Health status after treatment for coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes trial

Health-Related Quality of Life After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been no meta-analysis of whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) improves health-related quality of life (HRQL) compared with OMT alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in November 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PCI with OMT vs OMT alone with HRQL in patients with SIHD. The primary outcome was the aggregated physical HRQL, including physical functioning using the Short Form (SF)-36 or RAND-36, physical limitation using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) or SAQ-7, McMaster Health Index Questionnaire, and Duke Activity Status Index within 6 months. Data were analyzed using a random effects model when substantial heterogeneity was identified or a fixed effect model otherwise.

RESULTS

Among 14 systematically reviewed RCTs, 12 RCTs with 12,238 patients were meta-analyzed. Only 1 trial had a low risk of bias in all domains. PCI with OMT improved aggregated physical HRQL (standardized mean difference, 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-0.23; P < 0.0001) at 6 months. Also, PCI with OMT improved physical functioning on the SF-36/RAND-36 (mean difference 3.65; 95% CI, 1.88-5.41) and physical limitation on the SAQ/SAQ-7 (mean difference, 3.09; 95% CI, 0.93-5.24) compared with OMT alone at 6 months. However, all of the aggregated physical HRQL domains were classified into small effects, and no HRQL domain exceeded the prespecified minimal clinically important difference.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings showed that PCI with OMT improved HRQL compared with OMT alone in patients with SIHD, but the benefit was not large.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Complete Revascularization and Angina-Related Health Status in the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND

The impact of complete revascularization (CR) on angina-related health status (symptoms, function, quality of life) in chronic coronary disease (CCD) has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVES

Among patients with CCD randomized to invasive (INV) vs conservative (CON) management in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), we compared the following: 1) the impact of anatomic and functional CR on health status compared with incomplete revascularization (ICR); and 2) the predicted impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON.

METHODS

Multivariable regression adjusting for patient characteristics was used to compare 12-month health status after independent core laboratory-defined CR vs ICR in INV patients who underwent revascularization. Propensity-weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR or ICR been achieved in all INV patients, compared with CON.

RESULTS

Anatomic and functional CR were achieved in 43.3% and 57.8% of 1,641 INV patients, respectively. Among revascularized patients, CR was associated with improved Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency compared with ICR after adjustment for baseline differences. After modeling CR and ICR in all INV patients, patients with CR and ICR each had greater improvements in health status than CON, with better health status with CR than ICR. The projected benefits of CR were most pronounced in patients with baseline daily/weekly angina and not seen in those with no angina.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CCD in ISCHEMIA, health status improved more with CR compared with ICR or CON, particularly in those with frequent angina. Anatomic and functional CR provided comparable improvements in quality of life. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Comparison of Outcomes of Invasive or Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in Four Randomized Controlled Trials

Revascularization and medical therapy for chronic coronary disease have both evolved significantly over the last 50 years. A total of 4 contemporary randomized controlled trials- Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive drug Evaluation (COURAGE), Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D), Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2), and International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-have assessed the incremental benefit of revascularization when added to secondary prevention with intensive pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention. We reviewed these 4 seminal studies with the objective of marshaling evidence to better frame how these results should apply to clinical decision making. These studies differed in study design, end points, intensity of treatment, and revascularization techniques. Nevertheless, they all demonstrate similar rates of "hard" clinical events with invasive and conservative management, and varying degrees of benefit in angina-related quality of life with revascularization. In conclusion, although controversy persists concerning the role of revascularization because of differing interpretations of the clinical trial evidence, we contend that instead of being competing management strategies, invasive and conservative approaches are complementary.

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA

BACKGROUND

ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy.

METHODS

In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index).

RESULTS

Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Clinical outcomes of newly diagnosed, stable angina patients managed according to current guidelines. The ARCA (Arca Registry for Chronic Angina) Registry: A prospective, observational, nationwide study

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes of stable angina patients treated according to guidelines recommendations (medical therapy first, selective revascularization in high risk or unresponsive patients) are not fully known.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-three patients with newly diagnosed, stable angina were enrolled in a prospective, observational, nationwide registry and followed for 1 year. Symptoms and quality of life were evaluated with the CCS angina grading, with a self-assessment scale and with the SAQ-7. A composite end-point of MACEs (all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or hospitalization for unstable angina) at 1 year was considered. Upon enrollment, all patients were prescribed guidelines directed medical therapy. After one month of therapy, angina relieved or improved in 47% of the overall population. Patients in CCS class I significantly increased from 28.4% at enrollment to 67.1% at 12 months, and the SAQ-7 score from 58.4 ± 20 to 85.9 ± 14. The rate of MACEs was low (2.9%) in the overall population. After one month of medical therapy, 40.6% of patients were referred for coronary angiography and revascularization for resistant symptoms (invasive strategy). Among these, 38.2% had normal coronary arteries and 47% actually underwent revascularization. No difference between invasive and medical groups was found at 12 months in symptoms, quality of life and MACEs, except for a greater improvement in self-assessed symptoms in the invasive group. Combined medical and invasive strategies left 28.5% of patients still symptomatic at the end of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms the efficacy and safety of a tailored approach to stable angina, as recommended by guidelines, with medical therapy first followed by selective revascularization when needed.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Non-invasive imaging software to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

QAngio^® XA 3D/QFR^® (three-dimensional/quantitative flow ratio) imaging software (Medis Medical Imaging Systems BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) and CAAS^® vFFR^® (vessel fractional flow reserve) imaging software (Pie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, the Netherlands) are non-invasive technologies to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses, which can be alternatives to invasive fractional flow reserve assessment.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all evidence on QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, implementation and economic analyses. We searched MEDLINE and other databases to January 2020 for studies where either technology was used and compared with fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate stenosis. The risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using QAngio XA 3D/QFR. We developed a de novo decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR relative to invasive fractional flow reserve or invasive coronary angiography alone. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the sources of data used to populate the model and alternative assumptions.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies (5440 patients) of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and three studies (500 patients) of CAAS vFFR were included. QAngio XA 3D/QFR had good diagnostic accuracy to predict functionally significant fractional flow reserve (≤ 0.80 cut-off point); contrast-flow quantitative flow ratio had a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval 78% to 90%) and a specificity of 91% (95% confidence interval 85% to 95%). A total of 95% of quantitative flow ratio measurements were within 0.14 of the fractional flow reserve. Data on the diagnostic accuracy of CAAS vFFR were limited and a full meta-analysis was not feasible. There were very few data on clinical and implementation outcomes. The simulation found that quantitative flow ratio slightly increased the revascularisation rate when compared with fractional flow reserve, from 40.2% to 42.0%. Quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve resulted in similar numbers of subsequent coronary events. The base-case cost-effectiveness results showed that the test strategy with the highest net benefit was invasive coronary angiography with confirmatory fractional flow reserve. The next best strategies were QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR (without fractional flow reserve). However, the difference in net benefit between this best strategy and the next best was small, ranging from 0.007 to 0.012 quality-adjusted life-years (or equivalently £140-240) per patient diagnosed at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Diagnostic accuracy evidence on CAAS vFFR, and evidence on the clinical impact of QAngio XA 3D/QFR, were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative flow ratio as measured by QAngio XA 3D/QFR has good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with fractional flow reserve and is preferable to standard invasive coronary angiography alone. It appears to have very similar cost-effectiveness to fractional flow reserve and, therefore, pending further evidence on general clinical benefits and specific subgroups, could be a reasonable alternative. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAAS vFFR are uncertain. Randomised controlled trial evidence evaluating the effect of quantitative flow ratio on clinical and patient-centred outcomes is needed.

FUTURE WORK

Studies are required to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical feasibility of CAAS vFFR. Large ongoing randomised trials will hopefully inform the clinical value of QAngio XA 3D/QFR.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019154575.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Coronary Revascularization and Long-Term Survivorship in Chronic Coronary Syndrome

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) persists as the leading cause of death in the Western world. In recent decades, great headway has been made in reducing mortality due to IHD, based around secondary prevention. The advent of coronary revascularization techniques, first coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the 1960s and then percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the 1970s, has represented one of the major breakthroughs in medicine during the last century. The benefit provided by these techniques, especially PCI, has been crucial in lowering mortality rates in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, in the setting where IHD is most prevalent, namely chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), the increase in life expectancy provided by coronary revascularization is controversial. Over more than 40 years, several clinical trials have been carried out comparing optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone with a strategy of routine coronary revascularization on top of OMT. Beyond a certain degree of symptomatic improvement and lower incidence of minor events, routine invasive management has not demonstrated a convincing effect in terms of reducing mortality in CCS. Based on the accumulated evidence more than half a century after the first revascularization procedures were used, invasive management should be considered in those patients with uncontrolled symptoms despite OMT or high-risk features related to left ventricular function, coronary anatomy, or functional assessment, taking into account the patient expectations and preferences.

Insulin and glucose-lowering agents for treating people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is the commonest cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both conditions commonly co-exist. Glucometabolic changes and concurrent dialysis in diabetes and CKD make glucose-lowering challenging, increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Glucose-lowering agents have been mainly studied in people with near-normal kidney function. It is important to characterise existing knowledge of glucose-lowering agents in CKD to guide treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of insulin and other pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in people with diabetes and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in people with diabetes and CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and quality of data and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies (128 records, 13,036 participants) were included. Nine studies compared sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to placebo; 13 studies compared dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to placebo; 2 studies compared glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists to placebo; 8 studies compared glitazones to no glitazone treatment; 1 study compared glinide to no glinide treatment; and 4 studies compared different types, doses or modes of administration of insulin. In addition, 2 studies compared sitagliptin to glipizide; and 1 study compared each of sitagliptin to insulin, glitazars to pioglitazone, vildagliptin to sitagliptin, linagliptin to voglibose, and albiglutide to sitagliptin. Most studies had a high risk of bias due to funding and attrition bias, and an unclear risk of detection bias.Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 1092 participants: MD -0.29%, -0.38 to -0.19 (-3.2 mmol/mol, -4.2 to -2.2); I2 = 0%), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (5 studies, 855 participants: MD -0.48 mmol/L, -0.78 to -0.19; I2 = 0%), systolic blood pressure (BP) (7 studies, 1198 participants: MD -4.68 mmHg, -6.69 to -2.68; I2 = 40%), diastolic BP (6 studies, 1142 participants: MD -1.72 mmHg, -2.77 to -0.66; I2 = 0%), heart failure (3 studies, 2519 participants: RR 0.59, 0.41 to 0.87; I2 = 0%), and hyperkalaemia (4 studies, 2788 participants: RR 0.58, 0.42 to 0.81; I2 = 0%); but probably increase genital infections (7 studies, 3086 participants: RR 2.50, 1.52 to 4.11; I2 = 0%), and creatinine (4 studies, 848 participants: MD 3.82 μmol/L, 1.45 to 6.19; I2 = 16%) (all effects of moderate certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce weight (5 studies, 1029 participants: MD -1.41 kg, -1.8 to -1.02; I2 = 28%) and albuminuria (MD -8.14 mg/mmol creatinine, -14.51 to -1.77; I2 = 11%; low certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may have little or no effect on the risk of cardiovascular death, hypoglycaemia, acute kidney injury (AKI), and urinary tract infection (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether SGLT2 inhibitors have any effect on death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), hypovolaemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.62%, -0.85 to -0.39 (-6.8 mmol/mol, -9.3 to -4.3); I2 = 59%) but may have little or no effect on FBG (low certainty evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular death (2 studies, 5897 participants: RR 0.93, 0.77 to 1.11; I2 = 0%) and weight (2 studies, 210 participants: MD 0.16 kg, -0.58 to 0.90; I2 = 29%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may have little or no effect on heart failure, upper respiratory tract infections, and liver impairment (low certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether DPP-4 inhibitors have any effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.53%, -1.01 to -0.06 (-5.8 mmol/mol, -11.0 to -0.7); I2 = 41%; moderate certainty evidence) and may reduce weight (low certainty evidence). GLP-1 agonists may have little or no effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether GLP-1 agonists reduce FBG, increase gastrointestinal symptoms, or affect the risk of pancreatitis (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether glitazones have any effect on HbA1c, FBG, death, weight, and risk of hypoglycaemia (very low certainty evidence).Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin probably reduces hypoglycaemia (2 studies, 551 participants: RR 0.40, 0.23 to 0.69; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin may have had little or no effect on HbA1c, FBG, weight, and eGFR (low certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, it is uncertain if sitagliptin has any effect on death or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty).For types, dosages or modes of administration of insulin and other head-to-head comparisons only individual studies were available so no conclusions could be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in diabetes and CKD is limited. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are probably efficacious for glucose-lowering and DPP-4 inhibitors may be efficacious for glucose-lowering. Additionally, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce BP, heart failure, and hyperkalaemia but increase genital infections, and slightly increase creatinine. The safety profile for GLP-1 agonists is uncertain. No further conclusions could be made for the other classes of glucose-lowering agents including insulin. More high quality studies are required to help guide therapeutic choice for glucose-lowering in diabetes and CKD.

The ORBITA trial: A point of view

Treatment of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) relies on improved prognosis and relief of symptoms. National and international guidelines on CAD support the indication for revascularization in patients with limiting symptoms and refractory to drug treatment. Previous studies attested the efficacy of angioplasty to improve angina as well as the functional capacity of patients with symptomatic stable CAD. The ORBITA trial, recently published in an international journal, showed no benefit in terms of exercise tolerance compared to a placebo procedure in a population of single-vessel patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. In this point of view article, the authors discuss the ORBITA trial regarding methodological issues, limitations and clinical applicability.

Quality of life following coronary artery bypass graft surgery vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetics with multivessel disease: a five-year registry study

Aims

The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term relationship between revascularization technique and health status in diabetics with multivessel disease.

Methods and results

Using the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) registry, we captured 1319 diabetics with multivessel disease requiring revascularization for an acute coronary syndrome (January 2009–December 2012) and reported health status using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at baseline, 1, 3 and 5-years [599 underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); 720 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)]. Adjusted analyses were performed using a propensity score-matching technique. After adjustment (including baseline SAQ domain scores), 1-year mean (95% CI) SAQ scores (range 0–100 with higher scores reflecting improved health status) were significantly greater in selected domains for CABG compared to PCI (exertional capacity: 81.7 [79.5–84.0] vs. 78.8 [76.5–81.0], P = 0.07; angina stability: 83.1 [80.4–85.9] vs. 75.0 [72.3–77.8], P &lt; 0.001]; angina frequency 93.2 [91.6–95.0] vs. 90.0 [87.8–91.3], P = 0.003; treatment satisfaction: 93.6 [92.2–94.9] vs. 90.8 [89.2–92.0], P = 0.003; quality of life [QOL]: 83.8 [81.7–85.8] vs. 77.2 [75.2–79.2] P &lt; 0.001). At 3-years, these benefits were attenuated (exertional capacity: 79.3 [76.9–81.7] vs. 78.7 [76.3–81.1], P = 0.734; angina stability 79.3 [76.3–82.3] vs. 75.5 [72.5–78.5], P = 0.080; angina frequency: 93.2 [91.3–95.1] vs. 90.9 [89.0–92.8], P = 0.095; treatment satisfaction: 92.5 [91.0–94.0] vs. 91.5 [90.0–93.0] P = 0.382; QOL: 83.2 [81.1–85.2] vs. 80.3 [78.2–82.4], P = 0.057). At 5-years, majority of domains were similar (exertional capacity: 77.8 [75.0–80.6] vs. 76.3 [73.2–79.3], P = 0.482; angina stability: 78.0 [74.8–81.2] vs. 74.8 [71.4–78.2], P = 0.175; angina frequency: 94.2 [92.3–96.0] vs. 90.9 [89.0–92.9], P = 0.018; treatment satisfaction: 93.7 [92.2–95.1] vs. 92.2 [90.6–93.7], P = 0.167; QOL: 84.1 [82.0–86.3] vs. 81.1 [78.8–83.4], P = 0.058). Majority in both groups remained angina-free at 5-years (75.0% vs. 70.3%, P = 0.15).

Conclusion

Improvements in health status with CABG compared with PCI were not sustained long-term. This temporal sequence should be considered when contemplating a revascularization strategy in diabetics with multivessel disease.

Using Marginal Structural Modeling to Estimate the Cumulative Impact of an Unconditional Tax Credit on Self-Rated Health

In previous studies, researchers estimated short-term relationships between financial credits and health outcomes using conventional regression analyses, but they did not account for time-varying confounders affected by prior treatment (CAPTs) or the credits' cumulative impacts over time. In this study, we examined the association between total number of years of receiving New Zealand's Family Tax Credit (FTC) and self-rated health (SRH) in 6,900 working-age parents using 7 waves of New Zealand longitudinal data (2002-2009). We conducted conventional linear regression analyses, both unadjusted and adjusted for time-invariant and time-varying confounders measured at baseline, and fitted marginal structural models (MSMs) that more fully adjusted for confounders, including CAPTs. Of all participants, 5.1%-6.8% received the FTC for 1-3 years and 1.8%-3.6% for 4-7 years. In unadjusted and adjusted conventional regression analyses, each additional year of receiving the FTC was associated with 0.033 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.047, -0.019) and 0.026 (95% CI: -0.041, -0.010) units worse SRH (on a 5-unit scale). In the MSMs, the average causal treatment effect also reflected a small decrease in SRH (unstabilized weights: β = -0.039 unit, 95% CI: -0.058, -0.020; stabilized weights: β = -0.031 unit, 95% CI: -0.050, -0.007). Cumulatively receiving the FTC marginally reduced SRH. Conventional regression analyses and MSMs produced similar estimates, suggesting little bias from CAPTs.

Medical Therapy With Versus Without Revascularization in Stable Patients With Moderate and Severe Ischemia: The Case for Community Equipoise

All patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) should be managed with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), which reduces progression of atherosclerosis and prevents coronary thrombosis. Revascularization is also indicated in patients with SIHD and progressive or refractory symptoms, despite medical management. Whether a strategy of routine revascularization (with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery as appropriate) plus GDMT reduces rates of death or myocardial infarction, or improves quality of life compared to an initial approach of GDMT alone in patients with substantial ischemia is uncertain. Opinions run strongly on both sides, and evidence may be used to support either approach. Careful review of the data demonstrates the limitations of our current knowledge, resulting in a state of community equipoise. The ongoing ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) is being performed to determine the optimal approach to managing patients with SIHD, moderate-to-severe ischemia, and symptoms that can be controlled medically. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Revascularization in patients with diabetes: PCI or CABG or none at all

Patients with diabetes have a high incidence of coronary artery disease, with particularly high rates of acute coronary syndromes and mortality. Revascularization by coronary artery bypass grafting was found to be effective in reducing angina and mortality in patients with extensive coronary artery disease over 30 years ago. Percutaneous coronary intervention, particularly with drug-eluting stents, has more recently been demonstrated to reduce recurrent angina and improve quality of life in diabetic patients with less extensive coronary artery disease. Most recently, coronary artery bypass grafting has been shown to be superior to percutaneous coronary intervention in improving mortality in patients with diabetes and three-vessel coronary artery disease who are not at high surgical risk. The role of coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in patients who have less extensive coronary artery disease and/or higher surgical risk has not been fully elucidated. Newer treatment strategies, such as percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents, use of fractional flow reserve guidance, or hybrid revascularization combining minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention, may result in further improvements in outcomes in patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.

Appropriate revascularization in stable angina: lessons from the BARI 2D trial

BACKGROUND

The 2012 Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease recommend intensive antianginal and risk factor treatment (optimal medical management [OMT]) before considering revascularization to relieve symptoms. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial randomized patients with ischemic heart disease and anatomy suitable to revascularization to (1) initial OMT with revascularization if needed or (2) initial revascularization plus OMT and found no difference in major cardiovascular events. Ultimately, however, 37.9% of the OMT group was revascularized during the 5-year follow-up period.

METHODS

Data from the 1192 patients randomized to OMT were analyzed to identify subgroups in which the incidence of revascularization was so high that direct revascularization without a trial period could be justified. Multivariate logistic analysis, Cox regression models of baseline data, and a landmark analysis of participants who did not undergo revascularization at 6 months were constructed.

RESULTS

The models that used only data available at the time of study entry had limited predictive value for revascularization by 6 months or by 5 years; however, the model incorporating severity of angina during the first 6 months could better predict revascularization (C statistic = 0.789).

CONCLUSIONS

With the possible exception of patients with severe angina and proximal left anterior descending artery disease, this analysis supports the recommendation of the 2012 guidelines for a trial of OMT before revascularization. Patients could not be identified at the time of catheterization, but a short period of close follow-up during OMT identified the nearly 40% of patients who underwent revascularization.

Quality of life after PCI vs CABG among patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

The FREEDOM trial demonstrated that among patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery resulted in lower rates of death and myocardial infarction but a higher risk of stroke when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents. Whether there are treatment differences in health status, as assessed from the patient's perspective, is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effects of CABG vs PCI using drug-eluting stents on health status among patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between 2005 and 2010, 1900 patients from 18 countries with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomized to undergo either CABG surgery (n = 947) or PCI (n = 953) as an initial treatment strategy. Of these, a total of 1880 patients had baseline health status assessed (935 CABG, 945 PCI) and comprised the primary analytic sample.

INTERVENTIONS

Initial revascularization with CABG surgery or PCI.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health status was assessed using the angina frequency, physical limitations, and quality-of-life domains of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire at baseline, at 1, 6, and 12 months, and annually thereafter. For each scale, scores range from 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better health. The effect of CABG surgery vs PCI was evaluated using longitudinal mixed-effect models.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean (SD) scores for the angina frequency, physical limitations, and quality-of-life subscales of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were 70.9 (25.1), 67.3 (24.4), and 47.8 (25.0) for the CABG group and 71.4 (24.7), 69.9 (23.2), and 49.2 (25.7) for the PCI group, respectively. At 2-year follow-up, mean (SD) scores were 96.0 (11.9), 87.8 (18.7), and 82.2 (18.9) after CABG and 94.7 (14.3), 86.0 (19.3), and 80.4 (19.6) after PCI, with significantly greater benefit of CABG on each domain (mean treatment benefit, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.3-2.2], 4.4 [95% CI, 2.7-6.1], and 2.2 [95% CI, 0.7-3.8] points, respectively; P < .01 for each comparison). Beyond 2 years, the 2 revascularization strategies provided generally similar patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

For patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD, CABG surgery provided slightly better intermediate-term health status and quality of life than PCI using drug-eluting stents. The magnitude of benefit was small, without consistent differences beyond 2 years, in part due to the higher rate of repeat revascularization with PCI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00086450.

Ambient ultrafine particles reduce endothelial nitric oxide production via S-glutathionylation of eNOS

Exposure to airborne particulate pollutants is intimately linked to vascular oxidative stress and inflammatory responses with clinical relevance to atherosclerosis. Particulate matter (PM) has been reported to induce endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis. Here, we tested whether ambient ultrafine particles (UFP, diameter <200 nm) modulate eNOS activity in terms of nitric oxide (NO) production via protein S-glutathionylation. Treatment of human aortic endothelial cells (HAEC) with UFP significantly reduced NO production. UFP-mediated reduction in NO production was restored in the presence of JNK inhibitor (SP600125), NADPH oxidase inhibitor (Apocynin), anti-oxidant (N-acetyl cysteine), and superoxide dismutase mimetics (Tempol and MnTMPyP). UFP exposure increased the GSSG/GSH ratio and eNOS S-glutathionylation, whereas over-expression of Glutaredoxin-1 (to inhibit S-glutathionylation) restored UFP-mediated reduction in NO production by nearly 80%. Thus, our findings suggest that eNOS S-glutathionylation is a potential mechanism underlying ambient UFP-induced reduction of NO production.

Is the risk and nature of CVD the same in type 1 and type 2 diabetes?

The incidence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes is increasing globally, most likely explained by environmental changes, such as changing exposures to foods, viruses, and toxins, and by increasing obesity. While cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has been declining recently, this global epidemic of diabetes threatens to stall this trend. CVD is the leading cause of death in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with at least a two- to fourfold increased risk in patients with diabetes. In this review, the risk factors for CVD are discussed in the context of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. While traditional risk factors such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, and obesity are greater in type 2 patients than in type 1 diabetes, they explain only about half of the increased CVD risk. The role for diabetes-specific risk factors, including hyperglycemia and kidney complications, is discussed in the context of new study findings.

Quality-of-Life measures for cardiac surgery practice and research: a review and primer

Declining mortality and major morbidity rates after cardiac surgery have led to increasing focus on patient quality of life (QOL). Beyond longevity, the impact of cardiac surgery on day-to-day functioning is incredibly salient to patients, their spouses, and families. As such, QOL measures are a welcome and sometimes necessary addition to clinical trials. However, how does one navigate the expansive market of QOL questionnaires, which QOL measures are applicable to cardiac surgery units, and how can they be used meaningfully in clinical practice? Because nearly two decades have passed since QOL measures were reviewed for relevance to cardiac surgery settings, an overview is provided of various generic (Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], Sickness Impact Profile, Nottingham Health Profile) and disease-specific QOL measures (Duke Activity Status Index, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, MN Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; Heart-QOL) with examples from cardiac surgery studies. Recommendations are provided for the application of QOL measures to clinical trials and the impact on clinical decision-making is discussed. The paucity of methodologically sound QOL studies highlights the necessity for further rigorous empirical data to better inform treatment efficacy studies and clinical decision-making.

Shared decision making in patients with stable coronary artery disease: PCI choice

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and optimal medical therapy (OMT) are comparable, alternative therapies for many patients with stable angina; however, patients may have misconceptions regarding the impact of PCI on risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We designed and developed a patient-centered decision aid (PCI Choice) to promote shared decision making for patients with stable CAD. The estimated benefits and risks of PCI+OMT as compared to OMT were displayed in a decision aid using pictographs with natural frequencies and text. We engaged patients, clinicians, health service researchers, and designers with over 20 successive iterations of the decision aid, which were field tested during real-world clinical encounters involving clinicians and patients. The decision aid is intended to facilitate knowledge transfer, deliberation based on patient values and preferences, and shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the methods and outcomes of the design and development of a decision aid (PCI Choice) to promote shared decision making between clinicians and patients regarding the choice of PCI+OMT vs. OMT for treatment of stable CAD. We will evaluate the impact of PCI Choice on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, participation in decision-making, and treatment choice in an upcoming randomized trial.

Determinants of evolving metabolic and cardiovascular benefit/risk profiles of rosiglitazone therapy during the natural history of diabetes: molecular mechanisms in the context of integrated pathophysiology

Rosiglitazone is a thiazolidinedione, a synthetic PPARγ receptor agonist with insulin-sensitizing properties that is used as an antidiabetic drug. In addition to improving glycemic control through actions in metabolic target tissues, rosiglitazone has numerous biological actions that impact on cardiovascular homeostasis. Some of these actions are helpful (e.g., improving endothelial function), whereas others are potentially harmful (e.g., promoting fluid retention). Since cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are major endpoints for diabetes, it is essential to understand how the natural history of diabetes alters the net benefits and risks of rosiglitazone therapy. This complex issue is an important determinant of optimal use of rosiglitazone and is critical for understanding cardiovascular safety issues. We give special attention to the effects of rosiglitazone in diabetic patients with stable coronary artery disease and the impact of rosiglitazone actions on atherosclerosis and plaque instability. This provides a rational conceptual framework for predicting evolving benefit/risk profiles that inform optimal use of rosiglitazone in the clinical setting and help explain the results of recent large clinical intervention trials where rosiglitazone had disappointing cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, in this perspective, we describe what is known about the molecular mechanisms of action of rosiglitazone on cardiovascular targets in the context of the evolving pathophysiology of diabetes over its natural history.

Clinical practice and implications of recent diabetes trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes is an increasingly prevalent risk factor for coronary and other vascular disease. Recent trials in patients with diabetes have examined the effects of intensive glycemic control on cardiovascular outcomes, and treatment of common concomitant risk factors, in particular hypertension and dyslipidemia. Optimal revascularization strategies have also been examined.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intensive glycemic control has a beneficial effect on microvascular but not macrovascular endpoints, with one major trial reporting increased mortality out to 5 years with intensive treatment. Similarly, aggressive lowering of SBP to below 120 mmHg produced no advantage over treatment to 130-140 mmHg. Statins are the best treatment for diabetic dyslipidemia, with little benefit from adding a fibrate. Medical treatment may be appropriate for many with diabetes and stable coronary disease. When revascularization is needed, coronary bypass graft surgery has an advantage over percutaneous coronary intervention in those at the severe end of the coronary disease spectrum.

SUMMARY

Patients with type 2 diabetes often have multiple cardiovascular risk factors and require multiple cardiac and diabetes medications. Caution over aggressive glucose and blood pressure lowering is needed, at least with currently available drugs.

The effect of age on clinical outcomes and health status BARI 2D (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes)

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which effectiveness of cardiac and diabetes treatment strategies varies by patient age.

BACKGROUND

The impact of age on the effectiveness of revascularization and hyperglycemia treatments has not been thoroughly investigated.

METHODS

In the BARI 2D (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes) trial, 2,368 patients with documented stable heart disease and type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive prompt revascularization versus initial medical therapy with deferred revascularization and insulin sensitization versus insulin provision for hyperglycemia treatment. Patients were followed for an average of 5.3 years. Cox regression and mixed models were used to investigate the effect of age and randomized treatment assignment on clinical and health status outcomes.

RESULTS

The effect of prompt revascularization versus medical therapy did not differ by age for death (interaction p = 0.99), major cardiovascular events (interaction p = 0.081), angina (interaction p = 0.98), or health status outcomes. After intervention, participants of all ages had significant angina and health status improvement. Younger participants experienced a smaller decline in health status during follow-up than older participants (age by time interaction p < 0.01). The effect of the randomized glycemia treatment on clinical and health status outcomes was similar for patients of different ages.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with stable heart disease and type 2 diabetes, the relative beneficial effects of a strategy of prompt revascularization versus initial medical therapy and insulin-sensitizing versus insulin-providing therapy on clinical endpoints, symptom relief, and perceived health status outcomes do not vary by age. Health status improved significantly after treatment for all ages, and this improvement was sustained longer among younger patients. (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes [BARI 2D]; NCT00006305).

Stable angina pectoris: antianginal therapies and future directions

Advances in pharmacotherapy for stable angina have produced a wide choice of drugs with various mechanisms of action, potentially enabling individualized, patient-specific treatment strategies to be developed. In this Review, the various treatment options for patients with stable angina are discussed. Data from randomized, clinical trials of established and novel drugs are reviewed, with particular emphasis on the proposed mechanisms of action, benefits of therapy, and adverse-effect profiles. The role of coronary revascularization in conjunction with optimal medical therapy as a treatment strategy is discussed, although drug therapy might reduce the need for prompt revascularization if the procedure is being considered solely for the purpose of alleviating angina. Finally, trials to investigate stimulation of angiogenesis using growth-factor, gene, and cell therapy are used to illustrate the challenges of chemically inducing the growth of adequate, durable blood vessels.

Effects of optimal medical treatment with or without coronary revascularization on angina and subsequent revascularizations in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease

BACKGROUND

In the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial, an initial strategy of coronary revascularization and optimal medical treatment (REV) compared with an initial optimal medical treatment with the option of subsequent revascularization (MED) did not reduce all-cause mortality or the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease. In the same population, we tested whether the REV strategy was superior to the MED strategy in preventing worsening and new angina and subsequent coronary revascularizations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among the 2364 men and women (mean age, 62.4 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus, documented coronary artery disease, and myocardial ischemia, 1191 were randomized to the MED and 1173 to the REV strategy preselected in the percutaneous coronary intervention (796) and coronary artery bypass graft (377) strata. Compared with the MED strategy, the REV strategy at the 3-year follow-up had a lower rate of worsening angina (8% versus 13%; P<0.001), new angina (37% versus 51%; P=0.001), and subsequent coronary revascularizations (18% versus 33%; P<0.001) and a higher rate of angina-free status (66% versus 58%; P=0.003). The coronary artery bypass graft stratum patients were at higher risk than those in the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum, and had the greatest benefits from REV.

CONCLUSIONS

In these patients, the REV strategy reduced the occurrence of worsening angina, new angina, and subsequent coronary revascularizations more than the MED strategy. The symptomatic benefits were observed particularly for high-risk patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00006305.