Asymptomatic cardiac ischemia pilot (ACIP) study: Outcome at 1 year for patients with asymptomatic cardiac ischemia randomized to medical therapy or revascularization

William J. Rogers, Martial G. Bourassa, Thomas C. Andrews, Barry D. Bertolet, Roger S. Blumenthal, Bernard R. Chaitman, Sandra A. Forman, Nancy L. Geller, A. David Goldberg, Gabriel B. Habib, Roy G. Masters, Robbin B. Moisa, Hiltrud Mueller, Douglas J. Pearce, Carl J. Pepine, George Sopko, Richard M. Steingart, Peter H. Stone, Genell L. Knatterud, C. Richard ContiInvestigators ACIP Investigators

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

149 Scopus citations


Objectives: This report discusses the outcome at 1 year in patients in the Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study. Background: Comparative efficacy of medical therapy versus revascularization in treatment of asymptomatic ischemia is unknown. The ACIP study assessed the ability of three treatment strategies to suppress ambulatory electrocardiographic (ECG) ischemia to determine whether a large-scale trial studying the impact of these strategies on clinical outcomes was feasible. Methods: Five hundred fifty-eight patients with coronary anatomy amenable to revascularization, at least one episode of asymptomatic ischemia on the 48-h ambulatory ECG and ischemia on treadmill exercise testing were randomized to one of three treatment strategies: 1) medication to suppress angina (angina-guided strategy, n = 183); 2) medication to suppress both angina and ambulatory ECG ischemia (ischemia-guided strategy, n = 183); or 3) revascularization strategy (angioplasty or bypass surgery, n = 192). Medication was titrated atenolol-nifedipine or diltiazemisosorbide dinitrate. Results: The revascularization group received less medication and had less ischemia on serial ambulatory ECG recordings and exercise testing than those assigned to the medical strategies. The ischemia-guided group received more medication but had suppression of ischemia similar to the angina-guided group. At 1 year, the mortality rate was 4.4% in the angina-guided group (8 of 183), 1.6% in the ischemia-guided group (3 of 183) and 0% in the revascularization group (overall, p = 0.004; angina-guided vs. revascularization, p = 0.003; other pairwise comparisons, p = NS). Frequency of myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke and congestive heart failure was not significantly different among the three strategies. The revascularization group had significantly fewer hospital admissions and nonprotocol revascularizations at 1 year. The incidence of death, myocardial infarction, nonprotocol revascularization or hospital admissions at 1 year was 32% with the angina-guided medical strategy, 31% with the ischemia-guided medical strategy and 18% with the revascularization strategy (p = 0.003). Conclusions: After 1 year, revascularization was superior to both angina-guided and ischemia-guided medical strategies in suppressing asymptomatic ischemia and was associated with better outcome. These findings require confirmation by a larger scale trial.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)594-605
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Issue number3
StatePublished - Sep 1995

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Asymptomatic cardiac ischemia pilot (ACIP) study: Outcome at 1 year for patients with asymptomatic cardiac ischemia randomized to medical therapy or revascularization'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this