Trial reportJournal of the American College of Cardiology2024
Variation in Health Status With Invasive vs Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease.
Trial report in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01471522 (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.
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 (ISCHEMIA)
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex differences in coronary disease health Status outcomes: the ISCHEMIA trial.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Trial
- Health Status Outcomes With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in ISCHEMIA.Circulation · 2025Trial
- Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2025Trial
- Guideline for Chronic Coronary Syndrome - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Article
- Advancement of the implementation of evidence-based therapies for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic conditions: A multi-stakeholder perspective.American heart journal · 2025Review
- Sex differences in health status trajectories among Chinese angina patients: a post-hoc analysis of the GREAT multicenter prospective cohort.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Predictive Modeling of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in RCTs: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Potential clinical impact of predictive modeling of heterogeneous treatment effects: scoping review of the impact of the PATH Statement.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Developing an Individualized Patient Decision Aid for Chronic Coronary Disease Based on the ISCHEMIA Trial: A Mixed-Methods Study.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024Article
- Future of Patient-Reported Outcomes: Bringing Patients' Voices Into Health Care.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024Article
- Residual Chest Pain After PCI: A Failure in Diagnosis Rather Than Treatment.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ISCHEMIA trial found that patients with chronic coronary disease randomized to invasive strategy had better health status than those randomized to conservative strategy. It is unclear how best to translate these population-level results to individual patients.
objectivesThe authors sought to identify patient characteristics associated with health status from invasive and conservative strategies, and develop a prediction algorithm for shared decision-making.
methodsOne-year disease-specific health status was assessed in ISCHEMIA with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Summary Score (SAQ SS) and Angina Frequency, Physical Limitations (PL), and Quality of Life (QL) domains (range 0-100, higher = less angina/better health status).
resultsAmong 4,617 patients from 320 sites in 37 countries, mean SAQ SS was 74.1 ± 18.9 at baseline and 85.7 ± 15.6 at 1 year. Lower baseline SAQ SS and younger age were associated with better 1-year health status with invasive strategy (P interaction = 0.009 and P interaction = 0.004, respectively). For the individual domains, there were significant treatment interactions for baseline SAQ score (Angina Frequency, PL), age (PL, QL), anterior ischemia (PL), and number of baseline antianginal medications (QL), with more benefit of invasive in patients with worse baseline health status, younger age, anterior ischemia, and on more antianginal medications. Parsimonious prediction models were developed for 1-year SAQ domains with invasive or conservative strategies to support shared decision-making.
conclusionsIn the management of chronic coronary disease, individual patient characteristics are associated with 1-year health status, with younger age and poorer angina-related health status showing greater benefit from invasive management. This prediction algorithm can support the translation of the ISCHEMIA trial results to individual patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).
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.