University Heart Center Graz, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Weatherhead PET Center, University of Texas Medical School and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, USA.
Int J Cardiol. 2021 Aug 1;336:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.05.005. Epub 2021 May 7.
In chronic coronary syndromes, guidelines mandate invasive functional guidance of revascularization whenever non-invasive proof of ischemia is missing. ISIS-2 survey aimed to evaluate how the adoption of guideline recommendation on ischemia-guided revascularization has evolved over the last 5-7 years.
In ISIS-2 participants assessed five complete angiograms, presenting only intermediate stenoses without information on non-invasive pre-testing. Fractional flow reserve was known for each stenosis, but remained undisclosed. Participants could determine stenosis significance either by angiography or by requesting an adjunctive invasive diagnostic method (intravascular imaging or functional tests). Primary endpoint was the rate of requesting adjunctive functional assessment. Secondary endpoints were the rate of concordance between angiography-based decisions and know functional severity. ISIS-2 utilized the same web-based platform as ISIS-1 in 2013. (NCT04001452).
334 participants performed 2059 lesion evaluations: 1202 (59%) decisions were based solely on angiography without expressed need for further evaluation. These decisions were discordant with known functional significance in 39%, mainly with potential of overtreatment. Participants requested invasive functional assessment in 643 (31%) and intravascular imaging in 214 (10%) cases. Compared to ISIS-1 the rate of purely angiography-based decisions has decreased (59% vs 66%; p < 0.001), while invasive functional tests were more frequently requested (31% vs 25%; p < 0.001).
ISIS-2 suggests an evolving pattern in the intention to integrate invasive coronary physiology into the revascularization decisions. However, the disconnect between recommendations and current thinking is still dominant.
在慢性冠状动脉综合征中,指南规定,如果没有非侵入性缺血证据,应进行有创功能指导血运重建。ISIS-2 调查旨在评估缺血指导血运重建的指南建议在过去 5-7 年中的采纳情况。
在 ISIS-2 参与者中,评估了五个完整的血管造影,仅呈现中度狭窄,没有关于非侵入性预测试的信息。每个狭窄都知道血流储备分数,但仍未公开。参与者可以通过血管造影或请求辅助有创诊断方法(血管内成像或功能测试)来确定狭窄的意义。主要终点是请求辅助功能评估的比率。次要终点是基于血管造影的决策与已知功能严重程度之间的一致性。ISIS-2 在 2013 年使用了与 ISIS-1 相同的基于网络的平台。(NCT04001452)。
334 名参与者进行了 2059 个病变评估:1202 个(59%)决策仅基于血管造影,无需进一步评估。这些决策与已知的功能意义不一致,主要是潜在的过度治疗,在 39%的情况下,参与者要求进行有创功能评估,在 214 例(10%)情况下要求进行血管内成像。与 ISIS-1 相比,仅基于血管造影的决策比率有所下降(59%比 66%;p<0.001),而有创功能检查的需求更为频繁(31%比 25%;p<0.001)。
ISIS-2 表明,将有创冠状动脉生理学纳入血运重建决策的意图正在发生变化。然而,建议与当前思维之间的脱节仍然占主导地位。