Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2020
Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease.
Trial report in The New England journal of medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01985360 (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease Trial
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of coronary artery bypass grafting on quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2022Pooled it
- Rehabilitation at Home Using Mobile Health for Older Adults Hospitalized for Ischemic Heart Disease: The RESILIENT Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Assessment of Comorbidity Burden and Treatment Response: Reanalysis of the SCD-HEFT Trial.Drugs & aging · 2022Trial
- Predictors of outcome in the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial: Anatomy versus ischemia.American heart journal · 2022Trial
- Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.The New England journal of medicine · 2020Trial
- Characterizing heterogeneity in health-related quality of life trajectories in coronary artery disease: a longitudinal latent Markov analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Prognostic Factors and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Outcomes in Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis: A Comprehensive Retrospective Study.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Human-Centred Design & Development of aCJC open · 2025Article
- Left Main Disease: The Last Frontier for Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease?European cardiology · 2025Review
- Body Mass Index and Clinical and Health Status Outcomes in Chronic Coronary Disease and Advanced Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.The American journal of medicine · 2024Article
- Increasing frequency of dyspnea among patients referred for cardiac stress testing.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Invasive versus Conservative Management in Coronary Artery Disease.Clinical medicine & research · 2023Review
- ISCHEMIA-EXTEND studies: Rationale and design.American heart journal · 2022Article
- Exercise Stress Echocardiography for Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Succumbed to the Modern Conceptual Revolution or Still Alive and Kicking?Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Persistent Coronary Vasomotor Tone During Myocardial Ischemia Occurs at the Capillary Level and May Involve Pericytes.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Association Between Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure and the Efficacy of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure-Lowering Therapy.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cardiovascular Trials.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2021Review
- Preoperative Cardiovascular Assessment of the Renal Transplant Recipient: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Interpretation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials and Clinical Care: A Review.JAMA cardiology · 2021Review
- Cardiovascular Disease in Chronic Kidney Disease: Pathophysiological Insights and Therapeutic Options.Circulation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m
methodsWe assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy.
resultsHealth status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4).
conclusionsParticipants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.