or transfer, discharge to hospice, or death). METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a large, academic health system. We used multivariable regression to assess associations between sex, troponin, D-dimer, and severe COVID-19 illness, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and laboratory covariates. To test whether sex modified the relationship between severe COVID-19 illness and troponin or D-dimer, models with interaction terms were utilized. RESULTS:Among 4,574 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, male sex was associated with higher levels of troponin and greater odds of severe COVID-19 illness, but lower levels of initial D-dimer when compared with female sex. While sex did not modify the relationship between troponin level and severe COVID-19 illness, peak D-dimer level was more strongly associated with severe COVID-19 illness in male patients compared to female patients (males: OR=2.91, 95%CI=2.63-2.34, p<0.001; females: OR=2.31, 95%CI=2.04-2.63, p<0.001; p-interaction=0.005). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Sex did not modify the association between troponin level and severe COVID-19 illness, but did modify the association between peak D-dimer and severe COVID-19 illness, suggesting greater prognostic value for D-dimer in males with COVID-19.

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:]). 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.

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.

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.