ISCHEMIA 试验后,血管重建术在稳定型冠状动脉疾病的治疗中还有用武之地吗?

IF 1.9 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Heart International Pub Date : 2020-08-08 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.17925/HI.2020.14.1.13
Andre Briosa E Gala, Nick Curzen
{"title":"ISCHEMIA 试验后,血管重建术在稳定型冠状动脉疾病的治疗中还有用武之地吗?","authors":"Andre Briosa E Gala, Nick Curzen","doi":"10.17925/HI.2020.14.1.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ISCHEMIA trial (International study of comparative health effectiveness with medical and invasive approaches; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522) has informed practice in patients with stable angina and confirms what other less definitive data have taught us, that in the absence of severe symptoms, significant left main disease or significant left ventricular dysfunction, there is no prognostic benefit of an early invasive/revascularisation strategy with optimal medical therapy (OMT) over OMT alone. Like all quality randomised trials, it has nuances: the invasive treatment group had much better relief of angina than the OMT alone group, and the rate of spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in follow-up was lower in the invasive group, although only after a prevalence of periprocedural MI. The clinical outcome consequence of the MI data, if indeed there is one, will only become clear at later follow-up. OMT is a powerful treatment, and reflex revascularisation in patients with little or no angina is not.</p>","PeriodicalId":12836,"journal":{"name":"Heart International","volume":"14 1","pages":"13-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9524617/pdf/heart-int-14-13.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is There Still a Place for Revascularisation in the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease Following the ISCHEMIA Trial?\",\"authors\":\"Andre Briosa E Gala, Nick Curzen\",\"doi\":\"10.17925/HI.2020.14.1.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The ISCHEMIA trial (International study of comparative health effectiveness with medical and invasive approaches; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522) has informed practice in patients with stable angina and confirms what other less definitive data have taught us, that in the absence of severe symptoms, significant left main disease or significant left ventricular dysfunction, there is no prognostic benefit of an early invasive/revascularisation strategy with optimal medical therapy (OMT) over OMT alone. Like all quality randomised trials, it has nuances: the invasive treatment group had much better relief of angina than the OMT alone group, and the rate of spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in follow-up was lower in the invasive group, although only after a prevalence of periprocedural MI. The clinical outcome consequence of the MI data, if indeed there is one, will only become clear at later follow-up. OMT is a powerful treatment, and reflex revascularisation in patients with little or no angina is not.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Heart International\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"13-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9524617/pdf/heart-int-14-13.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Heart International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17925/HI.2020.14.1.13\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17925/HI.2020.14.1.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

ISCHEMIA试验(医疗和侵入性方法的健康效果比较国际研究;ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:该试验为稳定型心绞痛患者的治疗提供了参考,并证实了其他不那么明确的数据所告诉我们的观点,即在没有严重症状、明显左主干疾病或明显左心室功能障碍的情况下,早期介入/血管重建策略与最佳药物治疗(OMT)相比,对预后没有任何益处。与所有高质量的随机试验一样,该试验也有细微差别:有创治疗组的心绞痛缓解情况比单纯 OMT 组要好得多,而且有创组在随访中的自发性心肌梗死(MI)发生率较低,但这只是在围手术期心肌梗死发生率较高的情况下。心肌梗死数据的临床结果(如果确实有的话)只有在以后的随访中才能明确。OMT是一种有效的治疗方法,而对几乎没有或根本没有心绞痛的患者进行反射性血管再通手术则不是。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is There Still a Place for Revascularisation in the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease Following the ISCHEMIA Trial?

The ISCHEMIA trial (International study of comparative health effectiveness with medical and invasive approaches; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522) has informed practice in patients with stable angina and confirms what other less definitive data have taught us, that in the absence of severe symptoms, significant left main disease or significant left ventricular dysfunction, there is no prognostic benefit of an early invasive/revascularisation strategy with optimal medical therapy (OMT) over OMT alone. Like all quality randomised trials, it has nuances: the invasive treatment group had much better relief of angina than the OMT alone group, and the rate of spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in follow-up was lower in the invasive group, although only after a prevalence of periprocedural MI. The clinical outcome consequence of the MI data, if indeed there is one, will only become clear at later follow-up. OMT is a powerful treatment, and reflex revascularisation in patients with little or no angina is not.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Heart International
Heart International Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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