Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 21, 2025

Evaluation of Coronary Flow Reserve After Myocardial Ischemia Reperfusion in Rats
Published on: June 28, 2019
Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity
Harmony R Reynolds1, Leslee J Shaw2, James K Min3
1New York Universty Grossman School of Medicine (H.R.R.., S.B., J.D.N., J.S.H.).
Insights
The ISCHEMIA trial found that while severe coronary artery disease (CAD) increases mortality risk, ischemia severity does not independently predict outcomes. Invasive management did not reduce overall mortality in patients with stable CAD and moderate to severe ischemia.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
- Medical Effectiveness Research
Background:
- The ISCHEMIA trial investigated if revascularization benefits patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate to severe ischemia.
- This analysis specifically examined how CAD and ischemia severity influence trial outcomes based on management strategy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To determine the relationship between the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial ischemia and their impact on clinical outcomes in the ISCHEMIA trial.
- To assess if ischemia severity identifies subgroups of patients who benefit from an initial invasive management strategy compared to a conservative approach.
Main Methods:
- 5179 patients with moderate/severe ischemia were randomized to invasive or conservative strategies.
- Coronary computed tomographic angiography assessed CAD anatomy; Duke Prognostic Index classified CAD severity (n=2475).
- Ischemia severity was evaluated using various imaging modalities (n=5105), with 4-year event rates compared across subgroups.
Main Results:
- Neither moderate nor severe ischemia independently increased mortality risk compared to mild/no ischemia (HRs 0.89 and 0.83, respectively).
- Nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) rates trended higher with increasing ischemia severity (P=0.04 for trend).
- Higher CAD severity was linked to increased risks of death (HR 2.72) and MI (HR 3.78). Invasive strategy showed a trend towards lower cardiovascular death or MI in the highest CAD severity subgroup, but no difference in all-cause mortality.
Conclusions:
- Ischemia severity alone did not predict increased risk when adjusted for CAD severity; more severe CAD was the significant risk factor.
- The initial invasive management strategy did not reduce 4-year all-cause mortality across any ischemia or CAD severity subgroup.
- Findings suggest focusing on CAD severity rather than ischemia severity for risk stratification and management decisions in stable ischemic heart disease.
Background:
The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy.
Methods:
In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest).
Results:
Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar.
Conclusions:
Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Ischemic Heart Disease: Overview
Atherosclerosis, the primary malefactor, orchestrates this dangerous condition. It manifests as the accumulation of fatty deposits, akin to insidious plaques, within arterial walls. As time elapses, these plaques metamorphose, hardening and...
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Coronary Artery Disease III: Clinical Manifestations
Coronary Artery Disease II: Pathophysiology
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations

