Factors associated with early catheterization in patients randomized to the conservative strategy in the ISCHEMIA Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In the ISCHEMIA trial, individuals randomized to the conservative strategy (CON) could undergo coronary catheterization (cath) for suspicion of an endpoint event, persistent symptoms despite optimal medical therapy, or through protocol non-adherence. Understanding the reasons for cath in CON participants can aid in ISCHEMIA results interpretation. Purpose To describe the frequency of and factors associated with early cath in ISCHEMIA CON participants. Methods A prespecified, post-hoc analysis of the 2591 CON participants was performed with multivariable analyses to identify independent factors associated with cath within 6 months of randomization (“early cath”). Results Overall 8.7% (225/2591) of CON participants underwent an early cath: with 4.6% (119/2591) for a suspected endpoint, 1.6% (41/2591) for medical treatment failure, and 2.6% (67/2591) for protocol non-adherence; 67% of all these caths (151/225) occurred within the first 3 months from randomization. Independent factors associated with cath among CON participants included daily (HR=5.84, CI: 2.73–12.47, p<0.01) and weekly (HR=2.64, CI: 1.52–4.58, p<0.01) baseline angina vs no angina, severe (HR=2.02, CI: 1.03–3.95, p=0.04) and moderate baseline quality of life impairment vs no impairment (HR=2.03, CI: 1.24–3.33, p=0.01), randomization in Europe vs Asia (HR=1.83, CI: 1.15–2.9, p=0.01), with the proviso that all these characteristics were associated with cath occurring within the first 3 months of follow-up (very early cath), but not those between 3 and 6 months (proportional hazard assumption violation). Other factors independently associated with early cath were new or increasing angina pattern over 3 months pre-randomization (HR=1.79, CI: 1.33–2.39, p<0.0001) and increases in anti-anginal medication use during follow-up (HR=1.45, CI: 1.06–1.98, p=0.02). Baseline LDL-C <70mg/dL (HR=0.65 CI: 0.46–0.91, p=0.01) and a subsiding angina pattern during follow-up (HR=0.65, CI: 0.6–0.71, p<0.01) were independently associated with a reduced hazard of early cath. Neither ischemia severity nor extent of atherosclerosis on coronary imaging showed association with cath in CON participants at 6 months. Conclusions The rate of early cath in the ISCHEMIA CON strategy was low and driven mainly by a suspected endpoint event. Severe/moderate baseline angina and quality of life impairment were independently associated with very early cath. Chances of early cath were greater with worsening pre-randomization angina and need for additional antianginal medication, and less with well controlled LDL-C and decreasing angina pattern. The baseline severity of ischemia or extent of disease on coronary imaging were not related to early cath. These results give important insight into the coronary disease treatment trajectory in the conservative strategy of the ISCHEMIA trial, further inform real-life decision making and point to the efficacy of optimal medical therapy in reducing the need for cath. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): National Institutes of Health, National Heart Lunch and Blood Institute
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".