Lopez-Sendon Jose, Moreno Raúl, Tamargo Juan
IdiPaz Research Institute, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid Madrid, Spain.
Interventional Cardiology Unit, Hospital Universitario La Paz, IdiPaz Madrid, Spain.
Eur Cardiol. 2021 Sep 14;16:e34. doi: 10.15420/ecr.2021.16. eCollection 2021 Feb.
A healthy lifestyle, myocardial revascularisation and medical therapy constitute the three pillars for the treatment of ischaemic heart disease. Lifestyle and optimal medical therapy should be used in all cases. However, the selection of cases for revascularisation among stable patients remains controversial. The ISCHEMIA trial compared an early invasive strategy with revascularisation plus optimal medical therapy against initial optimal medical therapy alone with revascularisation reserved for cases in which symptom control was insufficient. The study included over 5,000 patients with stable coronary artery disease and moderate to severe myocardial ischaemia. No differences were found in relevant clinical outcomes, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, heart failure and stroke, over a follow-up of 3.2 years. Conversely, angina control was better in patients with severe symptomatic angina. Following the tradition of all trials comparing medical therapy alone with revascularisation, the ISCHEMIA trial results are controversial, but an analysis of the design and results of the trial offers important information to better understand, evaluate and treat the growing number of patients with stable chronic ischaemic heart disease and moderate to severe myocardial ischaemia.
健康的生活方式、心肌血运重建和药物治疗是缺血性心脏病治疗的三大支柱。所有病例均应采用生活方式干预和优化药物治疗。然而,在稳定型患者中选择进行血运重建的病例仍存在争议。缺血性心脏病优化药物治疗与血运重建策略比较(ISCHEMIA)试验比较了早期侵入性策略(血运重建加优化药物治疗)与单纯初始优化药物治疗(症状控制不佳时再进行血运重建)。该研究纳入了5000多名患有稳定型冠状动脉疾病和中度至重度心肌缺血的患者。在3.2年的随访中,包括全因死亡率、心血管死亡、心肌梗死、心力衰竭和中风在内的相关临床结局未发现差异。相反,重度症状性心绞痛患者的心绞痛控制情况更好。遵循所有比较单纯药物治疗与血运重建的试验传统,ISCHEMIA试验结果存在争议,但对该试验的设计和结果进行分析可提供重要信息,以更好地理解、评估和治疗越来越多患有稳定型慢性缺血性心脏病和中度至重度心肌缺血的患者。