International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease (ISCHEMIA-CKD): Rationale and design

Higher inpatient mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Advanced chronic kidney disease (ACKD) is common in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is associated with adverse outcomes. These patients are often excluded from revascularization studies. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of ACKD in patients undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We analyzed the national inpatient sample database to compare the inpatient mortality rate for ACKD patients [chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3 and above] who underwent PCI between 2006 and 2011 to patients without ACKD. Specific ICD-9 CM codes were used to identify these patients.

RESULTS

A total of 1 826 536 PCIs were performed during the study period, of which 113 018 (6.2%) were patients with advanced CKD. The age-adjusted inpatient mortality rates were significantly higher in the ACKD group in all years studied compared to the no CKD group. For the first year studied in 2006, the age-adjusted mortality rate for patients undergoing PCI was 149 per 100 000 vs. 48 per 100 000 in patients without ACKD (P < 0001). In the last year studied in 2011, age-adjusted mortality was 124.1 per 100 000 vs. 40.4 per 100 000 in patients with no ACKD, (P < 0.0001). The presence of ACKD remained independently associated with higher mortality despite multivariate adjustment (odds ratio: 1.32, confidence interval: 1.27-1.36, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ACKD is independently associated with higher mortality in patients undergoing PCI. Therefore, PCI in these patients should be performed with more caution.

Association of prediabetes with clinical outcomes in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: a post hoc analysis of the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-CKD trials

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence whether prediabetes is associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with chronic coronary syndrome. We aimed to assess the effect of prediabetes in patients with chronic coronary syndrome on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of data from the ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-CKD trials, including patients with chronic coronary syndrome determined by coronary computed tomography angiography or exercise-stress testing. Participants were assigned to the normoglycemia group (HbA1c < 5.7% [< 39 mmol/mol]), prediabetes group (HbA1c 5.7-6.4% [40-47 mmol/mol]), or diabetes group (HbA1c ≥ 6.5% [≥ 48 mmol/mol]). The primary end point of this study was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiovascular events and composites thereof.

RESULTS

Overall, the primary endpoint all-cause mortality occurred in 330 (8.4%) of 3910 patients over a median follow-up time of 3.1 years (IQR 2.1-4.1). The primary endpoint all-cause mortality occurred in 37 (5.2%) of 716 patients in the normoglycemia group, in 63 (6.9%) of 911 in the prediabetes group, and in 230 (10.1%) of 2283 in the diabetes group. In the covariate-adjusted Cox model analysis, the estimated adjusted HR (aHR) in the prediabetes group as compared with the normoglycemia group was 1.45 (95%CI, 0.95-2.20). The aHR in the diabetes group as compared with the normoglycemia group was 1.84 (95%CI, 1.29-2.65). Prediabetes, compared with normoglycemia, was associated with an increased risk of stroke (aHR, 3.44, 95%CI, 1.15-10.25). Subgroup analyses suggested an increased risk of all-cause death associated with prediabetes in males and patients under 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic coronary syndrome, diabetes but not prediabetes was associated with significantly increased risk of all-cause death within a median follow-up period of 3.1 years. Trial Registration NCT01471522, BioLINCC ID 13936.

Body Mass Index and Clinical and Health Status Outcomes in Chronic Coronary Disease and Advanced Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess whether an obesity paradox (lower event rates with higher body mass index [BMI]) exists in participants with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic coronary disease in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness of Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-CKD, and whether BMI modified the effect of initial treatment strategy.

METHODS

Baseline BMI was analyzed as both a continuous and categorical variable (< 25, ≥ 25 to < 30, ≥ 30 kg/m2). Associations between BMI and the primary outcome of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (D/MI), and all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and MI individually were estimated. Associations with health status were also evaluated using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7, the Rose Dyspnea Scale, and the EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale.

RESULTS

Body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 vs < 25 kg/m2 demonstrated increased risk for MI (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval] = 1.81 [1.12-2.92]) and for D/MI (HR 1.45 [1.06-1.96]) with a HR for MI of 1.22 (1.05-1.40) per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI in unadjusted analysis. In multivariate analyses, a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 was marginally associated with D/MI (HR 1.43 [1.00-2.04]) and greater dyspnea throughout follow-up (P < .05 at all time points). Heterogeneity of treatment effect between baseline BMI was not evident for any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, an obesity paradox was not detected. Higher BMI was associated with worse dyspnea, and a trend toward increased D/MI and MI risk. Larger studies to validate these findings are warranted.

Biomarkers and cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary disease in the ISCHEMIA Trials

IMPORTANCE

Biomarkers may improve prediction of cardiovascular events for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), but their importance in addition to clinical tests of inducible ischemia and CAD severity is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prognostic value of multiple biomarkers in stable outpatients with obstructive CAD and moderate or severe inducible ischemia.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA CKD trials randomized 5,956 participants with CAD to invasive or conservative management from July 2012 to January 2018; 1,064 participated in the biorepository.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular death or MI. Improvements in prediction were assessed by cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for an interquartile increase in each biomarker, controlling for other biomarkers, in a base clinical model of risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and ischemia severity. Secondary analyses were performed among patients in whom core-lab confirmed severity of CAD was ascertained by computed cardiac tomographic angiography (CCTA).

EXPOSURES

Baseline levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), lipoprotein a (Lp[a]), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Cystatin C, soluble CD 40 ligand (sCD40L), myeloperoxidase (MPO), and matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP3).

RESULTS

Among 757 biorepository participants, median (IQR) follow-up was 3 (2-5) years, age was 67 (61-72) years, and 144 (19%) were female; 508 had severity of CAD by CCTA available. In an adjusted multimarker model with hsTnT, GDF-15, NT-proBNP and sCD40L, the adjusted HR for the primary outcome per interquartile increase in each biomarker was 1.58 (95% CI 1.22, 2.205), 1.60 (95% CI 1.16, 2.20), 1.61 (95% 1.22, 2.14), and 1.46 (95% 1.12, 1.90), respectively. The adjusted multimarker model also improved prediction compared with the clinical model, increasing the AUC from 0.710 to 0.792 (P < .01) and 0.714 to 0.783 (P < .01) for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Similar findings were observed after adjusting for core-lab confirmed atherosclerosis severity.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among ISCHEMIA biorepository participants, biomarkers of myocyte injury/distension, inflammation, and platelet activity improved cardiovascular event prediction in addition to risk factors, LVEF, and assessments of ischemia and atherosclerosis severity. These biomarkers may improve risk stratification for patients with stable CAD.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Coronary Artery Disease in CKD-G5D Patients: An Update

Patients with chronic kidney disease treated by dialysis (CKD-G5D) are characterized by a high prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD). Such patients differ from non-uremic CAD patients and have been excluded from several clinical CAD trials. CKD-G5D patients may be asymptomatic for their CAD, making their risk stratification and management challenging. This review will focus on the incidence, epidemiology, pathophysiology, screening tools, and management/treatment of CAD in CKD-G5D patients. It will also review recent studies concerning the screening tools and management strategies available for these patients. The need for improved evaluation of cardiovascular risk factors, screening and early intervention for symptomatic CAD in CKD-G5D patients will be highlighted.

Delayed PCI is not beneficial for STEMI patients with impaired renal function: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Preexisting impaired renal function (IRF) and contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are important prognostic parameters, but it is unknown whether delayed PCI is still beneficial for STEMI patients with IRF.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center cohort study was performed in 164 patients who presented at least 12 h after symptom onset, and were diagnosed with STEMI and IRF. They were assigned to two groups to receive PCI plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) and OMT alone respectively. Clinical outcomes at 30 days and 1 year were compared between two groups, and hazard ratio for survival was analyzed using Cox regression model. A power analysis demanded 34 patients in each group to produce a power of 90% and a P value of 0.05.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was significantly lower in PCI group (n = 126) than in non-PCI group (n = 38) (11.1% versus 28.9%, P = 0.018), while there was no significant difference in the 1-year mortality and incidence of cardiovascular comorbidities between the two groups. Cox regression analysis showed that patients with IRF didn't benefit from receiving PCI on survival rate (P = 0.267).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed PCI is not beneficial on one-year clinical outcomes for STEMI patients with IRF.

Clinical Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Ischemic heart disease is considered stable, if patients are asymptomatic or have well controlled symptoms. Based on the pretest probability, noninvasive imaging tests are performed to rule out the disease, and coronary computed tomography angiography being the first line. Invasive coronary angiography remains the gold standard method for diagnosing coronary artery disease. In patients with stable coronary artery disease, comorbidities such as hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes should be optimized. For patients with persistent anginal symptoms even with optimized medical therapy, coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention can be considered. Coronary artery bypass grafting may be more beneficial for patients who has stable coronary artery disease with left main disease and/or left ventricular dysfunction and/or multivessel disease; however, treatment should be individualized to the overall clinical picture.

Cause-Specific Mortality in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial

BACKGROUND

In ISCHEMIA-CKD, 777 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic coronary disease had similar all-cause mortality with either an initial invasive or conservative strategy (27.2% vs 27.8%, respectively).

OBJECTIVES

This prespecified secondary analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) was conducted to determine whether an initial invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy decreased the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) vs non-CV causes of death.

METHODS

Three-year cumulative incidences were calculated for the adjudicated cause of death. Overall and cause-specific death by treatment strategy were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. The association between cause of death, risk factors, and treatment strategy were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 192 of the 777 participants died during follow-up, including 94 (12.1%) of a CV cause, 59 (7.6%) of a non-CV cause, and 39 (5.0%) of an undetermined cause. The 3-year cumulative rates of CV death were similar between the invasive and conservative strategies (14.6% vs 12.6%, respectively; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.75-1.70). Non-CV death rates were also similar between the invasive and conservative arms (8.4% and 8.2%, respectively; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.75-2.09). Sudden cardiac death (46.8% of CV deaths) and infection (54.2% of non-CV deaths) were the most common cause-specific deaths and did not vary by treatment strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

In ISCHEMIA-CKD, CV death was more common than non-CV or undetermined death during the 3-year follow-up. The randomized treatment assignment did not affect the cause-specific incidences of death in participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).

ISCHEMIA-EXTEND studies: Rationale and design

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.

Coronary perforation incidence, outcomes and temporal trends (COPIT): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Coronary perforation is a potentially life-threatening complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We studied incidence, outcomes and temporal trends following PCI-related coronary artery perforation (CAP).

METHODS

Prospective systematic review and meta-analysis including meta-regression using MEDLINE and EMBASE to November 2020. We included 'all-comer' PCI cohorts including large PCI registries and randomised controlled trials and excluding registries or trials limited to PCI in high-risk populations such as chronic total occlusion PCI or cohorts treated only with atheroablative devices. Regression analysis and corresponding correlation coefficients were performed comparing perforation incidence, mortality rate, tamponade rate and the rate of Ellis III perforations against the midpoint (year) of data collection to determine if a significant temporal relationship was present.

RESULTS

3997 studies were screened for inclusion. 67 studies met eligibility criteria with a total of 5 568 191 PCIs included over a 38-year period (1982-2020). The overall pooled incidence of perforation was 0.39% (95% CI 0.34% to 0.45%) and remained similar throughout the study period. Around 1 in 5 coronary perforations led to tamponade (21.1%). Ellis III perforations are increasing in frequency and account for 43% of all perforations. Perforation mortality has trended lower over the years (7.5%; 95% CI 6.7% to 8.4%). Perforation risk factors derived using meta-regression were female sex, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and previous coronary bypass grafting. Coronary perforation was most frequently caused by distal wire exit (37%) followed by balloon dilation catheters (28%). Covered stents were used to treat 25% of perforations, with emergency cardiac surgery needed in 17%.

CONCLUSION

Coronary perforation complicates approximately 1 in 250 PCIs. Ellis III perforations are increasing in incidence although it is unclear whether this is due to reporting bias. Despite this, the overall perforation mortality rate (7.5%) has trended lower in recent years. Limitations of our findings include bias that may be introduced through analysis of multidesign studies and registries without pre-specified standardised perforation reporting CMore research into coronary perforation management including the optimal use of covered stents seems warranted.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020207881.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Attainment and Outcomes in Dialysis-Requiring Versus Nondialysis Chronic Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis (CKD G5D) have worse cardiovascular outcomes than patients with advanced nondialysis CKD (CKD G4-5: estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/[min·1.73m2]). 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

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Invasive vs Conservative Treatment of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function

Importance

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

To evaluate clinical and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes across the spectrum of CKD following conservative and invasive treatment strategies.

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

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

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

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

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.

Cardiovascular and Renal Implications of Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial

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

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

Dialysis Initiation in Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease and Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in ISCHEMIA-CKD

Background In participants with concomitant chronic coronary disease and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), the effect of treatment strategies on the timing of dialysis initiation is not well characterized. Methods and Results In ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease), 777 participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to either an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Herein, we compare the proportion of randomized participants with non-dialysis-requiring CKD at baseline (n=362) who initiated dialysis and compare the time to dialysis initiation between invasive versus conservative management arms. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we also sought to identify the effect of invasive versus conservative chronic coronary disease management strategies on dialysis initiation. At a median follow-up of 23 months (25th-75th interquartile range, 14-32 months), dialysis was initiated in 18.9% of participants (36/190) in the invasive strategy and 16.9% of participants (29/172) in the conservative strategy (P=0.22). The median time to dialysis initiation was 6.0 months (interquartile range, 3.0-16.0 months) in the invasive group and 18.2 months (interquartile range, 12.2-25.0 months) in the conservative group (P=0.004), with no difference in procedural acute kidney injury rates between the groups (7.8% versus 5.4%; P=0.26). Baseline clinical factors associated with earlier dialysis initiation were lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (hazard ratio [HR] associated with 5-unit decrease, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.72-2.56]; P<0.001), diabetes (HR, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.28-4.13]; P=0.005), hypertension (HR, 7.97 [95% CI, 1.09-58.21]; P=0.041), and Hispanic ethnicity (HR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.22-4.47]; P=0.010). Conclusions In participants with non-dialysis-requiring CKD in ISCHEMIA-CKD, randomization to an invasive chronic coronary disease management strategy (relative to a conservative chronic coronary disease management strategy) is associated with an accelerated time to initiation of maintenance dialysis for kidney failure. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

Polymer-free biolimus-A9-eluting stent performance according to renal impairment: insights from the RUDI-FREE registry

AIMS

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a worse prognosis after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The BioFreedom polymer-free biolimus-A9-eluting stent (PF-BES) has shown promising results in patients at high bleeding risk; however, its performance in CKD patients has yet to be analyzed.

METHODS

The all-comers RUDI-FREE registry documented patients undergoing PCI with PF-BES in routine clinical practice. Patients were stratified into three groups according to their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): preserved renal function, mild renal insufficiency (RI), and with moderate to severe RI (eGFR ≥ 90, between 90 and 45, and <45 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively). The primary safety end point was a patient-oriented composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). The primary efficacy end point was target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

The registry documented 1,104 consecutive patients treated with PF-BES: 258 (23.4%) with preserved renal function, whereas 712 (64.7%) and 131 (11.9%) had mild and moderate to severe RI, respectively. At 1 year, the primary safety end point was significantly higher in patients with moderate to severe RI (3.5% vs. 2.8% vs. 11.5%; P < 0.001). Conversely, TLR proved similar among groups (0.4% vs. 1.8% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.235).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with worse renal function had increased risk of the composite of cardiovascular deaths, MI, and definite or probable ST. However, the PF-BES showed similar efficacy despite differences in renal function. These findings need to be confirmed in large-scale randomized trials.

Stress-echocardiography or coronary computed tomography in suspected chronic coronary syndrome after the 2019 European Guidelines? A practical guide

Stress-echocardiography can rightly be considered one of the champions of cardiac functional imaging, thanks to its real-time imaging, high temporal resolution, high safety and very low cost. When stress-echocardiography is performed at top technical quality, hence taking advantage of ultrasound contrast media for endocardial border delineation at least for suboptimal cases, subjectivity is minimized, and with the routine use of coronary flow reserve measurement (left anterior descending coronary artery, stress/rest ratio reduced or normal, i.e. <>2.0) diagnostic sensitivity is strengthened. The true competitor of any type of functional imaging, stress-echocardiography included, is nowadays coronary computed tomography angiography, which is instead a diagnostic method directly, noninvasively assessing coronary anatomy, apparently the holy grail for any cardiologist. The new 2019 Guidelines on chronic coronary syndrome of the European Society of Cardiology change the existing landscape and clinical practice, while they probably cannot clarify which type of test, functional or anatomic, should be first chosen in different clinical scenarios of suspected chronic coronary syndrome. We review the existing data and the authors' personal view in order to assess how functional stress-echocardiography compares with coronary computed tomography angiography regarding three main aspects: diagnosis of coronary artery disease, guidance of therapy (coronary revascularization versus medical therapy) and risk stratification.

Predictors of outcome in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial: Anatomy versus ischemia

BACKGROUND

The ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) trial found no advantage to an invasive strategy compared to conservative management in reducing all-cause death or myocardial infarction (D/MI). However, the prognostic influence of angiographic coronary artery disease (CAD) burden and ischemia severity remains unknown in this population. We compared the relative impact of CAD extent and severity of myocardial ischemia on D/MI in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

Participants randomized to invasive management with available data on coronary angiography and stress testing were included. Extent of CAD was defined by the number of major epicardial vessels with ≥50% diameter stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography. Ischemia severity was assessed by site investigators as moderate or severe using trial definitions. The primary endpoint was D/MI.

RESULTS

Of the 388 participants, 307 (79.1%) had complete coronary angiography and stress testing data. D/MI occurred in 104/307 participants (33.9%). Extent of CAD was associated with an increased risk of D/MI (P < .001), while ischemia severity was not (P = .249). These relationships persisted following multivariable adjustment. Using 0-vessel disease (VD) as reference, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 1VD was 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 3.68, P = .073; 2VD: HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.12, P = .025; 3VD: HR 4.00, 95% CI 2.06 to 7.76, P < .001. Using moderate ischemia as the reference, the HR for severe ischemia was 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30, P = .427.

CONCLUSION

Among ISCHEMIA-CKD participants randomized to the invasive strategy, extent of CAD predicted D/MI whereas severity of ischemia did not.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Outcomes of Participants With Diabetes in the ISCHEMIA Trials

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

Of 5900 participants with complete baseline data, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range, 57-70), 24% were female, and the median estimated glomerular filtration was 80 mL·min^-1·1.73^-2 (interquartile range, 64-95). Among the 2553 (43%) of participants with diabetes, the median percent hemoglobin A1c was 7% (interquartile range, 7-8), and 30% were insulin-treated. Participants with diabetes had a 49% increased hazard of death or MI (hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.31-1.70]; P<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.

Kidney Transplant List Status and Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and coronary artery disease frequently undergo preemptive revascularization before kidney transplant listing.

OBJECTIVES

In this post hoc analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness of Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease), we compared outcomes of patients not listed versus those listed according to management strategy.

METHODS

In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial (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) and secondary (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, 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 years vs 65 years), were less likely to be of Asian race (15% vs 29%), were more likely to be on dialysis (83% vs 44%), had fewer anginal symptoms, and were 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 for the primary outcome were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.54) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.78-1.37) for those listed and not listed, respectively (pinteraction= 0.68). Adjusted hazard ratios for secondary outcomes were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.55-1.46) in listed and 1.17 (95% CI: 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. (ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease Trial [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).

Invasive Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Advanced Renal Disease

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent in chronic kidney disease (CKD). CKD modifies the effects of traditional risk factors on atherosclerosis, with CKD-specific mechanisms, such as inflammation and altered mineral metabolism, playing a dominant pathophysiological role as kidney function declines. Traditional risk models and cardiovascular screening tests perform relatively poorly in the CKD population, and medical treatments including lipid-lowering therapies have reduced efficacy. Clinical presentation of cardiac ischemia in CKD is atypical, whereas invasive therapies are associated with higher rates of complications than in with patients with normal or near normal kidney function. The main focus of the present review is on the invasive approach to management of CAD in late-stage CKD, with an in-depth discussion of the findings of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-CKD trial, and their implications for therapeutic approach and future research in this area. We also briefly discuss the existing evidence in the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and medical management of CAD in late-stage CKD, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and kidney transplant recipients. We enumerate the evidence gap left by the frequent exclusion of patients with CKD from randomized controlled trials and highlight the priority areas for future research in the CKD population.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation

The 2020 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation is intended to assist health care professionals worldwide who evaluate and manage potential candidates for deceased or living donor kidney transplantation. This guideline addresses general candidacy issues such as access to transplantation, patient demographic and health status factors, and immunological and psychosocial assessment. The roles of various risk factors and comorbid conditions governing an individual's suitability for transplantation such as adherence, tobacco use, diabetes, obesity, perioperative issues, causes of kidney failure, infections, malignancy, pulmonary disease, cardiac and peripheral arterial disease, neurologic disease, gastrointestinal and liver disease, hematologic disease, and bone and mineral disorder are also addressed. This guideline provides recommendations for evaluation of individual aspects of a candidate's profile such that each risk factor and comorbidity are considered separately. The goal is to assist the clinical team to assimilate all data relevant to an individual, consider this within their local health context, and make an overall judgment on candidacy for transplantation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Guideline recommendations are primarily based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and our assessment of the quality of that evidence, and the strengths of recommendations are provided. Limitations of the evidence are discussed with differences from previous guidelines noted and suggestions for future research are also provided.

One-year clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease treated with COMBO stents: From the COMBO collaboration

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) experience greater ischemic events including clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Whether the COMBO biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent promotes better outcomes in these patients by virtue of endothelial progenitor cell capture technology is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We examined one-year outcomes by CKD status from the COMBO collaboration.

METHODS

The COMBO collaboration was a patient-level pooled dataset from the REMEDEE and MASCOT registries (3,614 patients) of all-comers undergoing attempted COMBO stent PCI. The primary endpoint was one-year target lesion failure (TLF), composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) or CD-TLR. Secondary endpoints included stent thrombosis (ST).

RESULTS

The study included 6.4% (n = 231) CKD and 93.6% (n = 3,361) non-CKD patients. CKD patients were older and included more women with greater prevalence of several comorbidities but similar rate of acute coronary syndrome (50.6% vs. 54.5%, p = .26). CKD patients underwent radial PCI less often (56.1% vs. 70.3%, p < .001) and received clopidogrel (78.6% vs. 68.3%) more often (p = .004). One-year TLF occurred in 7.9% CKD vs. 3.7% non-CKD patients, p = .001. CKD patients also demonstrated greater incidence of cardiac death (6.2% vs. 1.2%, p < .0001), TV-MI (2.7% vs. 1.1%, p = .04) but similar CD-TLR (2.7% vs 2.2%, p = .61) and definite/probable ST (1.4% vs. 0.8%, p = .42), compared to non-CKD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CKD patients treated with COMBO stents had significantly greater incidence of one-year TLF compared to non-CKD patients driven by cardiac death and to a lesser extent TV-MI but not CD-TLR. They had similar rates of definite/probable ST.

Coronary artery disease in dialysis patients: evidence synthesis, controversies and proposed management strategies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Clustering of traditional atherosclerotic and non-traditional risk factors drive the excess rates of coronary and non-coronary CVD in this population. The incidence, severity and mortality of coronary artery disease (CAD) as well as the number of complications of its therapy is higher in dialysis patients than in non-chronic kidney disease patients. Given the lack of randomized clinical trial evidence in this population, current practice is informed by observational data with a significant potential for bias. Furthermore, guidelines lack any recommendation for these patients or extrapolate them from trials performed in non-dialysis patients. Patients with ESRD are more likely to be asymptomatic, posing a challenge to the correct identification of CAD, which is essential for appropriate risk stratification and management. This may lead to "therapeutic nihilism", which has been associated with worse outcomes. Here, the ERA-EDTA EUDIAL Working Group reviews the diagnostic work-up and therapy of chronic coronary syndromes, unstable angina/non-ST elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction in dialysis patients, outlining unclear issues and controversies, discussing recent evidence, and proposing management strategies. Indications of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are discussed. The issue of the interaction between dialysis session and myocardial damage is also addressed.

Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). As well as their high prevalence of traditional CAD risk factors, such as diabetes and hypertension, persons with CKD are also exposed to other nontraditional, uremia-related cardiovascular disease risk factors, including inflammation, oxidative stress, and abnormal calcium-phosphorus metabolism. CKD and end-stage kidney disease not only increase the risk of CAD, but they also modify its clinical presentation and cardinal symptoms. Management of CAD is complicated in CKD patients, due to their likelihood of comorbid conditions and potential for side effects during interventions. This summary of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on CAD and CKD (including end-stage kidney disease and transplant recipients) seeks to improve understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of CAD in CKD and to identify knowledge gaps, areas of controversy, and priorities for research.

Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P = 0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P = 0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney 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 death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease

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.).

Renal insufficiency and severe coronary artery disease: should coronary artery bypass grafting, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention be performed?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an important determinant of long-term survival. However, the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with CKD is still controversial. Herein we review the impact of different treatment modalities on the outcomes of patients with CKD.

RECENT FINDINGS

CABG could confer better long-term outcomes than PCI in patients with CKD, irrespective of CKD severity. CABG as compared with PCI may be associated with improved long-term survival albeit higher short-term risk. Off-pump as compared with on-pump CABG may be associated with better short-term outcomes but no demonstrable long-term benefit. In CKD patients who are treated with PCI, the use of drug-eluting stents may be associated with better intermediate-term outcomes than bare metal stents.

SUMMARY

There is insufficient evidence to inform the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with CKD and severe coronary artery disease. CABG as compared with PCI confers greater long-term benefit but higher upfront risk. A multidisciplinary, team-based evaluation based on individual patient comorbidity, frailty and anatomical disease burden, is recommended when making treatment decisions.

Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a highly prevalent condition that increases the incidence and complexity of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The purpose of this review is to summarize current evidence, uncertainties, and opportunities in the management of patients with CKD and ACS, with a focus on revascularization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with CKD have been systematically under-represented or excluded from clinical trials in ACS. Available data, however, demonstrates that although patients with CKD and ACS benefit from revascularization, they are also less likely to receive recommended medical and revascularization therapies when compared to patients with normal kidney function. Despite the increased short-term risk of major morbidity and mortality, patients with CKD and ACS should be considered for an early invasive strategy while also trying to mitigate the risks of procedural related complications. Until evidence emerges from randomized clinical trials, the decision about revascularization strategy should involve multi-disciplinary collaboration, heart team consensus, and patient shared decision-making.