ISCHEMIA trial is a tough nut to crack : Don’t lose heart, we will some how tame it !
There are a whole lot of scientists trying to jailbreak and expose the limitations of the hugely popular ISCHEMIA trial which put the emergency breaks in the way we used to practice cardiology. Not everyone is happy. While few are ready to apply the brake, many continue to love the accelerator.
This study (Ref 1) talks about an important issue. How much of the CAD populations in the real world will match the ISCHEMIA trial population? It concludes it is just 32%. It suggests caution to the cardiologists to understand this trial from a proper perspective. Don’t give too much importance, lest we may end up with Inappropriate non-intervention.
Sounds too good?
But is it real?
The authors of ISCHEMIA have countered this claim. (Ref 2)If we include all mild and moderate symptom cohort Ischemia study population is very much relevant in the true world and, actually constitutes about 68 % .
Clinical trials are the greatest gift of science and EBM. But why is that …it never fails to confuse us at each and every step, while we accumulate tons and tons of evidence.
I wish someone do a mega four-limbed study on what really our patients are getting in the overall CAD care.
- Inappropriate non-intervention
- Appropriate Interventions
- Inappropriate interventions
- Appropriate non-Intervention.
I could easily guess the winning theme of this hypothetical trial. (That’s not good news though) However, response 4 If practiced in the right spirits would have the maximum impact on global cardiovascular health in terms of both healing and saving.
1.Chatterjee S, Fanaroff AC, Parzynski C, et al. Comparison of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary U.S. practice with ISCHEMIA trial population. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2021;14:2344-2349.
2.Maron DJ, Bangalore S, Hochman JS. The glass is at least half full. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2021;14:2350-2352.