Search

Objectives: Optimal medical therapy in patients with heart failure and coronary artery disease is associated with improved outcomes. However, whether this association is influenced by the performance of coronary artery bypass grafting is less well established. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the possible relationship between coronary artery bypass grafting and optimal medical therapy and its effect on the outcomes of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy., Methods: The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial randomized 1212 patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less to coronary artery bypass grafting with medical therapy or medical therapy alone with a median follow-up over 9.8 years. For the purpose of this study, optimal medical therapy was collected at baseline and 4 months, and defined as the combination of 4 drugs: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, beta-blocker, statin, and 1 antiplatelet drug., Results: At baseline and 4 months, 58.7% and 73.3% of patients were receiving optimal medical therapy, respectively. These patients had no differences in important parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular volumes. In a multivariable Cox model, optimal medical therapy at baseline was associated with a lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.91; P = .001). When landmarked at 4 months, optimal medical therapy was also associated with a lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.99; P = .04). There was no interaction between the benefit of optimal medical therapy and treatment allocation., Conclusions: Optimal medical therapy was associated with improved long-term survival and lower cardiovascular mortality in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and should be strongly recommended., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown., Methods: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years., Results: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF., Conclusions: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Objectives: The study objectives were to test the hypotheses that ischemia during stress testing has prognostic value and identifies those patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction who derive the greatest benefit from coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with medical therapy., Background: The clinical significance of stress-induced ischemia in patients with CAD and moderately to severely reduced LV ejection fraction (EF) is largely unknown., Methods: The STICH (Surgical Treatment for IsChemic Heart Failure) trial randomized patients with CAD and EF ≤35% to CABG or medical therapy. In the current study, we assessed the outcomes of those STICH patients who underwent a radionuclide (RN) stress test or a dobutamine stress echocardiogram (DSE). A test was considered positive for ischemia by RN testing if the summed difference score (difference in tracer activity between stress and rest) was ≥4 or if ≥2 of 16 segments were ischemic during DSE. Clinical endpoints were assessed by intention to treat during a median follow-up of 56 months., Results: Of the 399 study patients (51 women, mean EF 26 ± 8%), 197 were randomized to CABG and 202 were randomized to medical therapy. Myocardial ischemia was induced during stress testing in 256 patients (64% of the study population). Patients with and without ischemia were similar in age, multivessel CAD, previous myocardial infarction, LV EF, LV volumes, and treatment allocation (all p = NS). There was no difference between patients with and without ischemia in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.08; 95% confidence interval: 0.77 to 1.50; p = 0.66), cardiovascular mortality, or all-cause mortality plus cardiovascular hospitalization. There was no interaction between ischemia and treatment for any clinical endpoint., Conclusions: In CAD with severe LV dysfunction, inducible myocardial ischemia does not identify patients with worse prognosis or those with greater benefit from CABG over optimal medical therapy. (Comparison of Surgical and Medical Treatment for Congestive Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease [STICH]; NCT00023595)., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The assessment of myocardial viability has been used to identify patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction in whom coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) will provide a survival benefit. However, the efficacy of this approach is uncertain., Methods: In a substudy of patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction who were enrolled in a randomized trial of medical therapy with or without CABG, we used single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT), dobutamine echocardiography, or both to assess myocardial viability on the basis of prespecified thresholds., Results: Among the 1212 patients enrolled in the randomized trial, 601 underwent assessment of myocardial viability. Of these patients, we randomly assigned 298 to receive medical therapy plus CABG and 303 to receive medical therapy alone. A total of 178 of 487 patients with viable myocardium (37%) and 58 of 114 patients without viable myocardium (51%) died (hazard ratio for death among patients with viable myocardium, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). However, after adjustment for other baseline variables, this association with mortality was not significant (P=0.21). There was no significant interaction between viability status and treatment assignment with respect to mortality (P=0.53)., Conclusions: The presence of viable myocardium was associated with a greater likelihood of survival in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction, but this relationship was not significant after adjustment for other baseline variables. The assessment of myocardial viability did not identify patients with a differential survival benefit from CABG, as compared with medical therapy alone. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; STICH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023595.).

Objective: To compare Dual-Head coincidence gamma camera (DCD-AC) with dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) in viability assessment, using functional recovery as the gold standard., Methods: Twenty-one patients were prospectively studied, with coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing DSE and DCD-AC at baseline and DSE three months after revascularization., Results: Of the 290 segments analyzed, 83% were akinetic, 15% hypokinetic and 2% dyskinetic at rest. DSE identified 68% of these segments as non-viable. DCD-AC identified 56% of these segments as normal (dysfunctional segments with preserved metabolism and perfusion), 30% as viable (preserved metabolism and reduced perfusion) and 14% as non-viable (reduced perfusion and metabolism). Of the DSE non-viable segments, DCD-AC identified 80% as normal or viable and 19.9% as non-viable (p<0.001). In hypokinetic segments viability and normal segments were detected in a higher proportion by both methods (p<0.001). DSE sensibility and specificity were 48.3% and 78.1% respectively. DCD-AC sensibility and specificity was 92.2% and 20.0%. DCD-AC identifies a higher incidence of function improvement in normal segments than in viable and non-viable., Conclusion: DCD-AC classified as normal or viable most of the non-viable DSE segments. In assessment of functional recovery segments after three months, DCD-AC showed a high sensibility but low specificity.