From Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute and the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City (J.A.S., P.G.J.), and the Center for Comprehensive Cardiovascular Care, St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis (B.R.C.) - all in Missouri; the Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA (D.J.M., G.M.C.); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (D.B.M., S.M.O.); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (J.L.F.); and New York University Grossman School of Medicine (H.R.R., J.S.H., S.B.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (G.W.S.), and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation (G.W.S.), New York, and Albany Medical College and Albany Medical Center, Albany (M.S.S.) - all in New York.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 23;382(17):1619-1628. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916374. Epub 2020 Mar 30.
In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status.
We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy.
Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4).
Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).
在 ISCHEMIA-CKD 试验中,主要分析显示,与单独进行基于指南的药物治疗(保守策略)相比,对于稳定型缺血性心脏病、中度或重度缺血以及晚期慢性肾脏病(估算肾小球滤过率<30ml/min/1.73m 或接受透析)患者,初始血管造影和血运重建加基于指南的药物治疗(侵入性策略)并未显著降低死亡或心肌梗死风险。该试验的次要目标是评估与心绞痛相关的健康状况。
我们在随机分组前和 1.5、3、6 个月以及此后每 6 个月使用西雅图心绞痛问卷(SAQ)评估健康状况。本分析的主要结局是 SAQ 综合评分(范围为 0 至 100,评分越高表示心绞痛发作频率越低,功能和生活质量越好)。采用贝叶斯框架内的混合效应累积概率模型来估计侵入性策略的治疗效果。
777 名参与者中有 705 名完成了健康状况评估。近一半的参与者(49%)在随机分组前一个月内没有心绞痛。在 3 个月时,侵入性策略组与保守性策略组在 SAQ 综合评分上的估计平均差值为 2.1 分(95%可信区间,-0.4 至 4.6),这一结果有利于侵入性策略。在基线时有每日或每周心绞痛的参与者中,3 个月时的评分差异最大(10.1 分;95%可信区间,0.0 至 19.9),在基线时有每月心绞痛的参与者中评分差异较小(2.2 分;95%可信区间,-2.0 至 6.2),在基线时没有心绞痛的参与者中评分差异几乎不存在(0.6 分;95%可信区间,-1.9 至 3.3)。到 6 个月时,整个试验人群的组间差异减弱(0.5 分;95%可信区间,-2.2 至 3.4)。
与保守策略相比,对于稳定型缺血性心脏病、中度或重度缺血以及晚期慢性肾脏病患者,初始采用侵入性策略并未带来与心绞痛相关的健康状况的实质性或持续获益。(由美国国立心肺血液研究所资助;ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov 编号,NCT01985360。)