Nonischemic or Dual Cardiomyopathy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials in obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) have largely shown no prognostic benefit from coronary revascularization. Although there are several potential reasons for the lack of benefit, an underexplored possible reason is the presence of coincidental nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). We investigated the prevalence and prognostic significance of NICM in patients with CAD (CAD-NICM). METHODS: We conducted a registry study of consecutive patients with obstructive CAD on coronary angiography who underwent contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of ventricular function and scar at 4 hospitals from 2004 to 2020. We identified the presence and cause of cardiomyopathy using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and coronary angiography data, blinded to clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization, and secondary outcomes were all-cause death, heart failure hospitalization, and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Among 3023 patients (median age, 66 years; 76% men), 18.2% had no cardiomyopathy, 64.8% had ischemic cardiomyopathy (CAD+ICM), 9.3% had CAD+NICM, and 7.7% had dual cardiomyopathy (CAD+dualCM), defined as both ICM and NICM. Thus, 16.9% had CAD+NICM or dualCM. During a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 2.9, 7.6), 1116 patients experienced the primary outcome. In Cox multivariable analysis, CAD+NICM or dualCM was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome compared with CAD+ICM (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.06–1.43]; P =0.007) after adjustment for potential confounders. The risks of the secondary outcomes of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization were also higher with CAD+NICM or dualCM (hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.02–1.43]; P =0.032; and hazard ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.11–1.69]; P =0.003, respectively), whereas the risk of cardiovascular death did not differ from that of CAD+ICM (hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.89–1.48]; P =0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CAD referred for clinical cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, NICM or dualCM was identified in 1 of every 6 patients and was associated with worse long-term outcomes compared with ICM. In patients with obstructive CAD, coincidental NICM or dualCM may contribute to the lack of prognostic benefit from coronary revascularization.