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

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.

Increasing frequency of dyspnea among patients referred for cardiac stress testing

OBJECTIVE

To assess the frequency, change in prevalence, and prognostic significance of dyspnea among contemporary patients referred for cardiac stress testing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated the prevalence of dyspnea and its relationship to all-cause mortality among 33,564 patients undergoing stress/rest SPECT-MPI between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2017. Dyspnea was assessed as a single-item question. Patients were divided into three temporal groups.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of dyspnea in our cohort was 30.2%. However, there was a stepwise increase in the temporal prevalence of dyspnea, which was present in 25.6% of patients studied between 2002 and 2006, 30.5% of patients studied between 2007 and 2011, and 38.7% of patients studied between 2012 and 2017. There was a temporal increase in the prevalence of dyspnea in each age, symptom, and risk factor subgroup. The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality was higher among patients with dyspnea vs those without dyspnea both among all patients, and within each chest pain subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Dyspnea has become increasingly prevalent among patients referred for cardiac stress testing and is now present among nearly two-fifths of contemporary cohorts referred for stress-rest SPECT-MPI. Prospective study is needed to standardize the assessment of dyspnea and evaluate the reasons for its increasing prevalence.

Percutaneous ventricular assist device for higher-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in surgically ineligible patients: Indications and outcomes from the OPTIMUM study

BACKGROUND

Indications and outcomes for percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) use in surgically ineligible patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain poorly characterized.

AIMS

We sought to describe the use and timing of pVAD and outcome in surgically ineligible patients.

METHODS

Among 726 patients enrolled in the prospective OPTIMUM study, clinical and health status outcomes were assessed in patients who underwent pVAD-assisted PCI and those without pVAD.

RESULTS

Compared with patients not receiving pVAD (N = 579), those treated with pVAD (N = 142) more likely had heart failure, lower left ventricular ejection fraction (30.7 ± 13.6 vs. 45.9 ± 15.5, p < 0.01), and higher STS 30-day predicted mortality (4.2 [2.1-8.0] vs. 3.3 [1.7-6.6], p = 0.01) and SYNTAX scores (36.1 ± 12.2, vs. 31.5 ± 12.1, p < 0.01). While the pVAD group had higher in-hospital (5.6% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.046), 30-day (9.0% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.01) and 6-month (20.4% vs. 11.7%, p < 0.01) mortality compared to patients without pVAD, this difference appeared to be largely driven by significantly higher mortality among the 20 (14%) patients with unplanned pVAD use (30% in-hospital mortality with unplanned PVAD vs. 1.6% with planned, p < 0.01; 30-day mortality, 38.1% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.01). The degree of 6-month health status improvement among survivors was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgically ineligible patients with pVAD-assisted PCI had more complex baseline characteristics compared with those without pVAD. Higher mortality in the pVAD group appeared to be driven by very poor outcomes by patients with unplanned, rescue pVAD.

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.

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.

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in chronic kidney disease: prognostic implication of an early invasive strategy

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of PCI for NSTE-ACS with CKD is unclear. The aim of our study was to assess whether early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (within 24 hours from admission) is associated with improved in-hospital (mortality or acute kidney injury) and long-term events (composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and bleeding events) in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

We retrospectively studied NSTE-ACS patients who underwent PCI in large tertiary centers. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 mL/min/1.73 m². A propensity score for the likelihood of an early invasive strategy was calculated. Relative risks (RR) and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were estimated for in-hospital and follow-up events.

RESULTS

We included 821 patients, mean age was 69±12 years; 492 (60%) received an early PCI, and 273 (33%) had an eGFR <60. Median follow-up was 391 days. At univariate analysis, early treatment was associated with significantly lower in-hospital and follow-up events. However, after adjustment for major prognostic factors, there was no significant association with both in-hospital (RR=1.06; 95% CI 0.83-1.36) and follow-up events (RR=1.07; 95% CI 0.83-1.37). When the association was assessed in strata of CKD, lack of statistically significant association was confirmed, even if a trend emerged in patients with preserved renal function both on primary outcome (RR=0.47, 95% 0.18-1.22) and time to secondary outcome (HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.36-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion in a cohort of NSTE-ACS patients, an early invasive strategy does not independently affect prognosis.

Lessons Learned from the ISCHEMIA Trial for the Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

The recent landmark International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial was undertaken to assess whether stable angina patients with moderate to severe baseline ischemia would benefit from an invasive approach with revascularization versus a conservative approach of intensive lifestyle intervention and pharmacologic secondary prevention. This trial addressed the hypothesis that treating ischemia with an invasive approach would reduce major adverse cardiac events more than a noninvasive pharmacologic and lifestyle approach. ISCHEMIA is discussed in detail, along with current implications for contemporary management of this very common cardiac disorder afflicting millions of patients worldwide.

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.

Exercise Stress Echocardiography for Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Succumbed to the Modern Conceptual Revolution or Still Alive and Kicking?

The modern conceptual revolution in managing patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), based on improvement in preventive and pharmacological therapy, advocates coronary artery revascularization only for smaller group of patients with refractory angina, poor left ventricular systolic function, or high-risk coronary anatomy. Therefore, our conventional wisdom about stress testing must be questioned within this new and revolutionary paradigm. Exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) is still a well-known technique for assessing known or suspected stable CAD, it is safe, accessible, and well-tolerated, and there is an widespread evidence base. ESE has been remarkably resilient throughout years of innovation in noninvasive cardiology. Its value is not to be determined over the short portion of diagnostic accuracy but mainly through its prognostic value evident in a wide range of patient subsets. It is coming very close to the modern profile of a leading test that should include, in addition to an essential accettable diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, qualities of low cost, no radiation exposure, and minor environmental traces. In this review, we will discuss advantages, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic value in general and special populations, cost-effectiveness, and changes in referral patterns of ESE in the modern era.

Impact of eGFR rate on 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with stable coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of mortality and is often complicated by chronic kidney disease. We sought to investigate the prevalence of different degree of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction, the clinical and bio-humoral correlates, its relationship with therapeutic management, and its predictive role on 1-year all-cause mortality, in patients with stable CAD.

METHODS

We studied 4,130 patients with stable CAD recruited in a prospective, observational, nationwide study (START, STable coronary Artery diseases RegisTry) in Italy. Baseline clinical characteristics, pharmacological treatment, and all-cause 1-year mortality were evaluated according to groups of eGFR (<30; 30-59; 60-89; ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m²) at baseline.

RESULTS

The presence and the degree of chronic kidney disease entailed an unfavorable risk profile, since it was gradually associated with more comorbidities. Furthermore, progressively lower eGFR values were associated to lower diastolic blood pressure and hemoglobin values. As eGFR lowers, optimal medical treatment and its persistence overtime is reduced. Multivariate analysis showed that progressively lower eGFR significantly correlated with all-cause 1-year mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.02; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.01-1-03; p = 0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Low eGFR is associated with an increasing risk of all-cause mortality in patients with stable CAD. Chronic kidney disease may hamper the optimization of treatment limiting the use of drugs which may favorably impact cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Persistent Coronary Vasomotor Tone During Myocardial Ischemia Occurs at the Capillary Level and May Involve Pericytes

Background

There is persistent coronary vasomotor tone during myocardial ischemia, despite ongoing coronary arteriolar dilatation. The mechanism underlying this vasodilatory tone, which can be unmasked by coronary vasodilators, is unclear. We hypothesized that persistent microvascular resistance during myocardial ischemia occurs at the level of capillaries and may be caused by pericytes.

Methods

We studied nine instrumented dogs where coronary blood flow and coronary driving pressure were reduced to half by placement of stenoses. Myocardial blood flow and myocardial blood volume were measured with myocardial contrast echocardiography before and during adenosine administration. In three animals, the heart was perfusion-fixed under these conditions for electron microscopic assessment of capillary and pericyte size.

Results

During ischemia, myocardial blood volume decreased and myocardial vascular resistance remained unchanged. Adenosine administration reversed the decline in myocardial blood volume and decreased myocardial vascular resistance. Electron microscopy showed larger capillaries in ischemic beds receiving adenosine than ischemic beds not receiving adenosine. Pericytes in beds receiving adenosine also tended to be larger.

Conclusion

Capillaries are the site of persistent vasomotor tone during myocardial ischemia; any other site of vascular regulation (arterioles or venules) cannot explain these myocardial contrast echocardiography findings, which are confirmed on post-mortem electron microscopic examination. The decrease in capillary size is likely caused by pericyte contraction in an attempt to maintain a constant capillary hydrostatic pressure. Adenosine relaxes pericytes, restores myocardial blood volume, reduces myocardial vascular resistance, and improves regional function during ischemia. These findings could have important therapeutic implications.

Assessment of Comorbidity Burden and Treatment Response: Reanalysis of the SCD-HEFT Trial

INTRODUCTION

Comorbidity burden may be associated with treatment-effect heterogeneity (HTE) in clinical trials, which could alter the interpretation or clinical translation of results for many patients in the real world.

OBJECTIVE

In this analysis, we sought to determine the distribution of multimorbidity scores in patients enrolled in SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) and tested the association between comorbidity burden and treatment efficacy for the outcome of all-cause death.

METHODS

Each patient was assigned a modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI) score from 1 to 14 based on available enrollment data. We investigated the relationship between mCCI score and time to all-cause death using Cox proportional hazards models. Models were fit for quartiles of the comorbidity index, reference coding was used, with quartile 1 (Q1; mCCI score of 1-2) selected as the reference. Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported from these models. Following the same analysis framework as the original manuscript, patients assigned to amiodarone or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) were compared with those assigned to placebo in separate Cox models. Each model included the mCCI score in quartiles, group assignment, and an interaction term for the quartile and group assignment. HRs and corresponding 97.5% CIs were reported from these models.

RESULTS

The majority of patients had an mCCI score ≤5 (75.4%), and mortality risk was associated with increasing score. The HRs for Q2 (score 3), Q3 (scores 4-5), and Q4 (scores ≥6) were 1.46 (97.5% CI 1.06-1.99), 3.03 (97.5% CI 2.35-3.90), and 4.51 (97.5% CI 3.46-5.88), respectively. For the subgroup analysis, amiodarone was not associated with a significant difference compared with placebo for individuals in Q1-Q3; however, it was associated with an increase in death for those in Q4 (HR 1.50; 97.5% CI 1.03-2.18). ICD was associated with a significant reduction in death compared with placebo for individuals in Q1 and Q3 (HR 0.42; 97.5% CI 0.20-0.84 and HR 0.70; 97.5% CI 0.50-0.97, respectively) but not for those in Q2 or Q4. Interaction testing across subgroups suggested HTE for amiodarone (p = 0.07) and ICD (p = 0.08) versus placebo across mCCI quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing comorbidity burden was associated with HTE when evaluating amiodarone and ICD compared with placebo in the SCD-HeFT trial. Our results highlight the importance of enrolling diverse patient populations in clinical trials and considering the possibility of HTE when translating results to clinical practice.

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 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Methodological Standards for the Design, Implementation, and Analysis of Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiac surgery presents specific methodological challenges in the design, implementation, and analysis of randomized controlled trials. The purposes of this scientific statement are to review key standards in cardiac surgery randomized trial design and implementation, and to provide recommendations for conducting and interpreting cardiac surgery trials. Recommendations include a careful evaluation of the suitability of the research question for a clinical trial, assessment of clinical equipoise, feasibility of enrolling a representative patient cohort, impact of practice variations on the safety and efficacy of the study intervention, likelihood and impact of crossover, and duration of follow-up. Trial interventions and study end points should be predefined, and appropriate strategies must be used to ensure adequate deliverability of the trial interventions. Every effort must be made to ensure a high completeness of follow-up; trial design and analytic techniques must be tailored to the specific research question and trial setting.

Popular procedures without evidence of benefit: A case study of percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease

Despite limited benefit, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a common procedure that is often performed for uncertain or inappropriate indications in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). PCI cases per capita have increased year-over-year in most European countries, and many have higher rates than the U.S. Meanwhile, first-line therapy such as optimal medical therapy (OMT) and lifestyle changes, continue to be under-utilized. This article reviews the evidence on use of PCI in stable CAD. Specifically, we analyzed randomized control trials, systematic reviews, appropriate use criteria, and professional society guidelines that examine the risks and benefits of PCI compared to OMT. We then highlight utilization patterns as well as interventions that better align current practice with evidence-based care.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Effect of coronary artery bypass grafting on quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate temporal trends in quality of life (QoL) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in randomized clinical trials, and a quantitative comparison from before surgery to up to 5 years after surgery.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO from 2010 to 2020 to identify studies that included the measurement of QoL in patients undergoing CABG. The primary outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), and secondary outcomes were the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and EuroQol Questionnaire (EQ-5D). We pooled the means and the weighted mean differences over the follow-up period. In the meta-analysis, 2586 studies were screened and 18 full-text studies were included. There was a significant trend towards higher QoL scores from before surgery to 1 year post-operatively for the SAQ angina frequency (AF), SAQ QoL, SF-36 physical component (PC), and EQ-5D, whereas the SF-36 mental component (MC) did not improve significantly. The weighted mean differences from before surgery to 1 year after was 24 [95% confidence interval (CI): 21.6-26.4] for the SAQ AF, 31 (95% CI: 27.5-34.6) for the SAQ QoL, 9.8 (95% CI: 7.1-12.8) for the SF-36 PC, 7.1 (95% CI: 4.2-10.0) for the SF-36 MC, and 0.1 (95% CI: 0.06-0.14) for the EQ-5D. There was no evidence of publication bias or small-study effect.

CONCLUSION

CABG had both short- and long-term improvements in disease-specific QoL and generic QoL, with the largest improvement in angina frequency.

ISCHEMIA Trial: Key Questions and Answers

A healthy lifestyle, myocardial revascularisation and medical therapy constitute the three pillars for the treatment of ischaemic heart disease. Lifestyle and optimal medical therapy should be used in all cases. However, the selection of cases for revascularisation among stable patients remains controversial. The ISCHEMIA trial compared an early invasive strategy with revascularisation plus optimal medical therapy against initial optimal medical therapy alone with revascularisation reserved for cases in which symptom control was insufficient. The study included over 5,000 patients with stable coronary artery disease and moderate to severe myocardial ischaemia. No differences were found in relevant clinical outcomes, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, heart failure and stroke, over a follow-up of 3.2 years. Conversely, angina control was better in patients with severe symptomatic angina. Following the tradition of all trials comparing medical therapy alone with revascularisation, the ISCHEMIA trial results are controversial, but an analysis of the design and results of the trial offers important information to better understand, evaluate and treat the growing number of patients with stable chronic ischaemic heart disease and moderate to severe myocardial ischaemia.

Association Between Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure and the Efficacy of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure-Lowering Therapy

IMPORTANCE

Low diastolic blood pressure (DBP) has been found to be associated with increased adverse cardiovascular events; however, it is unknown whether intensifying blood pressure therapy in patients with an already low DBP to achieve a lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) target is safe or effective.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether there is an association of baseline DBP and intensification of blood pressure-lowering therapy with the outcomes of all-cause death and cardiovascular events.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study analyzed patients who were randomized to intensive or standard BP control in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure (ACCORD-BP) trial and Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Data were collected from September 1999 to June 2009 (ACCORD-BP) and from October 2010 to August 2015 (SPRINT). Data were analyzed from December 2020 to June 2021.

EXPOSURES

Baseline DBP as a continuous variable.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All-cause death and a composite cardiovascular end point (CVE) that included cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 14 094 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [8.9] years; 8504 [60.4%] men) were included in this analysis. There were significant nonlinear associations between baseline DBP and all-cause death (eg, baseline DBP 50 vs 80 mm Hg: hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .02) and the composite CVE (eg, baseline DBP 50 vs 80 mm Hg: HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.27-3.04; P = .003) observed among all participants. Findings for the interaction between baseline DBP and treatment group assignment for all cause death did not reach statistical significance. For intensive vs standard therapy, the HR of death for a baseline DBP of 50 mm Hg was 1.80 (95% CI, 0.95-3.39; P = .07) and that for a baseline DBP of 80 mm Hg was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-1.01; P = .05). Overall, there was no interaction found between baseline DBP and treatment group assignment for the composite CVE. Over the range of baseline DBP values, significant reductions in the composite CVE for patients assigned to intensive vs standard therapy were found for baseline DBP values of 80 mm Hg (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P = .03) and 90 mm Hg (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This pooled cohort study found no evidence of a significant interaction between baseline DBP and treatment intensity for all-cause death or for a composite CVE. These results are hypothesis generating and merit further study.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cardiovascular Trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of a person's health status that provide a global perspective of patient well-being. PROs can be classified into 4 primary domains: global, mental, physical, and social health. In this descriptive review, we focus on how PROs can be used in cardiac clinical trials, with an emphasis on cardiac surgical trials for patients with coronary heart disease and heart failure. We also highlight ongoing challenges and provide specific suggestions and novel opportunities to advance cardiac clinical trials. Current challenges include the long-term measurement of PROs in clinical trials beyond 1 year, inconsistency in the choice of the outcome measures among studies, and the lack of measurement of PROs across multiple domains. Opportunities for advancement include measuring PROs using consumer health informatics tools, including returning information back to participants in formats that they can understand using visualization. Future opportunities include quantifying cohort-specific minimal clinically important differences for PROs.

Quality of Life Assessment in Trials of Revascularization for Chronic Stable Angina: Insights from ORBITA and the Implications of Blinding

The main aims of therapy in chronic stable angina are to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and death and improve symptoms and quality of life (QoL). Unblinded trials have shown that revascularization does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction or death but does appear to improve symptoms. However, symptoms are susceptible to the placebo effect which can bias therapies to appear more effective than they are. To assess the true physical impact of a treatment on symptoms, placebo-controlled trials with patients and medical and research teams blinded to treatment allocation are necessary. Symptoms and QoL can be reported directly by the patient or indirectly by the physician. Patient-reported outcome measures in angina trials can include angina frequency, frequency of nitrate use, exercise capacity, and questionnaires such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the generic EuroQOL-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) QoL questionnaire. Physician-assessed outcome measures include Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class. The Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) trial was the first blinded placebo-controlled study investigating the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic stable angina. The trial showed a smaller than expected and not statistically significant effect of placebo-controlled PCI on the primary endpoint of change in exercise time at 6 weeks follow-up in single-vessel coronary artery disease. There was also no significant placebo-controlled treatment effect of PCI for the prespecified secondary endpoints of SAQ or EQ-5D-5L, although PCI did result in 20% more patients becoming free from angina than placebo in a non-prespecified secondary analysis. ORBITA has demonstrated the need for symptomatic and QoL effects of PCI to be studied using placebo control. Here, we describe ways of measuring QoL, the impact of the unblinded and blinded trials to date, what we have learned from ORBITA, and what is next for this common and complex condition.

Quality and diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiogram (CCTA): A comparison between pre-liver and pre-kidney transplant patients

PURPOSE

Assess and compare the quality and diagnostic performance of CCTA between pre-liver and pre-kidney transplant patients, and gauge impact of CCTA on ICA requirements.

METHODS

Patients without known coronary artery disease (CAD) were selected for CCTA if considered high-risk or after abnormal stress testing. All pre-liver and pre-kidney CCTAs between March 2018 and August 2020 were retrospectively included. CCTA quality was qualitatively graded as excellent/good/fair/poor, and CAD graded as < or ≥50% stenosis. Heart rate, coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores, and fractional flow reserve CT (FFR_CT) results were collected. CAD stenosis was graded on invasive coronary angiogram (ICA) images, with ≥50% stenosis defined as significant.

RESULTS

162 pre-transplant patients (91 pre-liver, 71 pre-kidney). Pre-kidney patients had poorer CCTA quality (p = 0.04) and higher heart rate (median: 65 bpm vs 60 bpm, p < 0.001). Out of 147 diagnostic CCTAs (pre-liver: 84, pre-kidney: 63), 73 (49.7%) had a ≥50% stenosis (pre-liver: 38 (45.2%), pre-kidney:35 (55.6%)). 12/38 (31.6%) had a significantly reduced FFR_CT, and 19/53 (35.8%) had ≥50% stenosis on ICA. Among patients whose CCTA was diagnostic and had ICA, stenosis severity was concordant in 10/23 (43.5%) pre-liver and 10/25 (40%) pre-kidney patients. All discordant cases had stenosis 'over-called' on CCTA.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic-quality CCTAs in high-risk pre-transplant patients are achievable and can greatly reduce ICA requirements by excluding significant CAD. CCTA quality is poorer in pre-kidney transplant patients compared to pre-liver, possibly due to higher heart rate.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2020

In a time of rapidly shifting evidence-based medicine, it is challenging to stay informed of research that modifies clinical practice. To enhance knowledge of practice-changing literature, a group of 7 internists reviewed titles and abstracts in 7 internal medicine journals with the highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient general internal medicine. Coronavirus disease-19 research was purposely excluded to highlight practice changes beyond the pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine were reviewed. The following collections of article synopses and databases were also reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on relevance to outpatient internal medicine, impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Clusters of articles pertaining to the same topic were considered together. In total, 7 practice-changing articles were included.

Preoperative Cardiovascular Assessment of the Renal Transplant Recipient: A Narrative Review

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease; it is the leading cause of death in these patients and the optimisation of their cardiovascular health may improve their post-transplant outcomes. Patients awaiting renal transplant often spend significant amounts of time on the waiting list allowing for the assessment and optimisation of their cardiovascular system. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is commonly seen in these patients and we explore the possible functional and anatomical investigations that can help assess and manage CAD in renal transplant candidates. We also discuss other aspects of cardiovascular assessment and management including arrhythmias, impaired ventricular function, valvular disease, lifestyle and pulmonary arterial hypertension. We hope that this review can form a basis for centres hoping to implement an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for renal transplantation.

[The Role of Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Syndromes]

The Role of Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Syndromes Abstract. Coronary heart disease represents the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Optimal management of these patients is therefore crucial and includes lifestyle changes, optimal medical therapy, and coronary revascularization. This review summarizes diagnostic and therapeutic strategies of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, focusing on the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. In particular, the role of invasive assessment and coronary revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes is discussed.

Cardiovascular Disease in Chronic Kidney Disease: Pathophysiological Insights and Therapeutic Options

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) exhibit an elevated cardiovascular risk manifesting as coronary artery disease, heart failure, arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death. Although the incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular events is already significantly higher in patients with early CKD stages (CKD stages 1-3) compared with the general population, patients with advanced CKD stages (CKD stages 4-5) exhibit a markedly elevated risk. Cardiovascular rather than end-stage kidney disease (CKD stage 5) is the leading cause of death in this high-risk population. CKD causes a systemic, chronic proinflammatory state contributing to vascular and myocardial remodeling processes resulting in atherosclerotic lesions, vascular calcification, and vascular senescence as well as myocardial fibrosis and calcification of cardiac valves. In this respect, CKD mimics an accelerated aging of the cardiovascular system. This overview article summarizes the current understanding and clinical consequences of cardiovascular disease in CKD.

Medical Therapy Versus Revascularization in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the evidence on optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).

RECENT FINDINGS

A post hoc analysis of the COURAGE trial in patients with SIHD and CKD showed no difference in freedom from angina, death, and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) between OMT and percutaneous intervention plus OMT compared with patients without CKD. The ISCHEMIA-CKD trial of 777 patients with advanced CKD revealed no difference in cumulative incidence of death or nonfatal MI at 3 years between OMT and revascularization but the composite of death or new dialysis was higher in the invasive arm. Additionally, there were no significant or sustained benefits in related to angina-related health status in invasive versus conservative strategy. An initial revascularization strategy does not reduce mortality or MI or relieve angina symptoms in patients with SIHD and advanced CKD.

Exploring nurses' perception about the care needs of patients with COVID-19: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a new disease affecting and killing a large number of people across the world every day. One way to improve health care for these patients is to recognize their needs. Nurses, as a large population of health care staff, can be rich sources of information and experience on patients' care needs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore nurses' perception about the care needs of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The present qualitative research was performed using the conventional content analysis approach in Iran from March to May 2020. The participants of this study included the nurses caring for patients with COVID-19, recruited by the purpose sampling method. The data was collected through 20 telephone interviews and analyzed based on the method proposed by Lundman and Graneheim.

RESULTS

Qualitative data analysis revealed six main categories including need for psychological consulting, need for quality improvement of services, need for upgrading of information, need for improving of social support, need for spiritual care and need for social welfare.

CONCLUSION

The data showed that patients with COVID-19 were psychologically, physically, socially, economically, and spiritually affected by the disease. Therefore, they should be comprehensively supported by health care staff and other supportive systems.

Routine Revascularization Versus Initial Medical Therapy for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Revascularization is often performed in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, whether revascularization reduces death and other cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted PUBMED/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches for randomized trials comparing routine revascularization versus an initial conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The primary outcome was death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, stroke, unstable angina, and freedom from angina. Trials were stratified by percent stent use and by percent statin use to evaluate outcomes in contemporary trials.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized clinical trials that enrolled 14 877 patients followed up for a weighted mean of 4.5 years with 64 678 patient-years of follow-up fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most trials enrolled patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function and low symptom burden, and excluded patients with left main disease. Revascularization compared with medical therapy alone was not associated with a reduced risk of death (relative risk [RR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90-1.09]). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary, indicating firm evidence for lack of a 10% or greater reduction in death. Revascularization was associated with a reduced nonprocedural MI (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.85]) but also with increased procedural MI (RR, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.86-3.31]) with no difference in overall MI (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83-1.03]). A significant reduction in unstable angina (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45-0.92]) and increase in freedom from angina (RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.15]) was also observed with revascularization. There were no treatment-related differences in the risk of heart failure or stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, routine revascularization was not associated with improved survival but was associated with a lower risk of nonprocedural MI and unstable angina with greater freedom from angina at the expense of higher rates of procedural MI. Longer-term follow-up of trials is needed to assess whether reduction in these nonfatal spontaneous events improves long-term survival.

Coronary Artery Disease in patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease; Current perspective and gaps of knowledge

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is very common in dialysis patients. One third have preexisting CAD and another one third have significant occult disease at the time of starting dialysis. Symptoms are often absent or are atypical, emphasizing the need for vigorous screening, specifically in patients awaiting transplant. The lesions tend to be heavily calcified, diffuse, and involve multiple vessels, consequently, percutaneous coronary interventions are more complicated to perform, and are less successful in achieving and maintaining short- and long-term patency. Dialysis patients have been excluded from the randomized controlled trials on which the current standards for managing CAD have been established. Due to differences in pathobiology and risks and benefits, it is uncertain that the results of these clinical trials extrapolate to patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Here we review the data from observational studies and identify special considerations concerning the diagnosis and management of CAD in dialysis patients, including the use of noninvasive functional testing vs anatomical testing, the management of acute coronary syndromes and of stable coronary artery disease, the role for percutaneous revascularization vs coronary artery bypass grafting, and of platelet inhibitor therapy after coronary stenting. We review the preliminary results of the recently published ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the only trial to date to involve large numbers of dialysis patients. This is the first of, hopefully, many trials in the pipeline that will examine therapies for CAD specifically in patients with advanced CKD, a growing population that is at particularly high risk for poor outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients.

METHODS

We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency.

RESULTS

At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina).

CONCLUSIONS

In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).