Key result
A routine invasive strategy did not reduce the primary composite cardiovascular outcome compared to a conservative strategy in stable coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
Approaches to stable CAD treatment remain debated, necessitating an analysis of the relationship between conservative and invasive strategies based on data from the ISCHEMIA trial.
Does a routine invasive strategy reduce cardiovascular events compared to a conservative strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Does a routine invasive strategy reduce cardiovascular events compared to a conservative strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review of the ISCHEMIA trial highlights that an initial invasive strategy does not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events compared to a conservative strategy in stable CAD, emphasizing the need for careful patient selection based on angina severity.
Approaches to stable coronary artery disease (CАD) treatment have been subject to debate for a long time. One of the first and fundamental studies in stable coronary artery disease patients treatment is the COURAGE study, which showed the advantage of rational drug therapy in comparison with percutaneous intervention in such patients. However, CAD high prevalence with medical and social significance cause the need for future development of relationship between conservative and invasive approaches in the problem of this disease treatment. It was particularly the focus of recently completed multicentre ISCHEMIA trail. The aim of review is to analyze the available data on the management of stable coronary artery disease patients based on the ISCHEMIA study data. Results. In the largest multicenter randomized clinical trial ISCHEMIA, the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest with effective resuscitation, hospitalization due to heart failure) rate was 13.3% in the routine invasive strategy group and 15.5% in the conservative strategy group (p = 0.34). The main secondary outcome rate also does not differ between groups significantly. Quality of life in the non-invasive group was higher only in those patients who had angina at baseline. Study subanalysis demonstrated that left coronary artery borderline stenosis accompanied by a poor prognosis, and an invasive strategy improves angina symptoms. Also, low density lipoprotein cholesterol target values achievement predictors were determined. In addition, women, participated in ISCHEMIA study had more frequent angina episodes, regardless less extensive coronary artery damage, and less severe ischemia manifestations than men. Among stable CAD accompanied moderate to severe ischemia and severe chronic kidney disease patients, no evidence initial invasive strategy, compared initial conservative strategy, in relation of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction risk reduction was found. Conclusion: ISCHEMIA trial data demonstrated necessity more carefully stable coronary artery disease patients selection for invasive treatment, taking into account angina pectoris severity and modern antianginal therapy possibilities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yakhontov et al. (2021) conducted a review in stable coronary artery disease. routine invasive strategy vs. conservative strategy was evaluated on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest with effective resuscitation, hospitalization due to heart failure (p=0.34). A routine invasive strategy did not reduce the primary composite cardiovascular outcome compared to a conservative strategy in stable coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: