Coronary disease & ACSSecondary analysis
Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease
- Secondary analysis of the ISCHEMIA randomised trial
- Bayesian framework
- mixed-effects cumulative probability models
Authors' conclusion
In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy.
Study context
- Population
- Stable ischemic heart disease with moderate or severe ischemia
- Participants
- 2,295 vs 2,322
- Comparison
- Invasive vs conservative strategy
- Invasiven = 2,295
- Conservativen = 2,322reference
- Primary endpoint
- SAQ summary score (0–100, higher = better health status)
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
SAQ summary score
Invasive vs ConservativeDifference, points (95% CrI)
3 months; CrI
4.1(3.2–5.0)
12 months; CrI
4.2(3.3–5.1)
36 months; CrI
2.9(2.2–3.7)
Secondary outcomes
Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score difference by baseline angina frequency (subgroup) · 3 and 36 months
- Daily or weekly angina at baseline, difference at 3 months (points)
- 8.5
- No angina at baseline, difference at 3 months (points)
- 0.1
- Daily or weekly angina at baseline, difference at 36 months (points)
- 5.3
- No angina at baseline, difference at 36 months (points)
- 1.2
- Differences larger with more frequent angina at baseline
Original publication
Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med. Published 30 March 2020. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1916370
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it