Quality of Life Assessment in Trials of Revascularization for Chronic Stable Angina: Insights from ORBITA and the Implications of Blinding

Quality of Life in Older Adults With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Post Hoc Analysis of the BARI 2D Trial

Studies on the long-term differences in quality-of-life (QoL) metrics after treatment for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) in older adults with diabetes mellitus are lacking. Older patients (age ≥65 years) in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial were stratified into those who received intensive medical therapy (IMT) only versus revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] vs coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) with Optimal Medical Therapy (OMT). Self-health score, Duke activity status index (DASI), energy rating, and health distress rating at 5 years were compared using multivariable linear regression. A total of 929 older adults were included, of whom 469 (50.5%) underwent medical therapy alone, 302 (32.5%) underwent PCI, and 158 (17.0%) had CABG. Patients who underwent CABG were more likely to have proximal left anterior descending coronary artery disease, chronic total occlusion, and higher myocardial jeopardy index. At 5 years of follow-up, no differences in self-health score, DASI, energy rating, and health distress rating were observed between PCI and IMT. There are also no differences in the 4 QoL measures between CABG and IMT alone. However, the DASI was marginally higher with CABG but not statistically significant (mean difference 3.88, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to -7.86, p = 0.057). At 5 years of follow-up, no differences in QoL measures were observed between PCI and CABG with OMT versus OMT alone in older adult patients with diabetes mellitus and SIHD. Future blinded randomized trials are necessary to investigate the impact of SIHD treatment in the older adult population, considering the risks associated with multimorbidity, polypharmacy, frailty, and cognitive impairment.

Systematic Review of Literature Citing the ISCHEMIA Trial

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Optimal therapy for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CCD) has long been a topic under investigation and a subject of debate. Seeking to clarify appropriate management, the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial compared medical management versus coronary angiography for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Its reception in the medical community has been met with both acclaim and criticism. In light of such disparate views of this trial, a systematic review of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was performed.

RECENT FINDINGS

All articles citing the ISCHEMIA trial on PubMed as of July 21, 2023, were compiled and underwent qualitative analysis. A total of 430 articles were evaluated; 109 (25.3%) did not offer substantial commentary on ISCHEMIA and cite it as background evidence for further study. Of the commentary articles, the majority (224, 52.1%) gave balanced, honest appraisals of the ISCHEMIA trial. A total of 46 (10.7%) strongly praised the trial while another 39 (9.1%) were strongly critical of the results. Almost three-quarters of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was commentary in nature, with roughly equal distribution across the spectrum of praise and criticism. Despite being one of the largest studies on CCD and coronary revascularization ever conducted, the impact of ISCHEMIA on the cardiology community appears to be mixed.