The long-term risk of smoking in diabetic patients with stable ischemic heart disease treated with intensive medical therapy and lifestyle modification

Abstract Background In patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) the effect of revascularization on all-cause death (the most verifiable clinical event) is unknown. Objectives We explored the potential of the ischemic burden as derived from vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to guide decision-making in this scenario. Methods In a large prospective multicenter registry, we recruited 6389 patients (mean age 65±11 years, 38% female) submitted to undergo vasodilator stress CMR for known or suspected SIHD. Baseline and CMR characteristics were prospectively recorded. The ischemic burden (at vasodilator stress first-pass perfusion imaging) and necrosis extent (at late enhancement imaging) were computed (17-segment model). The effect of CMR-related revascularization (within the following three months) on all-cause death (revised using the unified regional electronic health system registry) was explored. Results During a 5.75-year median follow-up, 717 (11.2%) all-cause deaths were documented. In multivariable analyses, more extensive ischemic burden (per 1-segment increase) independently related to all-cause death (1.05 [1.03–1.07], p<0.001). In 1034 patients (517 revascularized, 517 non-revascularized) strictly 1:1 matched for the independent predictors of outcome and of undergoing CMR-related revascularization (age, diabetes mellitus, male sex, LVEF, ischemic burden and necrosis extent), CMR-related revascularization did not significantly alter all-cause death rate (13.3% vs. 13.3%, p=0.54). Nevertheless, a potent interaction existed with the ischemic burden (p<0.001). CMR-related revascularization independently reduced the risk of all-cause death in 430 patients with ischemic burden >5 segments (9.3% vs. 16.3%, HR 0.56 [0.32–0.98], p=0.02) but it independently increased risk in 604 patients with ischemic burden ≤5 segments (16.2% vs. 11.3%, HR 1.59 [1.03–2.45], p=0.037). Figure 1. CMR-related revascularization Conclusions In patients with known or suspected stable ischemic heart disease the ischemic burden as derived from vasodilator stress CMR can be helpful to predict the effect of revascularization on long-term all-cause death. Acknowledgement/Funding Funded by “Instituto de Salud Carlos III”/FEDER (PIE15/00013, PI17/01836, and CIBERCV16/11/00486 grants) and Generalitat Valenciana (GV/2018/116).

Download Full-text

Routine Revascularization Versus Initial Medical Therapy for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circulationaha.120.048194 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 142 (9) ◽

pp. 841-857 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Sripal Bangalore ◽

David J. Maron ◽

Gregg W. Stone ◽

Judith S. Hochman

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Heart Disease ◽

Ischemic Heart Disease ◽

Unstable Angina ◽

Medical Therapy ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Ischemic Heart ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Background: Revascularization is often performed in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, whether revascularization reduces death and other cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain. Methods: We conducted PUBMED/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches for randomized trials comparing routine revascularization versus an initial conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The primary outcome was death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, stroke, unstable angina, and freedom from angina. Trials were stratified by percent stent use and by percent statin use to evaluate outcomes in contemporary trials. Results: Fourteen randomized clinical trials that enrolled 14 877 patients followed up for a weighted mean of 4.5 years with 64 678 patient-years of follow-up fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most trials enrolled patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function and low symptom burden, and excluded patients with left main disease. Revascularization compared with medical therapy alone was not associated with a reduced risk of death (relative risk [RR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90–1.09]). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary, indicating firm evidence for lack of a 10% or greater reduction in death. Revascularization was associated with a reduced nonprocedural MI (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67–0.85]) but also with increased procedural MI (RR, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.86–3.31]) with no difference in overall MI (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83–1.03]). A significant reduction in unstable angina (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45–0.92]) and increase in freedom from angina (RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05–1.15]) was also observed with revascularization. There were no treatment-related differences in the risk of heart failure or stroke. Conclusions: In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, routine revascularization was not associated with improved survival but was associated with a lower risk of nonprocedural MI and unstable angina with greater freedom from angina at the expense of higher rates of procedural MI. Longer-term follow-up of trials is needed to assess whether reduction in these nonfatal spontaneous events improves long-term survival.

Download Full-text