CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease
Authors
Karen P. Alexander
Ziad A. Ali
+25 more
Sripal Bangalore
Jeffrey S. Berger
Olga Bockeria
William E. Boden
Carlo Briguori
Samuel Broderick
Bernard R. Chaitman
Glenn M. Chertow
Jerome L. Fleg
Charles A. Herzog
Judith S. Hochman
Zhen Huang
Upendra Kaul
Evgeny I. Kretov
Daniel B. Mark
David J. Maron
Roy O. Mathew
Tomasz Mazurek
Jonathan D. Newman
Sean M. O\u27Brien
Radoslaw Pracon
Harmony R. Reynolds
Mandeep S. Sidhu
John A. Spertus
Gregg W. Stone
Publication date
23 April 2020
Publisher
'Massachusetts Medical Society'
Doi
Cite
Abstract
© 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction
Similar works
Full text
Available Versions
George Washington University: Health Sciences Research Commons (HSRC)
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu:sm...
Last time updated on 20/12/2021