RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) did not find an overall reduction in cardiovascular events with an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy in chronic coronary disease; however, there were conservative strategy participants who underwent invasive coronary angiography early postrandomization (within 6 months). Identifying factors associated with angiography in conservative strategy participants will inform clinical decision-making in patients with chronic coronary disease. METHODS: Factors independently associated with angiography performed within 6 months of randomization were identified using Fine and Gray proportional subdistribution hazard models, including demographics, region of randomization, medical history, risk factor control, symptoms, ischemia severity, coronary anatomy based on protocol-mandated coronary computed tomography angiography, and medication use. RESULTS: Among 2591 conservative strategy participants, angiography within 6 months of randomization occurred in 8.7% (4.7% for a suspected primary end point event, 1.6% for persistent symptoms, and 2.6% due to protocol nonadherence) and was associated with the following baseline characteristics: enrollment in Europe versus Asia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81 [95% CI, 1.14­2.86]), daily and weekly versus no angina (HR, 5.97 [95% CI, 2.78­12.86] and 2.63 [95% CI, 1.51­4.58], respectively), poor to fair versus good to excellent health status (HR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.23­3.32]) assessed with Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and new/more frequent angina prerandomization (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.34­2.40]). Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL was associated with a lower risk of angiography (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46­0.91) but not baseline ischemia severity nor the presence of multivessel or proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis >70% on coronary computed tomography angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Among ISCHEMIA participants randomized to the conservative strategy, angiography within 6 months of randomization was performed in <10% of patients. It was associated with frequent or increasing baseline angina and poor quality of life but not with objective markers of disease severity. Well-controlled baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was associated with a reduced likelihood of angiography. These findings point to the importance of a comprehensive assessment of symptoms and a review of guideline-directed medical therapy goals when deciding the initial treatment strategy for chronic coronary disease.

RESUMEN

Background: It is unknown whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in patients with a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when EF >35%, but <45%. Methods: Among 5179 participants randomized into the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA), all of whom had LVEF >35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in those with a history of HF or LV dysfunction (HF/LVD) at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow up was 3.2 years. Results: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline of whom 177 had HF/LVEF>45%, 28 had HF/LVEF 35-45% and 193 had LVEF 35-45% but no prior history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly prior myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and hypertension. Compared to those without HF/LVD, those with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest; four-year cumulative incidence rate (22.7% vs. 13.8%), cardiovascular death or MI (19.7% vs. 12.3%), and all-cause death or HF (15.0% vs. 6.9%). Those with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% vs. 29.3%, difference in 4- year event rate -12.1%; 95% CI: -22.6, -1.6%), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% vs. 14.6%, difference in 4-year event rate -1.6%; 95% CI: -3.8%, 0.7%; p-interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and CV mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for those with and without prior HF. Conclusions: ISCHEMIA trial participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35-45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with a better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis generating.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

El protocolo de un ensayo clínico es la base para planificar, ejecutar, publicar y evaluar el ensayo. Sin embargo, los protocolos y las guías que existen para su elaboración varían enormemente en cuanto a su calidad y contenido. En este artículo se describe la elaboración sistemática y el alcance de la Declaración SPIRIT 2013 (denominada así por la sigla en inglés de Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials o Elementos estándares de un protocolo: recomendaciones para los ensayos de intervención), una guía en la que se establecen los contenidos mínimos que debe tener el protocolo de un ensayo clínico. La lista de comprobación de la declaración SPIRIT, que consta de 33 elementos, se aplica a los protocolos de todos los ensayos clínicos y se centra más en el contenido que en el formato. En esta lista se recomienda hacer una descripción completa de lo que se ha planificado, aunque no se establece cómo diseñar o ejecutar un ensayo. Al brindar orientación sobre los contenidos fundamentales, las recomendaciones SPIRIT procuran facilitar la redacción de protocolos de alta calidad. El cumplimiento de las recomendaciones SPIRIT debería mejorar la transparencia y la exhaustividad de los protocolos de los ensayos en beneficio de los investigadores, los participantes, los pacientes, los patrocinadores, los financiadores, los comités de ética de la investigación o las juntas de revisión institucionales, los revisores, las revistas biomédicas, los registros de ensayos, los formuladores de políticas, los organismos reguladores y otras partes interesadas clave.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

El protocolo de un ensayo clínico es la base para planificar, ejecutar, publicar y evaluar el ensayo. Sin embargo, los protocolos y las guías que existen para su elaboración varían enormemente en cuanto a su calidad y contenido. En este artículo se describe la elaboración sistemática y el alcance de la Declaración SPIRIT 2013 (denominada así por la sigla en inglés de Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials o Elementos estándares de un protocolo: recomendaciones para los ensayos de intervención), una guía en la que se establecen los contenidos mínimos que debe tener el protocolo de un ensayo clínico. La lista de comprobación de la declaración SPIRIT, que consta de 33 elementos, se aplica a los protocolos de todos los ensayos clínicos y se centra más en el contenido que en el formato. En esta lista se recomienda hacer una descripción completa de lo que se ha planificado, aunque no se establece cómo diseñar o ejecutar un ensayo. Al brindar orientación sobre los contenidos fundamentales, las recomendaciones SPIRIT procuran facilitar la redacción de protocolos de alta calidad. El cumplimiento de las recomendaciones SPIRIT debería mejorar la transparencia y la exhaustividad de los protocolos de los ensayos en beneficio de los investigadores, los participantes, los pacientes, los patrocinadores, los financiadores, los comités de ética de la investigación o las juntas de revisión institucionales, los revisores, las revistas biomédicas, los registros de ensayos, los formuladores de políticas, los organismos reguladores y otras partes interesadas clave.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Asunto(s)