Trial reportCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2024
International Variation in Health Status Benefits in Patients Undergoing Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management for Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.
Trial report in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) demonstrated greater health status benefits with an initial invasive strategy, as compared with a conservative one, for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. Whether these benefits vary globally is important to understand to support global adoption of the results.
methodsWe analyzed participants' disease-specific health status using the validated 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ: >5-point differences are clinically important) at baseline and over 1-year follow-up across 37 countries in 6 international regions. The average effect of initial invasive versus conservative strategies on 1-year SAQ scores was estimated using Bayesian proportional odds regression and compared across regions.
resultsConsiderable regional variation in baseline health status was observed among 4617 participants (mean age=64.4±9.5 years, 24% women), with the mean SAQ summary scores of 67.4±19.5 in Eastern Europe participants (17% of the total), 71.4±15.4 in Asia-Pacific (18%), 74.9±16.7 in Central and South America (10%), 75.5±19.5 in Western Europe (26%), and 78.6±19.2 in North America (28%). One-year improvements in SAQ scores were greater in regions with lower baseline scores with initial invasive management (17.7±20.9 in Eastern Europe and 11.4±19.3 in North America), but similar in the conservative arm. Adjusting for baseline SAQ scores, similar health status benefits of an initial invasive strategy on 1-year SAQ scores were observed (ranging from 2.38 points [95% CI, 0.04-4.50] in North America to 4.66 points [95% CI, 2.46-6.94] in Eastern Europe), with an 88.3% probability that the difference in benefit across regions was <5 points.
conclusionsIn patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, initial invasive management was associated with a consistent health status benefit across regions, with modest regional variability, supporting the international generalizability of health status benefits from invasive management of chronic coronary disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: 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.