Dataset Information

Applicability and Eligibility of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) for Patients who Underwent Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

ABSTRACT: In the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial, an early invasive strategy did not decrease mortality compared to a conservative strategy for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia, and the role of revascularization would be revised. However, the applicability and potential influence of this trial in daily practice remains unclear. Our objective was to assess the eligibility and representativeness of the ISCHEMIA trial on the patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). From a multicenter registry, we extracted a consecutive 13,223 SIHD patients with PCI (baseline cohort). We applied ISCHEMIA eligibility criteria and compared the baseline characteristics between the eligible patients and the actual study participants (randomized controlled trial (RCT) patients). In 3463 patients with follow-up information (follow-up cohort), the 2 year composite of major adverse cardiac events was evaluated between the eligible patients and RCT patients, as well as eligible and non-eligible patients in the registry. In the baseline cohort, 77.3% of SIHD patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia were eligible for the ISCHEMIA. They were comparable with RCT patients for baseline characteristics and outcomes unlike the non-eligible patients. In conclusion, the trial results seem applicable for the majority of PCI patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia except for the non-eligible patients.

SUBMITTER: Niimi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7564619 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Applicability and Eligibility of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) for Patients who Underwent Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Niimi Nozomi N Sawano Mitsuaki M Ikemura Nobuhiro N Nagai Toshiyuki T Nakano Shintaro S Shoji Satoshi S Shiraishi Yasuyuki Y Ueda Ikuko I Numasawa Yohei Y Suzuki Masahiro M Noma Shigetaka S Fukuda Keiichi K Kohsaka Shun S

Journal of clinical medicine 20200907 9

In the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial, an early invasive strategy did not decrease mortality compared to a conservative strategy for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia, and the role of revascularization would be revised. However, the applicability and potential influence of this trial in daily practice remains unclear. Our objective was to assess the eligibility and represen ...[more]

PMID: 32906673

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimOptimal revascularization strategy in multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) eligible for percutaneous management (PCI) and surgery remains unresolved. We evaluated, in a randomized clinical trial, residual myocardial ischemia (RI) and clinical outcomes of MV-CAD revascularization using coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), or MV-PCI.MethodsConsecutive MV-CAD patients (n = 155) were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to conventional CABG (LIMA-LAD plus venous grafts) or HCR (MIDCAB LIMA-LAD followed by PCI for remaining vessels) or MV-PCI (everolimus-eluting CoCr stents) under Heart Team agreement on equal technical and clinical feasibility of each strategy. SPECT at 12 months (primary endpoint of RI that the trial was powered for; a measure of revascularization midterm efficacy and an independent predictor of long-term prognosis) preceded routine angiographic control.ResultsData are given, respectively, for the CABG, HCR, and MV-PCI arms. Incomplete revascularization rate was 8.0% vs. 7.7% vs. 5.7% (p=0.71). Hospital stay was 13.8 vs. 13.5 vs. 4.5 days (p < 0.001), and sick-leave duration was 23 vs. 16 vs. 8 weeks (p < 0.001). At 12 months, RI was 5 (2, 9)% vs. 5 (3, 7)% vs. 6 (3, 10)% (median; Q1, Q3) with noninferiority p values of 0.0006 (HCR vs. CABG) and 0.016 (MV-PCI vs. CABG). Rates of angiographic graft stenosis/occlusion or in-segment restenosis were 20.4% vs. 8.2% vs. 5.9% (p=0.05). Clinical target vessel/graft failure occurred in 12.0% vs. 11.5% vs. 11.3% (p=0.62). Major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE) rate was similar (12% vs. 13.4% vs. 13.2%; p=0.83).ConclusionIn this first randomized controlled study comparing CABG, HCR, and MV-PCI, residual myocardial ischemia and MACCE were similar at 12 months. There was no midterm indication of any added value of HCR. Hospital stay and sick-leave duration were shortest with MV-PCI. While longer-term follow-up is warranted, these findings may impact patient and physician choices and healthcare resources utilization. This trial is registered with NCT01699048.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prior trials comparing a strategy of optimal medical therapy with or without revascularization have not shown that revascularization reduces cardiovascular events in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, those trials only included participants in whom coronary anatomy was known prior to randomization and did not include sufficient numbers of participants with significant ischemia. It remains unknown whether a routine invasive approach offers incremental value over a conservative approach with catheterization reserved for failure of medical therapy in patients with moderate or severe ischemia. METHODS:The ISCHEMIA trial is a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute supported trial, designed to compare an initial invasive or conservative treatment strategy for managing SIHD patients with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Five thousand one-hundred seventy-nine participants have been randomized. Key exclusion criteria included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min, recent myocardial infarction (MI), left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, left main stenosis >50%, or unacceptable angina at baseline. Most enrolled participants with normal renal function first underwent blinded coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to exclude those with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) and without obstructive CAD. All randomized participants receive secondary prevention that includes lifestyle advice and pharmacologic interventions referred to as optimal medical therapy (OMT). Participants randomized to the invasive strategy underwent routine cardiac catheterization followed by revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, when feasible, as selected by the local Heart Team to achieve optimal revascularization. Participants randomized to the conservative strategy undergo cardiac catheterization only for failure of OMT. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Assuming the primary endpoint will occur in 16% of the conservative group within 4 years, estimated power exceeds 80% to detect an 18.5% reduction in the primary endpoint. Major secondary endpoints include the composite of CV death and nonfatal MI, net clinical benefit (primary and secondary endpoints combined with stroke), angina-related symptoms and disease-specific quality of life, as well as a cost-effectiveness assessment in North American participants. Ancillary studies of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and those with documented ischemia and non-obstructive coronary artery disease are being conducted concurrently. CONCLUSIONS:ISCHEMIA will provide new scientific evidence regarding whether an invasive management strategy improves clinical outcomes when added to optimal medical therapy in patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia.

Dataset Information

Applicability and Eligibility of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) for Patients who Underwent Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Publications

Applicability and Eligibility of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) for Patients who Underwent Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets