Trial reportAmerican heart journal2022
Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial.
Trial report in American heart journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Ischemia Burden and Cardiovascular Events: Post-Hoc Analysis From the ISCHEMIA Trial.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2026Trial
- Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging reduces radiation exposure in emergency department patients with chest pain: A secondary analysis from the CMR IMPACT trial.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Cause-Specific Mortality in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Invasive and medical management approaches to non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Evolving strategies in cardiovascular disease prevention: 2025 American society for preventive cardiology highlights.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Real-world effectiveness of early revascularization in stable coronary artery disease with moderate or severe ischemia.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Who Finally Benefits from Coronary Revascularization in the Modern Era? The ISCHEMIA and Interim ISCHEMIA-EXTEND Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Long-term follow-up after invasive or conservative management of stable coronary disease: the ISCHEMIA-EXTEND study.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- ISCHEMIA-EXTEND studies: Rationale and design.American heart journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors at 20 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported.
methodsWe compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death.
resultsFour-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy.
conclusionsIn International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.