Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026

Predicting Amputation using Local Circulating Mononuclear Progenitor Cells in Angioplasty-treated Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia
Published on: September 22, 2020
Predicting outcome in the COURAGE trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug
G B John Mancini1, Pamela M Hartigan2, Leslee J Shaw3
1University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Insights
Anatomic burden, not ischemic burden, consistently predicts outcomes in coronary artery disease patients receiving optimal medical therapy. Neither measure identified patients benefiting from invasive strategies.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Cardiovascular Imaging
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Coronary artery disease (CAD) prognosis is influenced by both anatomic and ischemic burden.
- The comparative prognostic value of these measures and their impact on revascularization decisions remain debated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the predictive utility of anatomic versus ischemic burden of CAD for patient outcomes.
- To assess if either measure identifies patients who benefit from invasive treatment strategies.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 621 patients from the COURAGE trial with baseline SPECT and coronary angiography.
- Multiple regression models used to identify predictors of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS).
- Evaluated anatomic burden, ischemic burden, ejection fraction, and treatment strategy (OMT + PCI vs. OMT alone).
Main Results:
- Anatomic burden and ejection fraction were consistent predictors of adverse events (death, MI, NSTE-ACS).
- Ischemic burden and treatment assignment did not independently predict outcomes.
- No significant interaction found between burden measures and treatment strategy for outcome prediction.
Conclusions:
- In patients managed with optimal medical therapy (OMT), anatomic burden is a significant predictor of adverse cardiovascular events.
- Ischemic burden did not predict outcomes in this cohort.
- Neither anatomic nor ischemic burden, alone or combined, identified subgroups benefiting from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to determine the relative utility of anatomic and ischemic burden of coronary artery disease for predicting outcomes.
Background:
Both anatomic burden and ischemic burden of coronary artery disease determine patient prognosis and influence myocardial revascularization decisions. When both measures are available, their relative utility for prognostication and management choice is controversial.
Methods:
A total of 621 patients enrolled in the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial with baseline quantitative nuclear single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and quantitative coronary angiography were studied. Several multiple regression models were constructed to determine independent predictors of the endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI) (excluding periprocedural MI) and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). Ischemic burden during stress SPECT, anatomic burden derived from angiography, left ventricular ejection fraction, and assignment to either optimal medical therapy (OMT) + percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or OMT alone were analyzed.
Results:
In nonadjusted and adjusted regression models, anatomic burden and left ventricular ejection fraction were consistent predictors of death, MI, and NSTE-ACS, whereas ischemic burden and treatment assignment were not. There was a marginal (p = 0.03) effect of the interaction term of anatomic and ischemic burden for the prediction of clinical outcome, but separately or in combination, neither anatomy nor ischemia interacted with therapeutic strategy to predict outcome.
Conclusions:
In a cohort of patients treated with OMT, anatomic burden was a consistent predictor of death, MI, and NSTE-ACS, whereas ischemic burden was not. Importantly, neither determination, even in combination, identified a patient profile benefiting preferentially from an invasive therapeutic strategy. (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation [COURAGE]; NCT00007657).
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Coronary Artery Disease III: Clinical Manifestations
Coronary Artery Disease II: Pathophysiology
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Coronary Artery Disease I: Introduction

