Faculty Bibliography

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: Ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) is common and has an adverse prognosis. We set out to describe the natural history of symptoms and ischemia in INOCA. Methods: CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One year in ISCHEMIA trial screen failures with INOCA) was an international cohort study conducted from 2014-2019 involving angina assessments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ]) and stress echocardiograms 1-year apart. This was an ancillary study that included patients with history of angina who were not randomized in the ISCHEMIA trial. Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were determined by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to symptoms, coronary artery disease (CAD) status and test timing. Medical therapy was at the discretion of treating physicians. The primary outcome was the correlation between changes in SAQ Angina Frequency score and change in echocardiographic ischemia. We also analyzed predictors of 1-year changes in both angina and ischemia, and compared CIAO participants with ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive CAD who had stress echocardiography before enrollment, as CIAO participants did. Results: INOCA participants in CIAO were more often female (66% of 208 vs. 26% of 865 ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive CAD, p<0.001), but the magnitude of ischemia was similar (median 4 ischemic segments [IQR 3-5] both groups). Ischemia and angina were not significantly correlated at enrollment in CIAO (p=0.46) or ISCHEMIA stress echocardiography participants (p=0.35). At 1 year, the stress echocardiogram was normal in half of CIAO participants and 23% had moderate or severe ischemia (≥3 ischemic segments). Angina improved in 43% and worsened in 14%. Change in ischemia over one year was not significantly correlated with change in angina (rho=0.029). Conclusions:Improvement in ischemia and improvement in angina were common in INOCA, but not correlated. Our INOCA cohort had a similar degree of inducible wall motion abnormalities to concurrently enrolled ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive CAD. Our results highlight the complex nature of INOCA pathophysiology and the multifactorial nature of angina. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT02347215.

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.

[Figure: see text].

Psychological stress (PS) is associated with systemic inflammation and accelerates inflammatory disease progression (e.g., atherosclerosis). The mechanisms underlying stress-mediated inflammation and future health risk are poorly understood. Monocytes are key in sustaining systemic inflammation, and recent studies demonstrate that they maintain the memory of inflammatory insults, leading to a heightened inflammatory response upon rechallenge. We show that PS induces remodeling of the chromatin landscape and transcriptomic reprogramming of monocytes, skewing them to a primed hyperinflammatory phenotype. Monocytes from stressed mice and humans exhibit a characteristic inflammatory transcriptomic signature and are hyperresponsive upon stimulation with Toll-like receptor ligands. RNA and ATAC sequencing reveal that monocytes from stressed mice and humans exhibit activation of metabolic pathways (mTOR and PI3K) and reduced chromatin accessibility at mitochondrial respiration-associated loci. Collectively, our findings suggest that PS primes the reprogramming of myeloid cells to a hyperresponsive inflammatory state, which may explain how PS confers inflammatory disease risk.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Traditional time-to-event analyses rate events occurring early as more important than later events, even if later events are more severe, eg, death. Days alive out of hospital (DAOH) adds a patient-focused perspective beyond trial end points. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare DAOH between invasive management and conservative management, including invasive protocol-assigned stays, in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:In this prespecified analysis of the ISCHEMIA trial, DAOH was compared between 5179 patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia randomized to invasive management or conservative management. Participants were recruited from 320 sites in 37 countries. Stays included overnight stays in hospital or extended care facility (skilled nursing facility, rehabilitation, or nursing home). DAOH was separately analyzed excluding invasive protocol-assigned procedures. Data were collected from July 2012 to June 2019, and data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Invasive management with angiography and revascularization if feasible or conservative management, with both groups receiving optimal medical therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The hypothesis was formulated before data lock in July 2020. The primary end point was mean DAOH per patient between randomization and 4 years. Initial stays for invasive protocol-assigned procedures were prespecified to be excluded. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 5179 included patients, 1168 (22.6%) were female, and the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (58-70) years. The average DAOH was higher in the conservative management group compared with the invasive management group at 1 month (30.8 vs 28.4 days; P < .001), 1 year (362.2 vs 355.9 days; P < .001), and 2 years (718.4 vs 712.1 days; P = .001). At 4 years, the 2 groups' DAOH were not significantly different (1415.0 vs 1412.2 days; P = .65). In the invasive management group, 2434 of 4002 stays (60.8%) were for protocol-assigned procedures. There were no clear differences at any time point in DAOH when protocol-assigned procedures were excluded from the invasive management group. There were more hospital and extended care stays in the invasive management vs conservative management group during follow-up (4002 vs 1897; P < .001). Excluding protocol-assigned procedures, there were fewer stays in the invasive vs conservative group (1568 vs 1897; P = .001). Cardiovascular stays following the initial assigned procedures were lower in the invasive management group (685 of 4002 [17.1%] vs 1095 of 1897 [57.8%]; P < .001) due to decreased spontaneous myocardial infarction stays (65 [1.6%] vs 123 [6.5%]; P < .001) and unstable angina stays (119 [3.0%] vs 216 [11.4%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:DAOH was higher for patients in the conservative management group in the first 2 years but not different at 4 years. DAOH was decreased early in the invasive management group due to protocol-assigned procedures. Hospital stays for myocardial infarction and unstable angina during follow-up were lower in the invasive management group. DAOH provides a patient-focused metric that can be used by clinicians and patients in shared decision-making for management of stable coronary artery disease. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522.

BACKGROUND:Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS:In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS:The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS:In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

BACKGROUND:Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS:In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS:The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS:In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

BACKGROUND:Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and coronary artery disease frequently undergo preemptive revascularization before kidney transplant listing. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In this post-hoc analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD, we compared outcomes of patients not listed versus those listed according to management strategy. METHODS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD (n=777), 194 patients (25%) with chronic coronary syndromes and at least moderate ischemia were listed for transplant. The primary (all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) and secondary (death, nonfatal MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke) outcomes were analyzed using Cox multivariable modeling. Heterogeneity of randomized treatment effect between listed versus not listed groups was assessed. RESULTS:Compared with those not listed, listed patients were younger (60 versus 65 years), less likely of Asian race (15% versus 29%), more likely on dialysis (83% versus 44%), had fewer anginal symptoms, and more likely to have coronary angiography and coronary revascularization irrespective of treatment assignment. Among patients assigned to an invasive strategy versus conservative strategy, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the primary outcome were 0.91 (0.54-1.54) and 1.03 (0.78-1.37) for those listed and not listed, respectively (pinteraction=0.68). Adjusted HR for secondary outcomes were 0.89 (0.55-1.46) in listed and 1.17 (0.89-1.53) in those not listed (pinteraction=0.35). CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, an invasive strategy in kidney transplant candidates did not improve outcomes compared with conservative management. These data do not support routine coronary angiography or revascularization in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes listed for transplant.