Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Keeping Up With a Constantly Evolving Evidence Base
Authors: William G. Kussmaul
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2012)

Editorials20 November 2012Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Keeping Up With a Constantly Evolving Evidence BaseFREEWilliam G. Kussmaul III, MDWilliam G. Kussmaul III, MDFrom Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19102.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-10-201211200-00015 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail In 1999, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and American College of Physicians (ACP)–American Society of Internal Medicine published joint guidelines on the management of patients with chronic stable angina (1). Updates in 2002 and 2007 reflected advances in diagnostic imaging, medical therapies, and revascularization techniques (2, 3). Five years later, we have new guidelines from the initial organizations plus additional colleagues in nursing and cardiovascular surgery (4). The new guidelines are broad, covering both diagnosis and management of patients with this condition, now called stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Reading, absorbing, and applying the numerous resulting recommendations, with their nuances and caveats, will surely challenge clinicians.What the ACP Clinical Guidelines on SIHD ContainTo help clinicians identify the most clinically consequential recommendations, the ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee synthesized 2 summary documents, appearing in this issue (5, 6), based on the corresponding multispecialty SIHD guideline. These summaries emphasize the recommendations identified as class I (strongly recommended) or class III (strongly recommended against). Concentrating on class I and III recommendations allows focus on areas with the strongest evidence but risks neglecting many common situations where patient care decisions are necessary despite the lack of high-quality evidence. For example, there is no class I or III recommendation regarding stress testing in a patient who has chest pain but whose symptoms and risk factors suggest a low risk for ischemic heart disease.How to Read and Apply the SIHD GuidelinesDigesting the 28 recommendations for diagnosis and 48 for management is daunting. Fortunately, the guidelines also contain algorithm figures that are clear, usable, and comprehensive. The algorithms incorporate almost every typical clinical scenario, including those for which we must rely on class IIa and IIb recommendations.Take the example of a middle-aged man with left bundle branch block on electrocardiography (ECG). The algorithm directs us to begin by deciding whether he has unstable angina, which would warrant an expedited evaluation. If the pattern is not unstable, the algorithm guides us to collect historical, clinical, and laboratory data to identify the appropriate form of stress testing. If stress testing is contraindicated, we have the interesting options of performing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) first or initiating empirical medical therapy, which, if successful, would lead to monitoring without testing.If the patient had no contraindications to stress testing or history of coronary revascularization (that is, bypass surgery or stenting), can exercise, and has a resting ECG that would be interpretable during exercise, the algorithm leads to a treadmill ECG stress test without imaging. However, the example patient has left bundle branch block, which would make treadmill testing uninterpretable, so the algorithm recommends exercise stress testing with either echocardiographic or multiplanar nuclear scintigraphic imaging (also the appropriate test if the patient had a previous coronary procedure, even if the resting ECG is normal). If the patient cannot exercise, pharmacologic vasodilator stress with echocardiographic, nuclear, or magnetic resonance imaging or CCTA are options.However performed, stress testing results should indicate whether ischemic disease is present and whether its characteristics are high risk. If high risk, the advice is to consider revascularization. If the cardiac catheterization laboratory will not be the patient's next destination, medical therapy is undertaken with the goal of "success" (about which, more later).Algorithms for risk assessment, medical therapy, and revascularization are similarly useful despite necessarily including many branch points. In line with the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial (7) and the strong evidence that optimal medical therapy is a good thing, the therapy algorithm advises reserving revascularization (and cardiac catheterization) for when "success" is not achieved despite at least 2 classes of antiangina drugs and appropriate management of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, physical activity, and smoking. My advice: Go straight to the algorithms.Surprising Features of New SIHD GuidelinesSeveral features of the guidelines are surprising. First, there is a recommendation for treadmill ECG stress testing without imaging in women with intermediate-probability symptoms. This may not match common clinical practice, but it probably should (8). Nuclear scintigraphic imaging is costly, may be overused (9), has been a target of governmental cost-reduction efforts (10), and has radiation-related risks (11, 12). Second, there is a recommendation for initial testing with stress imaging for all patients with prior revascularization. Again, this may not match current practice but makes good clinical sense, because it tells us not only if the chest pain is "real," but also how large a region of myocardium is at risk. Third, the discussion of CCTA and cardiac stress magnetic resonance imaging in the guidelines will please many and cause concern in others. Both methods have strong evidence regarding their test performance characteristics (13–15), but neither is widely available (especially stress magnetic resonance) and both are expensive. The relative risks of CCTA are debated, given that the patient's exposure to both radiation and iodinated contrast are considerable and only marginally less than that in invasive angiography (13). The availability of several types of stress imaging is itself a cost problem, if newer tests are done in addition to—rather than instead of—older ones. In addition, I was surprised that CT coronary calcium scoring was absent from the diagnostic algorithm. This test involves less radiation than CCTA and no contrast. A coronary calcium score of zero drastically reduces the probability of having significant coronary disease (16). Perhaps future guidelines will include this method.Lingering QuestionsWhen Should Patients Have Coronary Angiography?The revascularization algorithms separately consider "revascularization to improve survival" and "revascularization to improve symptoms." If, for example, a patient has significant left main stenosis, good evidence supports a recommendation to proceed with revascularization regardless of symptom status. Of course, we would not know about the left main stenosis without imaging of the coronary arteries (invasive or noninvasive). But the guideline does not clearly specify the timing of coronary angiography in the diagnostic or therapeutic process. Perhaps it should, because details of coronary anatomy can significantly influence treatment decisions. On the cost-conscious hand, however, a patient on the catheterization table who is found to have any severe stenosis may well wind up with 1 or more expensive drug-eluting stents, thereby initiating a new cascade of follow-up tests, drug therapies, and further revascularizations. Angiographers refer to this as the "oculostenotic reflex": see a lesion, place a stent (17). Thoughtfully constructed, evidence-based guidelines, such as those summarized in this issue, may mitigate such practices. Yet, there is something compelling about knowing the anatomy.What Is "Successful Medical Therapy"?Prevention of death and myocardial infarction are clearly necessary goals in the management of patients with coronary artery disease and define the major part of "success." What about symptoms? Patients dislike having chest pain and taking medications. Physicians want patients to feel better. These pressures often lead patients to request nonsurgical percutaneous coronary intervention (usually involving stents) and lead invasive-interventional physicians to gladly comply. Why live with symptomatic stenosis, when you can get rid of it?The answer, of course, lies in balancing risks, benefits, and costs—a concept useful intellectually and in policymaking but often elusive in practice. Angioplasty has both risks and costs. In patients with SIHD, angioplasty does not reduce long-term mortality and may not reduce the overall rate of myocardial infarction (18). Indeed, periprocedural myocardial enzyme release may numerically counterbalance future prevention of spontaneous infarction, although their clinical equivalence is debated. This leaves symptom relief as the only likely benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention in SIHD. But isn't the absence of angina a worthwhile goal?ConclusionThese guidelines provide sound guidance for the diagnosis and management of SIHD. Practitioners can apply these with confidence but also with a caveat: Things will change. For example, the recent FAME 2 (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2) trial (19) has already ignited discussion about the value of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients who have stable coronary artery disease.Stay tuned for more guideline updates.William G. Kussmaul III, MDHahnemann University HospitalPhiladelphia, PA 19102References1. Gibbons RJ, Chatterjee K, Daley J, Douglas JS, Fihn SD, Gardin JM, et al. ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: executive summary and recommendations. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Chronic Stable Angina). Circulation. 1999;99:2829-48. [PMID: 10351980] MedlineGoogle Scholar2. Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K, Daley J, Deedwania PC, Douglas JS, et al; American College of Cardiology. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina—summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:159-68. [PMID: 12570960] MedlineGoogle Scholar3. Fraker TD, Fihn SD, Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K, Daley J, et al; American College of Cardiology. 2007 chronic angina focused update of the ACC/AHA 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Writing Group to develop the focused update of the 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina. Circulation. 2007;116:2762-72. [PMID: 17998462] MedlineGoogle Scholar4. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas P, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012. [Forthcoming]. Google Scholar5. Qaseem A, Fihn SD, Williams S, Dallas P, Owens DK, Shekelle P; for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Diagnosis of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: summary of a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians/American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American Association for Thoracic Surgery/Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association/Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:729-34. AbstractGoogle Scholar6. Qaseem A, Fihn SD, Dallas P, Williams S, Owens DK, Shekelle P; for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: summary of a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians/American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American Association for Thoracic Surgery/Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association/Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:735-43. AbstractGoogle Scholar7. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al; COURAGE Trial Research Group. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503-16. [PMID: 17387127] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Kohli P, Gulati M. Exercise stress testing in women: going back to the basics. Circulation. 2010;122:2570-80. [PMID: 21156655] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Gibbons RJ, Eckel RH, Jacobs AK; American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. The utilization of cardiac imaging. Circulation. 2006;113:1715-6. [PMID: 16493089] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Shaw LJ, Marwick TH, Zoghbi WA, Hundley WG, Kramer CM, Achenbach S, et al. Why all the focus on cardiac imaging? [Editorial]. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:789-94. [PMID: 20633864] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Picano E. Economic and biological costs of cardiac imaging. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2005;3:13. [PMID: 15916702] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:849-57. [PMID: 19710483] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Dewey M, Zimmermann E, Deissenrieder F, Laule M, Dübel HP, Schlattmann P, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation. 2009;120:867-75. [PMID: 19704093] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Schuetz GM, Zacharopoulou NM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M. Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:167-77. [PMID: 20124233] LinkGoogle Scholar15. Nabi F, Malaty A, Shah DJ. Stress cardiac magnetic resonance. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2011;26:385-91. [PMID: 21730829] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH, Budoff MJ, Eisenberg MJ, Grundy SM, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography). ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography) developed in collaboration with the Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:378-402. [PMID: 17239724] MedlineGoogle Scholar17. Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1995;92:2333-42. [PMID: 7554219] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Trikalinos TA, Alsheikh-Ali AA, Tatsioni A, Nallamothu BK, Kent DM. Percutaneous coronary interventions for non-acute coronary artery disease: a quantitative 20-year synopsis and a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373:911-8. [PMID: 19286090] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino PA, Piroth Z, et al; FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991-1001. [PMID: 22924638] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: William G. KussmaulIII, MDAffiliations: From Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19102.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M12-2524.Corresponding Author: William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Hahnemann University Hospital, 230 North Broad Street, Room 1536 South Tower, Philadelphia, PA 19102. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoDiagnosis of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Summary of a Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians/American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American Association for Thoracic Surgery/Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Amir Qaseem , Stephan D. Fihn , Sankey Williams , Paul Dallas , Douglas K. Owens , and Paul Shekelle , for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians* Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Summary of a Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians/American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American Association for Thoracic Surgery/Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Amir Qaseem , Stephan D. Fihn , Paul Dallas , Sankey Williams , Douglas K. Owens , and Paul Shekelle , for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians* Metrics Cited byIntroduction to Healthcare for Turkish-speaking Interpreters and TranslatorsIntroduction to Healthcare for Russian-speaking Interpreters and TranslatorsIntroduction to Healthcare for Japanese-speaking Interpreters and TranslatorsIntroduction to Healthcare for Arabic-speaking Interpreters and TranslatorsIntroduction to Healthcare for Chinese-speaking Interpreters and TranslatorsIntroduction to Healthcare for Spanish-speaking Interpreters and TranslatorsIntroduction to Healthcare for Interpreters and Translators 20 November 2012Volume 157, Issue 10Page: 749-751KeywordsAlgorithmsAngiographyCoronary computed tomographic angiographyDrug therapyExerciseMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionRevascularizationStenosisStent implantation ePublished: 20 November 2012 Issue Published: 20 November 2012 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2012 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...