Background: Ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) is common and has an adverse prognosis. We set out to describe the natural history of symptoms and ischemia in INOCA. Methods: CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One Year in ISCHEMIA Trial Screen Failures With INOCA) was an international cohort study conducted from 2014 to 2019 involving angina assessments (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and stress echocardiograms 1 year apart. This was an ancillary study that included patients with a history of angina who were not randomly assigned in the ISCHEMIA trial. Stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were determined by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to symptoms, coronary artery disease status, and test timing. Medical therapy was at the discretion of treating physicians. The primary outcome was the correlation between the changes in the Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency score and changes in echocardiographic ischemia. We also analyzed predictors of 1-year changes in both angina and ischemia, and we compared CIAO participants with ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease who had stress echocardiography before enrollment, as CIAO participants did. Results: INOCA participants in CIAO were more often female (66% of 208 versus 26% of 865 ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease, P <0.001), but the magnitude of ischemia was similar (median 4 ischemic segments [interquartile range, 3–5] both groups). Ischemia and angina were not significantly correlated at enrollment in CIAO ( P =0.46) or ISCHEMIA stress echocardiography participants ( P =0.35). At 1 year, the stress echocardiogram was normal in half of CIAO participants, and 23% had moderate or severe ischemia (≥3 ischemic segments). Angina improved in 43% and worsened in 14%. Change in ischemia over 1 year was not significantly correlated with change in angina (ρ=0.029). Conclusions: Improvement in ischemia and angina were common in INOCA but not correlated. Our INOCA cohort had a degree of inducible wall motion abnormalities similar to concurrently enrolled ISCHEMIA participants with obstructive coronary artery disease. Our results highlight the complex nature of INOCA pathophysiology and the multifactorial nature of angina. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02347215.

Оценка точности прогнозирования сердечно-сосудистых событий с помощью шкалы SCORE и ультразвуковой визуализации атеросклеротической бляшки среди пациентов многопрофильного стационара Санкт-Петербурга: данные среднесрочного наблюдения

Background: Patients with significant (≥50%) left main disease (LMD) have a high risk of cardiovascular events, and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (stenosis, 25%–49%) on outcomes is unclear. Methods: Randomized ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline were categorized into those with (25%–49%) and without (<25%) intermediate LMD. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The primary quality of life outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score. Results: Among the 3699 participants who satisfied the inclusion criteria, 962 (26%) had intermediate LMD. Among invasive strategy participants with intermediate LMD on coronary computed tomography angiography, 49 (7.0%) had significant (≥50% stenosis) left main stenosis on invasive angiography. Patients with intermediate LMD had a higher risk of cardiovascular events in the unadjusted but not in the fully adjusted model compared with those without intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI and decreased nonprocedural MI with no significant difference for other outcomes including the primary end point. There was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment effect based on intermediate LMD status except for nonprocedural MI for which there was a greater absolute reduction with invasive management in the intermediate LMD group (−6.4% versus −2.0%; P _interaction =0.049). The invasive strategy improved angina-related quality of life and the benefit was durable throughout follow-up without significant heterogeneity based on intermediate LMD status. Conclusions: In the ISCHEMIA trial, there was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment benefit from an invasive strategy regardless of intermediate LMD status except for a greater absolute risk reduction in nonprocedural MI with invasive management in those with intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI, reduced nonprocedural MI, and improved angina-related quality of life. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Despite a significant progress of the recent decades, incidence of cardiovascular complications in patients with manifest, stable ischemic heart disease (IHD) is still high. Furthermore, this patient group is heterogenous; individuals with a higher risk of cardiovascular complications can be isolated from this group based on the presence of comorbidities and acute IHD on the background of the therapy. Such patients require a more aggressive treatment to influence major components of the increased risk. Even after administration of an optimum therapy, the risk for complications in such patients remains high (residual risk). The article discusses the lipid, inflammatory, and thrombotic components of residual risk in IHD patients and possibilities of their control with drugs with a special focus on possibilities of pharmaceutical correction of the risk thrombotic component in IHD patients with diabetes mellitus.

Although myocardial revascularization is one of the most studied types of medical interventions, there is a heated discussion in cardiology about the feasibility and indications for it in patients with stable coronary artery disease (chronic coronary syndrome). The recently completed ISCHEMIA trial is the largest current study comparing conservative versus invasive strategies in this category of patients. The article discusses the rationale for revascularization to improve prognosis according to the ISCHEMIA trial.

Coronary revascularization is one of the most studied treatment modalities in cardiology; however, there is no consensus among experts about its indications in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD). Contemporary data regarding the role of revascularization in SCAD are in clear conflict with the current European guidelines. This article discusses the main statements of the most significant American and European Guidelines on myocardial revascularization of the last decade and also analyzes the appropriateness of revascularization to improve the prognosis and symptoms in SCAD in the light of new research data, primarily the ISCHEMIA study (NCT01471522) and the ACC/AHA 2021 Revascularization Guidelines based on them. Data on the revascularization in SCAD obtained after the completion of ISCHEMIA (including the interim analysis of ISCHEMIA-EXTEND) and their potential significance are discussed. The results of ISCHEMIA sub-analyses in the most important “controversial” subgroups (3-vessel disease, proximal left anterior descending artery disease, strongly positive stress test, etc.) are reviewed, as are the results of the ISCHEMIA-CKD substudy in patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD).