Hotline 24/7: 0909384389

Share links:

SCAI 2021: ISCHEMIA trial population not reflected in real-world patients

Ngày 04/05/1988 01:37 | Lượt xem: 755

Patients studied in the ISCHEMIA trial, the largest trial to date to compare revascularisation with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischaemic heart disease (SIHD), may be unrepresentative of ischaemic heart disease patients entering US cath labs, research presented in a late-breaking trial session at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions 2021 scientific sessions (SCAI 2021, 28 April–1 May, virtual) has concluded.

 

ISCHEMIA has been described as one of the most important trials in interventional cardiology in recent years. Supported by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the trial looked at whether there is a benefit to adding cardiac catheterisation and, if feasible, revascularisation to optimal medical therapy in stable patients with at least moderate ischaemia on a stress test. Results of the trial were presented at the 2019 American Heart Association Scientific Sessions (AHA 2019; 16–18 November, Philadelphia, USA) by Judith S Hochman (New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA), and concluded that there is no additional benefit to revascularisation in these patients at a median of three years after the procedure.

However, a cross-sectional analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry, findings of which were presented at SCAI 2021 by Saurav Chatterjee (Northshore and Long Island Jewish Hospitals of the Northwell Health System, New York, USA), has found that only a minority of SIHD patients referred for coronary intervention in contemporary practice clearly resemble those enrolled in the ISCHEMIA trial.

“The ISCHEMIA trial is one of the most important studies in interventional cardiology over the last decade. While the findings are very valuable in informing our decision-making in many patients – the population enrolled does not appear representative of the broad range of patients that modern US coronary interventionists encounter,” said study senior author Jay Giri (Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, USA).

Patients excluded from ISCHEMIA included those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, ejection fraction <35%, significant left main disease, cardiomyopathy, cardiac transplant, those non-adherent to medication, at high bleeding risk and those having anatomy unsuitable for revascularisation, Chatterjee told SCAI attendees during his virtual presentation.

“That made us hypothesise that potentially, this would lead to a significant proportion of patients who are routinely considered for revascularisation in current US practice,” he said. “Additionally, there are patients, who for various reasons were enrolled over a decade for the ISCHEMIA trial, which may not be representative of the most current form of practice in the USA.”

The study team also assessed variability among different centres in the proportion of ISCHEMIA-like versus patients who did not represent ISCHEMIA in the population of patients who underwent PCI for SIHD.

Jay Giri

Analysis was conducted on data collected from the CathPCI Registry between October 2017‒June 2019, which included 388,212 patients from more than 1,600 hospitals. Participants included patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for SIHD in routine clinical practice. This SIHD population represented 42.9% of all performed PCI over the examined time period, the analysis showed, with the majority of US PCI performed in patients with ACS, cardiac arrest, or cardiogenic shock. Patients who met ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria—moderate to severe ischemia on functional testing, lack of high-risk anatomic or clinical features—and those who did not, were identified.

Among US patients undergoing PCI for SIHD between October 2017–June 2019, 32.3% met ISCHEMIA trial enrolment criteria. Among SIHD patients that did not meet criteria, 18.5% had SIHD with high-risk features (35.2% left main disease, 43.7% left ventricular systolic dysfunction, 16.8% end-stage renal disease), 17.3% had SIHD with negative or low-risk functional testing, and 31.9% either had no stress testing or did not have ischemic burden reported. Compared with the other SIHD cohorts, the ISCHEMIA-like cohort had the lowest in-hospital mortality rate (0.1%), and comparable in-hospital bleeding (0.6%), and acute kidney injury requiring haemodialysis (0.04%).

The findings led Chatterjee, Giri and colleagues to draw the conclusion that a large proportion of contemporary patients undergoing PCI for SIHD in the USA would not have met criteria for inclusion in the ISCHEMIA trial, adding that there was evidence of significant variability in patient selection among SIHD PCI centres.

“Our study reveals that most patients who have intervention are not reflected in the ISCHEMIA trial,” said Chatterjee. “These results help shine a light into what is truly happening in cath labs across the country, and the kinds of patients who are being referred for intervention.”

Following his presentation, Chatterjee was asked by session moderator David Cox (Brookwood Baptist Health, Birmingham, USA) to summarise the “bottom line” from the group’s research. Chatterjee responded: “One of the things that we would like to highlight is that while ISCHEMIA guides a certain component of our clinical decision making, it does not represent all patients who undergo PCI in the USA. There is a large proportion of patients who do not meet these criteria, and future research needs to identify the appropriate patient cohort who will derive the most benefit, especially among patients with SIHD with a need for revascularisation.”

Source CardiovascularNews

Duc Tin Clinic

 

Tin tức liên quan

Enrolment reaches midway point in trial of Early Bird bleed monitoring system

Eight-fold increased risk of heart attack seen in patients with subclinical obstructive coronary atherosclerosis

ACC 2023: REVIVED-BCIS-2 results challenge “long-held beliefs” on myocardial viability testing prior to PCI

Blood pressure successfully cut in RADIANCE II ultrasound renal denervation trial

New data examine mortality rates and cardiac damage in early-stage aortic stenosis patients

SUPPORT CONSULTANT

CUSTOMER REVIEWS

• I am Nguyen Thanh Sang, born in 1990. Since the examination and treatment at the clinic Duc Tin, I am very grateful to the Doctor for explaining and sharing about my illness. During the treatment time in the clinic I was very caring staff of the clinic. Now my illness has improved in a good way. Expect more and more clinic to be able to save many patients.

  I sincerely thank you !. Tel: 0938303275

• Huynh Thi Muoi, born in 1940, was examined and treated at Duc Tin Clinic. I am very pleased about how to serve and care patients of the clinic. The doctor is committed to explaining and sharing with the patient.

  Huynh Thi Muoi sincerely thank you! Phone number: 0972868746

• As I said Duc Tin surgical clinin is where my family trust, hope to visit. Physicians caring, thoughtful, gentle to the patient. Nurses and staff clinic polite, cheerful and thoughtful. This clinic clean, sterile, so I would love to. Tel: +84949914060.

• The doctor is very caring, attentive and very gentle nurse, courteous, affable with me. The clinic is clean, comfortable, polite. I enjoyed this faith. Every visit I was very relieved disease. Tel: 0839820792.

• I was patient, had to clinics of Dr. Le Duc Tin. I see very conscientious doctor patient care, answer any questions and very dedicated staff from the receptionist to the children tested, nursing. Clinics very clean and spacious. I'm very satisfied. Tel: +841227880829.

Search

News

Customer support