Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Complete Angina Relief in Symptomatic Patients in the ISCHEMIA Trial.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Burden of Residual Angina Among Older Adults With Ischemic Heart Disease in the United States: Findings From the RESILIENT Trial.Circulation. Population health and outcomes · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with chronic coronary disease experience less angina with revascularization plus optimal medical therapy compared with optimal medical therapy alone. However, patients may prefer to better understand their individual likelihood of complete angina relief associated with each treatment approach before selecting a strategy. We therefore sought to determine the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of complete angina relief in symptomatic patients treated with invasive management using revascularization plus optimal medical therapy or conservative therapy with optimal medical therapy alone in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial.
methodsAngina was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (AF) score. We analyzed patients in the invasive management treatment arm with angina at baseline (Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency <100) who underwent revascularization and all patients in the conservative therapy arm with angina at baseline. The primary outcome was angina status at 12 months defined as a Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency=100 (complete angina relief) or Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency <100 (persistent angina). The association of angina status with the composite of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction was assessed at 5 years.
resultsAmong 1376 patients in the conservative therapy arm with angina at baseline, 50% experienced complete angina relief at 12 months. Independent predictors included older age, male sex, recent angina onset, and less baseline angina. Among 1158 patients who underwent revascularization, 70% achieved complete angina relief. Predictors included younger age, nonsmoking, coronary artery bypass graft, and less baseline angina. Cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction rates at 5 years did not differ between patients with or without complete angina relief.
conclusionsComplete angina relief at 12 months in symptomatic patients with chronic coronary disease was achieved in 70% of patients undergoing revascularization and 50% of patients treated ith conservative therapy and did not influence cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction outcomes. REGISTRATION: https://ischemiatrial.org/; ISCHEMIA Trial. Accession Number HLB02742323a.
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.