Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2020 Aug 8;14(1):13-15.
doi: 10.17925/HI.2020.14.1.13. eCollection 2020.

Is There Still a Place for Revascularisation in the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease Following the ISCHEMIA Trial?

Andre Briosa E Gala  1 , Nick Curzen  1   2
Affiliations
Editorial

Is There Still a Place for Revascularisation in the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease Following the ISCHEMIA Trial?

Andre Briosa E Gala et al. Heart Int. .

Abstract

The ISCHEMIA trial (International study of comparative health effectiveness with medical and invasive approaches; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522) has informed practice in patients with stable angina and confirms what other less definitive data have taught us, that in the absence of severe symptoms, significant left main disease or significant left ventricular dysfunction, there is no prognostic benefit of an early invasive/revascularisation strategy with optimal medical therapy (OMT) over OMT alone. Like all quality randomised trials, it has nuances: the invasive treatment group had much better relief of angina than the OMT alone group, and the rate of spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in follow-up was lower in the invasive group, although only after a prevalence of periprocedural MI. The clinical outcome consequence of the MI data, if indeed there is one, will only become clear at later follow-up. OMT is a powerful treatment, and reflex revascularisation in patients with little or no angina is not.

Keywords: ISCHEMIA trial; optimal medical therapy (OMT); stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures: Nick Curzen has unrestricted research grants from Boston Scientific, HeartFlow, Haemonetics and Beckmann Coulter; speaker fees/consultancy from Abbott, Boston Scientific, HeartFlow and Haemonetics; and travel sponsorship from Boston Scientific, HeartFlow, Haemonetics, Edwards and Biosensors. Andre Briosa e Gala has no financial or non-financial relationships or activities to declare in relation to this article.

References

    1. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A. et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:407–77. - PubMed
    1. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM. et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;366:1267–78. - PubMed
    1. Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH. et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103:2928–34. - PubMed
    1. Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH. et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24. - PubMed
    1. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources