Why the study?
To test if current general practice of surgical revascularization is comparable to the ISCHEMIA trial setting and to evaluate the comparative risk of cardiovascular events or death after CABG.
Does real-world surgical revascularization improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to the ISCHEMIA trial cohorts in patients with stable coronary syndrome?
Does real-world surgical revascularization improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to the ISCHEMIA trial cohorts in patients with stable coronary syndrome?
Real-world surgical revascularization for stable coronary syndrome showed lower 5-year rates of the primary composite outcome and myocardial infarction compared to both arms of the ISCHEMIA trial.
Real-world surgical revascularization was associated with lower events than ISCHEMIA arms; leaves open whether selection bias or treatment effects explain differences.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test if the current general practice of surgical revascularization is comparable to the setting of International Study of Comparative Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and to evaluate the comparative risk of cardiovascular events or death after coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: We selected patients undergoing surgical revascularization and matching ISCHEMIA inclusion criteria. Chronic coronary syndrome patients were included if diagnosis of myocardial ischaemia by functional testing and coronary artery disease at angiography were detected. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, rehospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure and resuscitated cardiac arrest. Secondary end points were death by any cause, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and rehospitalization. RESULTS: Among 353 patients, the primary outcome occurred in 62 (17.6%) patients. At 6 months, cumulative event-free survival was 97%, at 1 year 96%, at 5 years 89% and at 10 years 80%. Cumulative risk of the primary composite outcome at 5 years was 11%, 18% in the conservative arm of ISCHEMIA and 16% in the revascularization arm of ISCHEMIA (P < 0.001). Risk of myocardial infarction at 5 years was 7% in surgical patients and 12% and 10% in the conservative and invasive arms of the trial, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term results in surgical patients treated for chronic coronary syndromes showed that ISCHEMIA trial findings are not transferable in a 'real-world' scenario and have not changed previous medical practice. A patient-tailored approach, especially with diabetes and reduced left ventricle function, offers the best results in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martino et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: