Cause-Specific Mortality in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.

BACKGROUND: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, 777 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic coronary disease had similar all-cause mortality with either an initial invasive or conservative strategy (27.2% vs 27.8%, respectively). OBJECTIVES: This prespecified secondary analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) was conducted to determine whether an initial invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy decreased the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) vs non-CV causes of death. METHODS: Three-year cumulative incidences were calculated for the adjudicated cause of death. Overall and cause-specific death by treatment strategy were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. The association between cause of death, risk factors, and treatment strategy were identified. RESULTS: A total of 192 of the 777 participants died during follow-up, including 94 (12.1%) of a CV cause, 59 (7.6%) of a non-CV cause, and 39 (5.0%) of an undetermined cause. The 3-year cumulative rates of CV death were similar between the invasive and conservative strategies (14.6% vs 12.6%, respectively; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.75-1.70). Non-CV death rates were also similar between the invasive and conservative arms (8.4% and 8.2%, respectively; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.75-2.09). Sudden cardiac death (46.8% of CV deaths) and infection (54.2% of non-CV deaths) were the most common cause-specific deaths and did not vary by treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, CV death was more common than non-CV or undetermined death during the 3-year follow-up. The randomized treatment assignment did not affect the cause-specific incidences of death in participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).

Use of troponin assay 99th percentile as the decision level for myocardial infarction diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction recommends the 99th percentile concentration of cardiac troponin in a normal reference population as part of the decision threshold to diagnose type 1 spontaneous myocardial infarction. Adoption of this recommendation in contemporary worldwide practice is not well known. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of 276 hospital laboratories in 31 countries participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial. Each hospital laboratory's troponin assay manufacturer and model, the recommended assay's 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL) from the manufacturer's package insert, and the troponin concentration used locally as the decision level to diagnose myocardial infarction were ascertained. RESULTS: Twenty-one unique troponin assays from 9 manufacturers were used by the surveyed hospital laboratories. The ratio of the troponin concentration used locally to diagnose myocardial infarction to the assay manufacturer-determined 99th percentile URL was <1 at 19 (6.6%) laboratories, equal to 1 at 91 (31.6%) laboratories, >1 to ≤5 at 101 (35.1%) laboratories, >5 to ≤10 at 34 (11.8%) laboratories, and >10 at 43 (14.9%) laboratories. The variability in troponin decision level for myocardial infarction relative to the assay 99th percentile URL was present for laboratories in and outside of the United States, as well as for high- and standard-sensitivity assays. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial hospital-level variation in the troponin threshold used to diagnose myocardial infarction; only one-third of hospital laboratories currently follow the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction consensus recommendation for use of troponin concentration at the 99th percentile of a normal reference population as the decision level to diagnose myocardial infarction. This variability across laboratories has important implications for both the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in clinical practice as well as adjudication of myocardial infarction in clinical trials.