Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease

Arnoud van't Hof*, Filippo Crea

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/Letter to the editorAcademicpeer-review


To the Editor: Proportional-hazards violations that are observed in trials comparing different treatment strategies lead to complex statistical interpretations.(1) However, clinical interpretation is of paramount importance. Maron et al. (April 9 issue)(2) report that in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA), the invasive strategy was associated with a higher early risk of the primary outcome (a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) than the conservative strategy. This risk rapidly decayed over time (Fig. S7A in the Supplementary Appendix, available with . . .
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e66(2)
Number of pages1
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Issue number10
Early online date3 Sept 2020
Publication statusPublished - 3 Sept 2020

Cite this