抄録
BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, −1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used.
本文言語 | English |
---|---|
ページ(範囲) | 1395-1407 |
ページ数 | 13 |
ジャーナル | New England Journal of Medicine |
巻 | 382 |
号 | 15 |
DOI | |
出版ステータス | Published - 2020 4月 9 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- 医学(全般)
フィンガープリント
「Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease」の研究トピックを掘り下げます。これらがまとまってユニークなフィンガープリントを構成します。引用スタイル
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 382, No. 15, 09.04.2020, p. 1395-1407.
研究成果: Article › 査読
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease
AU - ISCHEMIA Research Group
AU - Maron, David J.
AU - Hochman, Judith S.
AU - Reynolds, Harmony R.
AU - Bangalore, Sripal
AU - O'Brien, Sean M.
AU - Boden, William E.
AU - Chaitman, Bernard R.
AU - Senior, Roxy
AU - López-Sendón, Jose
AU - Alexander, Karen P.
AU - Lopes, Renato D.
AU - Shaw, Leslee J.
AU - Berger, Jeffrey S.
AU - Newman, Jonathan D.
AU - Sidhu, Mandeep S.
AU - Goodman, Shaun G.
AU - Ruzyllo, Witold
AU - Gosselin, Gilbert
AU - Maggioni, Aldo P.
AU - White, Harvey D.
AU - Bhargava, Balram
AU - Min, James K.
AU - John Mancini, G. B.
AU - Berman, Daniel S.
AU - Picard, Michael H.
AU - Kwong, Raymond Y.
AU - Ali, Ziad A.
AU - Mark, Daniel B.
AU - Spertus, John A.
AU - Krishnan, Mangalath N.
AU - Elghamaz, Ahmed
AU - Moorthy, Nagaraja
AU - Hueb, Whady A.
AU - Demkow, Marcin
AU - Mavromatis, Kreton
AU - Bockeria, Olga
AU - Peteiro, Jesus
AU - Miller, Todd D.
AU - Szwed, Hanna
AU - Doerr, Rolf
AU - Keltai, Matyas
AU - Selvanayagam, Joseph B.
AU - Gabriel Steg, P.
AU - Held, Claes
AU - Kohsaka, Shun
AU - Mavromichalis, Stavroula
AU - Kirby, Ruth
AU - Jeffries, Neal O.
AU - Harrell, Frank E.
AU - Rockhold, Frank W.
N1 - Funding Information: The trial was designed by the executive committee and sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with additional support from industry sponsors (Table S4). An independent data and safety monitoring board approved the trial protocol (available at NEJM.org) and monitored patient safety. The protocol was approved by the institutional review board at New York University Grossman School of Medicine (the clinical coor- dinating center) and by the institutional review board and ethics committee at each participating site (see the Supplementary Appendix). All the patients provided written informed consent. Funding Information: Supported by grants (U01HL105907, U01HL105462, U01HL105561, and U01HL105565) from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, by Arbor Pharmaceuticals and Astra-Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, and in part by Clinical and Translational Science Awards (11UL1 TR001445 and UL1 TR002243) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Funding Information: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Health and Human Services. A data sharing statement provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Supported by grants (U01HL105907, U01HL105462, U01HL105561, and U01HL105565) from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, by Arbor Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, and in part by Clinical and Translational Science Awards (11UL1 TR001445 and UL1 TR002243) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Devices or medications were provided by Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Volcano, Amgen, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Espero Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Omron Healthcare, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Reynolds reports receiving donated supplies from Abbott Vascular and BioTelemetry; Dr. Bangalore, receiving grant support and advisory board fees from Abbott Vascular and advisory board fees from Biotronik, Pfizer, Amgen, and Reata Pharmaceuticals; Dr. Boden, receiving grant support from AbbVie and Amarin, grant support and lecture fees from Amgen, and lecture fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Dr. Chaitman, receiving fees for serving on a clinical-event committee from Merck, Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Daiichi Sankyo, Imbria Pharmaceuticals, and XyloCor Therapeutics, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Sanofi, Tricida, and Relypsa; Dr. L?pez-Send?n, receiving grant support from Bayer, Merck, and Amgen, trial support and personal fees from Pfizer and Sanofi, lecture fees from Menarini Group, and grant support and lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; Dr. Lopes, receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Portola Pharmaceuticals, and grant support and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi; Dr. Berger, receiving grant support from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, research support from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and advisory board fees from Amgen; Dr. Sidhu, receiving advisory board fees from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi and Regeneron; Dr. Goodman, receiving grant support, fees for serving on a steering committee, lecture fees, consulting fees, and advisory board fees from Amgen, grant support, fees for serving as study chair, lecture fees, consulting fees, and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Bayer, lecture fees, consulting fees, and advisory board fees from Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly and Servier, grant support, fees for serving on an executive steering committee, fees for serving as study chair, lecture fees, consulting fees, and advisory board fees from Bristol Myers Sqiubb-Pfizer, grant support, fees for serving on an executive steering committee, and salary support from CSL Behring-PERFUSE Research Institute, grant support, fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring committee, and salary support from Daiichi Sankyo-American Regent-Duke Clinical Research Institute, fees for serving on a steering committee from Esperion Therapeutics-C5Research, fees for serving on a steering committee, advisory board fees, and travel support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring committee and travel support from GlaxoSmithKline and Novo Nordisk, consulting fees and advisory board fees from HLS Therapeutics, advisory board fees from Merck, grant support, fees for serving as a subinvestigator, lecture fees, and advisory board fees from Novartis, grant support, fees for serving on an executive steering committee, fees for serving as Canadian national coordinator, salary support, lecture fees, consulting fees, advisory board fees, and travel support from Sanofi and Regeneron, and lecture fees, consulting fees, and advisory board fees from Servier; Dr. Maggioni, receiving fees for serving on study committees from Bayer, Fresenius Medical Care, and Novartis; Dr. White, receiving grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Eli Lilly, Omthera Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer USA, Eisai, DalCor Pharma UK, and American Regent, advisory board fees from Sirtex Medical, Acetelion, and Genentech, grant support, fees for serving on a steering committee, and advisory board fees from CSL Behring, grant support, fees for serving on a steering committee, fees for serving as cochair, sponsorship, and travel support from Sanofi-Aventis Australia, grant support, fees for serving on a steering committee, and reimbursement of meeting expenses from Esperion Therapeutics, and grant support, fees for serving on a steering committee, sponsorship, honoraria, and travel support from Sanofi-Aven- tis; Dr. Min, receiving grant support and advisory board fees from GE Healthcare, holding equity in Cleerly, and receiving advisory board fees from Arineta; Dr. Mancini, receiving grant support, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from Amgen, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk, and grant support from Novartis; Dr. Berman, receiving consulting fees from GE Healthcare and Bayer and grant support from HeartFlow; Dr. Ali, receiving grant support, paid to his institution, and advisory board fees from Abbott Vascular, grant support and advisory board fees from Cardiovascular Systems, lecture fees from Amgen, fees for serving on a speakers' bureau from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, advisory board fees from Abiomed and Acist Medical, advisory board fees and lecture fees from Boston Scientific and Cardinal Health, advisory board fees and consulting fees from Opsens Medical, and holding equity in Shockwave Medical; Dr. Mark, receiving grant support from HeartFlow, Merck, Tenax Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, and Bristol Myers Squibb, and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Cytokinetics, and CeleCor Therapeutics; Dr. Spertus, receiving consulting fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, and UnitedHealthcare, fees for serving on a steering committee from Novartis, and fees for serving as principal investigator from Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Dr. Demkow, receiving fees for proctoring, honoraria, consulting fees, and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; Dr. Mavromatis, receiving grant support from CSL Behring, St. Jude Medical, Medtronic, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Regeneron; Dr. Steg, receiving grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Bayer-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, grant support and lecture fees from Merck, grant support, fees for serving as co-chair, consulting fees, and lecture fees from Sanofi, grant support, fees for serving on a steering committee, and consulting fees from Amarin, consulting fees and lecture fees from Amgen and Novo Nordisk, consulting fees, lecture fees, and fees for serving on a critical-event committee from Bristol Myers Squibb, fees for serving on an executive steering committee from Boehringer Ingelheim, fees for serving on a critical-event committee from Pfizer, fees for serving on an executive steering committee and consulting fees from Novartis, consulting fees from Regeneron and Eli Lilly, fees for serving as co-chair and consulting fees from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, grant support, fees for serving as chair of a data and safety monitoring committee, and fees for serving as chair of a registry from Servier, and fees for serving on a steering committee from Idorsia; Dr. Kohsaka, receiving grant support and lecture fees from Bayer, grant support from Daiichi Sankyo, and lecture fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer Japan, and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals; Dr. Rockhold, receiving grant support and consulting fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, consulting fees from Merck Healthcare, fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Merck Research Laboratories, Novo Nordisk, KLSMC Stem Cells, Aldeyra Therapeutics, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and Complexa, grant support and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, grant support and fees for trial design from Eidos Therapeutics, fees for serving on an advisory board and holding equity in Athira Pharma and Spencer Health Solutions, holding equity in GlaxoSmithKline, and fees for study design from Phathom Pharmaceuticals; Dr. Ferguson, fees for serving as founder and chief medical officer of RFPi; Dr. Harrington, receiving grant support from CSL Behring, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and The Medicines Company, consulting fees from Amgen and Bayer, fees for serving on an advisory board and holding equity in Element Science, and advisory board fees from Gilead, MyoKardia, and WebMD; and Dr. Stone, receiving lecture fees from Terumo and Amaranth, consulting fees from Shockwave Medical, TherOx, Reva, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Matrizyme, Miracor Medical, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Claret Medical, Sirtex Medical, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, and Vectorious Medical Technologies, consulting fees and holding equity in VALFIX Medical and SpectraWAVE, consulting fees, holding equity, and holding stock options in Ancora, personal fees, holding equity, and holding stock options in Qool Therapeutics and Orchestra BioMed, and holding equity and stock options in Cagent Vascular, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar, MedFocus, Aria CV, and Cardiac Success. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
PY - 2020/4/9
Y1 - 2020/4/9
N2 - BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, −1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used.
AB - BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, −1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083171855&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85083171855&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa1915922
DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa1915922
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85083171855
SN - 0028-4793
VL - 382
SP - 1395
EP - 1407
JO - New England Journal of Medicine
JF - New England Journal of Medicine
IS - 15
ER -