Myocardial Ischemia in the Management of Chronic Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

For many years, stress-induced myocardial ischemia has been considered important in the management of chronic coronary artery disease. Early evidence focused on the exercise ECG and the Duke treadmill score. In the 1970s, randomized clinical trials, which compared coronary artery bypass surgery to medical therapy, enrolled patients who were very different from contemporary practice and had inconsistent results. Surgery appeared to be of greatest benefit in high-risk patients defined by anatomy (such as left main disease) or stress-induced ischemia. However, randomized clinical trials of revascularization versus contemporary medical therapy over the past 20 years have been surprisingly negative. Nuclear cardiology substudies from these trials reported inconsistent results. Two observational studies from a single-center provided the best evidence for the use of stress-induced ischemia to identify patients who were most likely to benefit from revascularization. The recently completed ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) was designed to test the hypothesis that revascularization would improve outcomes in patients with moderate-severe ischemia on stress testing. Unfortunately, 14.2% of the randomized patients had either mild or no ischemia on core lab review. Nearly one-quarter of the patients were randomized on the basis of an exercise ECG without imaging. The negative results of the trial reflect the long-term population decline in coronary artery disease and abnormal stress tests, as well as improvements in patient outcome due to optimal medical therapy. Topics requiring further research are presented. The implications of the trial for the use of both stress imaging and coronary computed tomography angiography in clinical practice are examined.