Dataset Information

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS:We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS:At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS:In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

SUBMITTER: Spertus JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7261489 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

Spertus John A JA Jones Philip G PG Maron David J DJ O'Brien Sean M SM Reynolds Harmony R HR Rosenberg Yves Y Stone Gregg W GW Harrell Frank E FE Boden William E WE Weintraub William S WS Baloch Khaula K Mavromatis Kreton K Diaz Ariel A Gosselin Gilbert G Newman Jonathan D JD Mavromichalis Stavroula S Alexander Karen P KP Cohen David J DJ Bangalore Sripal S Hochman Judith S JS Mark Daniel B DB

The New England journal of medicine 20200330 15

<h4>Background</h4>In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and ...[more]

PMID: 32227753

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS:We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS:Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS:Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS:We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS:Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the association of early invasive management of acute coronary syndrome with adverse renal outcomes and survival, and to determine whether the risks or benefits of early invasive management differ in people with pre-existing chronic kidney disease.DesignPropensity score matched cohort study.SettingAcute care hospitals in Alberta, Canada, 2004-09.Participants10,516 adults with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.InterventionsParticipants were stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and matched 1:1 on their propensity score for early invasive management (coronary catheterisation within two days of hospital admission).Main outcome measuresRisks of acute kidney injury, kidney injury requiring dialysis, progression to end stage renal disease, and all cause mortality were compared between those who received early invasive treatment versus conservative treatment.ResultsOf 10,516 included participants, 4276 (40.7%) received early invasive management. After using propensity score methods to assemble a matched cohort of conservative management participants with characteristics similar to those who received early invasive management (n=6768), early invasive management was associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (10.3% v 8.7%, risk ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.36; P=0.019), but no difference in the risk of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (0.4% v 0.3%, 1.20, 0.52 to 2.78; P=0.670). Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the risk of progression to end stage renal disease did not differ between the groups (0.3 v 0.4 events per 100 person years, hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.49; P=0.712); however, early invasive management was associated with reduced long term mortality (2.4 v 3.4 events per 100 person years, 0.69, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001). These associations were consistent among people with pre-existing reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate and with alternate definitions for early invasive management.ConclusionsCompared with conservative management, early invasive management of acute coronary syndrome is associated with a small increase in risk of acute kidney injury but not dialysis or long term progression to end stage renal disease.

Project description:Background Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) can experience acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with high morbidity and mortality. Early invasive management of ACS is recommended for most high-risk patients; however, choosing between an early invasive versus conservative management approach may be influenced by the unique risk of kidney failure for patients with CKD. Methods and Results This discrete choice experiment measured the preferences of patients with CKD for future cardiovascular events versus acute kidney injury and kidney failure following invasive heart procedures for ACS. The discrete choice experiment, consisting of 8 choice tasks, was administered to adult patients attending 2 CKD clinics in Calgary, Alberta. The part-worth utilities of each attribute were determined using multinomial logit models, and preference heterogeneity was explored using latent class analysis. A total of 140 patients completed the discrete choice experiment. The mean age of patients was 64 years, 52% were male, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 37 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Across the range of levels, risk of mortality was the most important attribute, followed by risk of end-stage kidney disease and risk of recurrent myocardial infarction. Latent class analysis identified 2 distinct preference groups. The largest group included 115 (83%) patients, who placed the greatest value on treatment benefits and expressed the strongest preference for reducing mortality. A second group of 25 (17%) patients was identified who were procedure averse and had a strong preference toward conservative management of ACS and avoiding acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. Conclusions The preferences of most patients with CKD for management of ACS were most influenced by lowering mortality. However, a distinct subgroup of patients was strongly averse to invasive management. This highlights the importance of clarifying patient preferences to ensure treatment decisions are aligned with patient values.

Dataset Information

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

Publications

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets