TY - JOUR
T1 - Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease
AU - ISCHEMIA Research Group
AU - Spertus, John A.
AU - Jones, Philip G.
AU - Maron, David J.
AU - O'Brien, Sean M.
AU - Reynolds, Harmony R.
AU - Rosenberg, Yves
AU - Stone, Gregg W.
AU - Harrell, Frank E.
AU - Boden, William E.
AU - Weintraub, William S.
AU - Baloch, Khaula
AU - Mavromatis, Kreton
AU - Diaz, Ariel
AU - Gosselin, Gilbert
AU - Newman, Jonathan D.
AU - Mavromichalis, Stavroula
AU - Alexander, Karen P.
AU - Cohen, David J.
AU - Bangalore, Sripal
AU - Hochman, Judith S.
AU - Mark, Daniel B.
AU - Hillis, Graham
PY - 2020/4/9
Y1 - 2020/4/9
N2 - 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.).
AB - 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.).
KW - Aged
KW - Angina Pectoris/epidemiology
KW - Coronary Angiography
KW - Coronary Artery Bypass
KW - Coronary Disease/diagnostic imaging
KW - Female
KW - Health Status
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Myocardial Ischemia/therapy
KW - Myocardial Revascularization/methods
KW - Quality of Life
KW - Severity of Illness Index
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Treatment Outcome
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083254569&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa1916370
DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa1916370
M3 - Article
C2 - 32227753
VL - 382
SP - 1408
EP - 1419
JO - The New England Journal of Medicine
JF - The New England Journal of Medicine
SN - 0028-4793
IS - 15
ER -