Body Mass Index and Clinical and Health Status Outcomes in Chronic Coronary Disease and Advanced Kidney Disease in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether an obesity paradox (lower event rates with higher body mass index [BMI]) exists in participants with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic coronary disease in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness of Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-CKD, and whether BMI modified the effect of initial treatment strategy. METHODS: Baseline BMI was analyzed as both a continuous and categorical variable (< 25, ≥ 25 to < 30, ≥ 30 kg/m2). Associations between BMI and the primary outcome of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (D/MI), and all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and MI individually were estimated. Associations with health status were also evaluated using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7, the Rose Dyspnea Scale, and the EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 vs < 25 kg/m2 demonstrated increased risk for MI (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval] = 1.81 [1.12-2.92]) and for D/MI (HR 1.45 [1.06-1.96]) with a HR for MI of 1.22 (1.05-1.40) per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI in unadjusted analysis. In multivariate analyses, a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 was marginally associated with D/MI (HR 1.43 [1.00-2.04]) and greater dyspnea throughout follow-up (P < .05 at all time points). Heterogeneity of treatment effect between baseline BMI was not evident for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, an obesity paradox was not detected. Higher BMI was associated with worse dyspnea, and a trend toward increased D/MI and MI risk. Larger studies to validate these findings are warranted.

Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease.

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. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).