Why the study?
In ISCHEMIA-CKD, the cumulative frequency of different MI types after randomization and their subsequent prognosis had not been reported.
Does an initial invasive treatment strategy alter the incidence of different MI types and their prognostic implications in patients with advanced CKD and stable coronary disease?
RCT
Yes
Does an initial invasive treatment strategy alter the incidence of different MI types and their prognostic implications in patients with advanced CKD and stable coronary disease?
Hazard Ratio: 0.66 (95% CI 0.42–1.02)
Absolute Event Rate: 11.2% vs 13.6%
In patients with advanced CKD and stable coronary disease, type 1 and procedural MIs are strongly associated with subsequent mortality, and type 1 MI increases the risk of dialysis initiation.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaitman et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Advanced chronic kidney disease, stable coronary disease, and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Invasive treatment strategy vs. Conservative treatment strategy was evaluated on Type 1 or 2 MI with the primary MI definition (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42-1.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: