Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
James Slater, David J Maron, Philip G Jones, Sripal Bangalore, Harmony R Reynolds, Zhuxuan Fu, Gregg W Stone, Ruth Kirby, Judith S Hochman, John A Spertus
{"title":"Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial.","authors":"James Slater, David J Maron, Philip G Jones, Sripal Bangalore, Harmony R Reynolds, Zhuxuan Fu, Gregg W Stone, Ruth Kirby, Judith S Hochman, John A Spertus","doi":"10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.010849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The appropriate use criteria for revascularization of stable ischemic heart disease have not been evaluated using randomized data. Using data from the randomized ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches; July 2012 to January 2018, 37 countries), the health status benefits of an invasive strategy over a conservative one were examined within appropriate use criteria scenarios.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Among 1833 participants mapped to 36 appropriate use criteria scenarios, symptom status was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 at 1 year for each scenario and for each of the 6 patient characteristics used to define the scenarios. Coronary anatomy and SYNTAX(Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery) scores were measured using coronary computed tomography angiography. Treatment effects are expressed as an odds ratio for a better health status outcome with an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy using Bayesian hierarchical proportional odds models. Differences in the primary clinical outcome were similarly examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age was 63 years, 81% were male, and 71% were White. Diabetes was present in 28% and multivessel disease in 51%. Most clinical scenarios favored invasive for better 1-year health status. The benefit of an invasive strategy on Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores was reduced for asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 1.16 [0.66-1.71] versus 2.26 [1.75-2.80]), as well as for those on no antianginal medications. Diabetes, number of diseased vessels, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery location, and SYNTAX score did not effectively identify patients with better health status after invasive treatment, and minimal differences in clinical events were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Applying the randomization scheme from the ISCHEMIA trial to appropriate clinical scenarios revealed baseline symptoms and antianginal therapy to be the primary drivers of health status benefits from invasive management. Consideration should be given to reducing the patient characteristics collected to generate appropriateness ratings to improve the feasibility of future data collection.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.</p>","PeriodicalId":49221,"journal":{"name":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":"e010849"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11919559/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.010849","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The appropriate use criteria for revascularization of stable ischemic heart disease have not been evaluated using randomized data. Using data from the randomized ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches; July 2012 to January 2018, 37 countries), the health status benefits of an invasive strategy over a conservative one were examined within appropriate use criteria scenarios.

Methods: Among 1833 participants mapped to 36 appropriate use criteria scenarios, symptom status was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 at 1 year for each scenario and for each of the 6 patient characteristics used to define the scenarios. Coronary anatomy and SYNTAX(Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery) scores were measured using coronary computed tomography angiography. Treatment effects are expressed as an odds ratio for a better health status outcome with an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy using Bayesian hierarchical proportional odds models. Differences in the primary clinical outcome were similarly examined.

Results: The mean age was 63 years, 81% were male, and 71% were White. Diabetes was present in 28% and multivessel disease in 51%. Most clinical scenarios favored invasive for better 1-year health status. The benefit of an invasive strategy on Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores was reduced for asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 1.16 [0.66-1.71] versus 2.26 [1.75-2.80]), as well as for those on no antianginal medications. Diabetes, number of diseased vessels, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery location, and SYNTAX score did not effectively identify patients with better health status after invasive treatment, and minimal differences in clinical events were observed.

Conclusions: Applying the randomization scheme from the ISCHEMIA trial to appropriate clinical scenarios revealed baseline symptoms and antianginal therapy to be the primary drivers of health status benefits from invasive management. Consideration should be given to reducing the patient characteristics collected to generate appropriateness ratings to improve the feasibility of future data collection.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

利用缺血试验的随机数据评价稳定缺血性心脏病冠状动脉血运重建术的适当使用标准。
背景:稳定型缺血性心脏病血运重建术的适当使用标准尚未采用随机数据进行评估。使用随机缺血试验的数据(国际比较医疗和侵入性方法的健康有效性研究;2012年7月至2018年1月,37个国家),在适当的使用标准情景下,检查了侵入性策略相对于保守策略的健康状况益处。方法:1833名参与者被映射到36个适当的使用标准场景中,使用西雅图心绞痛问卷-7对每个场景和用于定义场景的6个患者特征中的每一个进行1年的症状状态评估。冠状动脉ct血管造影测量冠状动脉解剖和SYNTAX(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与心脏手术之间的协同作用)评分。使用贝叶斯分层比例优势模型,将治疗效果表示为侵入性与保守性治疗策略更好的健康状态结果的优势比。主要临床结果的差异也进行了类似的检查。结果:平均年龄63岁,男性81%,白人71%。糖尿病占28%,多血管疾病占51%。大多数临床情况倾向于侵入性治疗,以获得更好的1年健康状况。对于无症状患者以及未使用抗心绞痛药物的患者,有创策略对西雅图心绞痛问卷心绞痛频率评分的益处降低(优势比[95%可信区间],1.16[0.66-1.71]对2.26[1.75-2.80])。糖尿病、病变血管数量、冠状动脉左前降支近端位置和SYNTAX评分不能有效识别有创治疗后健康状况较好的患者,临床事件差异极小。结论:将缺血试验的随机化方案应用到适当的临床情景中,发现基线症状和抗心绞痛治疗是有创治疗对健康状况有益的主要驱动因素。应考虑减少收集的患者特征,以产生适当性评分,以提高未来数据收集的可行性。注册:网址:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov;唯一标识符:NCT01471522。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, an American Heart Association journal, publishes articles related to improving cardiovascular health and health care. Content includes original research, reviews, and case studies relevant to clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The online-only journal is dedicated to furthering the mission of promoting safe, effective, efficient, equitable, timely, and patient-centered care. Through its articles and contributions, the journal equips you with the knowledge you need to improve clinical care and population health, and allows you to engage in scholarly activities of consequence to the health of the public. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes considers the following types of articles: Original Research Articles, Data Reports, Methods Papers, Cardiovascular Perspectives, Care Innovations, Novel Statistical Methods, Policy Briefs, Data Visualizations, and Caregiver or Patient Viewpoints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信