Abstract
Optimal therapy for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CCD) has long been a topic under investigation and a subject of debate. Seeking to clarify appropriate management, the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial compared medical management versus coronary angiography for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Its reception in the medical community has been met with both acclaim and criticism. In light of such disparate views of this trial, a systematic review of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was performed. All articles citing the ISCHEMIA trial on PubMed as of July 21, 2023, were compiled and underwent qualitative analysis. A total of 430 articles were evaluated; 109 (25.3%) did not offer substantial commentary on ISCHEMIA and cite it as background evidence for further study. Of the commentary articles, the majority (224, 52.1%) gave balanced, honest appraisals of the ISCHEMIA trial. A total of 46 (10.7%) strongly praised the trial while another 39 (9.1%) were strongly critical of the results. Almost three-quarters of the literature citing the ISCHEMIA trial was commentary in nature, with roughly equal distribution across the spectrum of praise and criticism. Despite being one of the largest studies on CCD and coronary revascularization ever conducted, the impact of ISCHEMIA on the cardiology community appears to be mixed.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
