Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial

Association of hospital-treated infectious diseases and infection burden with cardiovascular diseases and life expectancy

BACKGROUND

The association of a broad spectrum of infectious diseases with cardiovascular outcomes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to provide the cardiovascular risk profiles associated with a wide range of infectious diseases and explore the extent to which infections reduce life expectancy.

METHODS

We ascertained exposure to 900+ infectious diseases before cardiovascular disease (CVD) onset in 453,102 participants from the UK Biobank study. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models were used. Life table was used to estimate the life expectancy of individuals aged ≥50 with different levels of infection burden (defined as the number of infection episodes over time and the number of co-occurring infections).

RESULTS

Infectious diseases were associated with a greater risk of CVD events (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.79 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.74-1.83]). For type-specific analysis, bacterial infection with sepsis had the strongest risk of CVD events [aHR 4.76 (4.35-5.20)]. For site-specific analysis, heart and circulation infections posed the greatest risk of CVD events [aHR 4.95 (95% CI 3.77-6.50)], whereas noncardiac infections also showed excess risk [1.77 (1.72-1.81)]. Synergistic interactions were observed between infections and genetic risk score. A dose-response relationship was found between infection burden and CVD risks (p-trend <0.001). Infection burden >1 led to a CVD-related life loss at age 50 by 9.3 years [95% CI 8.6-10.3]) for men and 6.6 years [5.5-7.8] for women.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of the infection-CVD association showed specificity in sex, pathogen type, infection burden, and infection site. High genetic risk and infection synergistically increased the CVD risk.

Optimal medical therapy vs revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes: Does ISCHEMIA move the needle toward or away from revascularization??

The optimal management of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients has been a source of debate for several decades. Herein, we describe the evidence base comprising several landmark clinical trials including the most recent ISCHEMIA Trial, which, in aggregate, does not demonstrate a conclusive, incremental benefit of revascularization combined with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in reducing prognostically-important clinical outcomes during long-term follow-up. For CCS patients with symptoms or quality of life not deemed refractory or unacceptable on medical therapy, a conservative approach to the judicious and selective use of revascularization plus OMT remains a justifiable evidence-based management strategy.

The ISCHEMIA trial revisited: setting the record straight on the benefits of coronary bypass surgery and the misinterpretation of a landmark trial

OBJECTIVES

The ISCHEMIA trial is a landmark study that has been the subject of heated debate within the cardiovascular community. In this analysis of the ISCHEMIA trial, we aim to set the record straight on the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and the misinterpretation of this landmark trial. We sought to clarify and reorient this misinterpretation.

METHODS

We herein analyse the ISCHEMIA trial in detail and describe how its misinterpretation has led to an erroneous guideline recommendation downgrading for prognosis-altering surgical therapy in these at-risk patients.

RESULTS

The interim ISCHEMIA trial findings align with previous evidence where CABG reduces the long-term risks of myocardial infarction and mortality in advanced coronary artery disease. The trial outcomes of a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular mortality and a higher rate of non-cardiovascular mortality with the invasive strategy are explained according to landmark evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The ISCHEMIA trial findings are aligned with previous evidence and should not be used to downgrade recommendations in recent guidelines for the indisputable benefits of CABG.

Temporal Trends in Noncardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality Following Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Due to improved management, diagnosis, and care of myocardial infarction (MI), patients may now survive long enough to increasingly develop serious noncardiovascular conditions.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to test this hypothesis by investigating the temporal trends in noncardiovascular morbidity and mortality following MI.

METHODS

We conducted a registry-based nationwide cohort study of all Danish patients with MI during 2000 to 2017. Outcomes were cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality, incident cancer, incident renal disease, and severe infectious disease.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2017, 136,293 consecutive patients were identified (63.2% men, median age 69 years). The 1-year risk of cardiovascular mortality between 2000 to 2002 and 2015 to 2017 decreased from 18.4% to 7.6%, whereas noncardiovascular mortality decreased from 5.8% to 5.0%. This corresponded to an increase in the proportion of total 1-year mortality attributed to noncardiovascular causes from 24.1% to 39.5%. Furthermore, increases in 1-year risk of incident cancer (1.9%-2.4%), incident renal disease (1.0%-1.6%), and infectious disease (5.5%-9.1%) were observed (all P trend <0.01). In analyses standardized for changes in patient characteristics, the increased risk of cancer in 2015 to 2017 compared with 2000 to 2002 was no longer significant (standardized risk ratios for cancer: 0.99 [95% CI: 0.91-1.07]; renal disease: 1.28 [95% CI: 1.15-1.41]; infectious disease: 1.28 [95% CI: 1.23-1.34]).

CONCLUSIONS

Although cardiovascular mortality following MI improved substantially during 2000 to 2017, the risk of noncardiovascular morbidity increased. Moreover, noncardiovascular causes constitute an increasing proportion of post-MI mortality. These findings suggest that further attention on noncardiovascular outcomes is warranted in guidelines and clinical practice and should be considered in the design of future clinical trials.

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.

Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Who Finally Benefits from Coronary Revascularization in the Modern Era? The ISCHEMIA and Interim ISCHEMIA-EXTEND Analysis

Coronary revascularization is one of the most studied treatment modalities in cardiology; however, there is no consensus among experts about its indications in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD). Contemporary data regarding the role of revascularization in SCAD are in clear conflict with the current European guidelines. This article discusses the main statements of the most significant American and European Guidelines on myocardial revascularization of the last decade and also analyzes the appropriateness of revascularization to improve the prognosis and symptoms in SCAD in the light of new research data, primarily the ISCHEMIA study (NCT01471522) and the ACC/AHA 2021 Revascularization Guidelines based on them. Data on the revascularization in SCAD obtained after the completion of ISCHEMIA (including the interim analysis of ISCHEMIA-EXTEND) and their potential significance are discussed. The results of ISCHEMIA sub-analyses in the most important "controversial" subgroups (3-vessel disease, proximal left anterior descending artery disease, strongly positive stress test, etc.) are reviewed, as are the results of the ISCHEMIA-CKD substudy in patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Coronary revascularization for heart failure with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of heart failure (HF). Whether coronary revascularization improves outcomes in patients with HF receiving guideline-recommended pharmacological therapy (GRPT) remains uncertain; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched in public databases for RCTs published between 1 January 2001 and 22 November 2022, investigating the effects of coronary revascularization on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic HF due to CAD. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. We included five RCTs that enrolled, altogether, 2842 patients (most aged <65 years; 85% men; 67% with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%). Overall, compared to medical therapy alone, coronary revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.99; p = 0.0278) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93; p = 0.0024) but not the composite of hospitalization for HF or all-cause mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.01; p = 0.0728). There were insufficient data to show whether the effects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention were similar or differed.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with chronic HF and CAD enrolled in RCTs, the effect of coronary revascularization on all-cause mortality was statistically significant but neither substantial (HR 0.88) nor robust (upper 95% CI close to 1.0). RCTs were not blinded, which may bias reporting of the cause-specific reasons for hospitalization and mortality. Further trials are required to determine which patients with HF and CAD obtain a substantial benefit from coronary revascularization by either coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Long-term follow-up after invasive or conservative management of stable coronary disease: the ISCHEMIA-EXTEND study

The ISCHEMIA trial found no statistical difference in the primary endpoint between initial invasive and conservative management of patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate-to-severe ischaemia on stress testing. However, an invasive strategy increased peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) but decreased spontaneous MI with continued separation of curves over time. Thus, in order to assess the long-term effect of invasive management strategy on mortality, the ISCHEMIA-EXTEND observational study was planned including surviving participants from the initial phase of the ISCHEMIA trial with a projected median follow-up of nearly 10 years. Recently, an interim report of 7-year all-cause, cardiovascular (CV), and non-CV mortality rates has been published showing no difference in all-cause mortality between the two strategies, but with a lower risk of CV mortality and higher risk of non-CV mortality with an initial invasive strategy over a median follow-up of 5.7 years. The trade-offs in CV and non-CV mortality observed in ISCHEMIA-EXTEND raise many important questions regarding the heterogeneity of treatment effect, the drivers of mortality, and the relative importance and reliability of CV vs. all-cause mortality. Overall, findings from ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-EXTEND trials might help physicians in shared decision-making as to whether to add invasive management to guideline-directed medical management in selected patients with chronic coronary artery disease and moderate or severe ischaemia.

Percutaneous coronary intervention from COURAGE to ISCHEMIA and beyond

Multiple randomized clinical trials and observational studies in patients with chronic coronary artery disease have evaluated whether revascularization, in particular PCI, can reduce the incidence of future cardiovascular events and relieve angina. Perhaps the two most widely quoted trials are COURAGE and ISCHEMIA. In both trials revascularization did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular death or non-fatal events. In both, revascularization did relieve angina, particularly in patients with severe pain. From the time of COURAGE to ISCHEMIA there were also multiple developments. In particular improved stent technology with second and third generation drug eluting stents in ISCHEMIA compared to bare metal stents in COURAGE. There was also the development of new methods to evaluate ischemia, in particular the potential surrogate fractional flow reserve. This period also saw improvement and maturation of coronary computed tomography angiography to assess coronary anatomy non-invasively. There was also greater emphasis on more intensive, guideline directed medical therapy to treat dyslipidemia and hypertension. There has also been greater recognition that not all angina is due to epicardial obstructive disease. Microvascular disease and coronary spasm are responsible for much of the symptom burden of ischemia. These data have led to a paradigm shift toward a more nuanced approach to treating stable ischemic heart disease, with less need for revascularization except in cases of particularly severe anatomic disease or unremitting symptoms while on optimal medial therapy. In recognition of the importance of disparities in cardiovascular health, it is crucial to implement preventive strategies with optimal medical therapy in the community.

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).

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing.

METHODS

ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

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.