Ischemic cardiomyopathy represents the pathophysiological convergence of two growing clinical problems: atherosclerotic coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure. When a patient presents ...with congestive heart failure, it is incumbent on clinicians to undertake an etiologic workup that includes evaluation for a diagnosis of coronary artery disease
1
; simply establishing a diagnosis of coronary artery disease has been associated with greater use of guideline-directed medical therapies among patients with congestive heart failure.
2
When it is severe, coronary artery disease is often assumed to be the cause of left ventricular dysfunction. Apart from the accuracy of that assumption, a further open question . . .
Arterial hypertension is the most prevalent modifiable risk factor associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although antihypertensive drugs are widely available, in many patients blood ...pressure control to guideline-recommended target values is not achieved. Several device-based approaches have been introduced to lower blood pressure; most of these strategies aim to modulate autonomic nervous system activity. Clinical trials have moved from including patients with resistant hypertension receiving intensive pharmacological treatment to including patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in the presence or absence of antihypertensive medications. Renal sympathetic denervation is the most extensively investigated device-based therapy for hypertension, and randomized, sham-controlled trials have provided proof-of-principle data for its blood pressure-lowering efficacy. Unilateral electrical baroreflex activation, endovascular baroreflex amplification and pacemaker-mediated cardiac neuromodulation therapy have yielded promising results in observational trials, which need to be confirmed in larger, adequately powered, sham-controlled trials. Until further evidence becomes available, device-based therapy for hypertension should not be considered for routine treatment. However, when considering a device-based treatment for hypertension, the underlying pathophysiology in each patient has to be taken into consideration, and the procedural risks weighed against the cardiovascular risk attributable to the elevated blood pressure. This Review summarizes the pathophysiological rationale and the latest clinical evidence for device-based therapies for hypertension.
The STS-ACC TVT Registry (Society of Thoracic Surgeons–American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry) from 2011 to 2019 has collected data on 276,316 patients undergoing ...transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at sites in all U.S. states. Volumes have increased every year, exceeding surgical aortic valve replacement in 2019 (72,991 vs. 57,626), and it is now performed in all U.S. states. TAVR now extends from extreme- to low-risk patients. This is the first presentation on 8,395 low-risk patients treated in 2019. In 2019, for the entire cohort, femoral access increased to 95.3%, hospital stay was 2 days, and 90.3% were discharged home. Since 2011, the 30-day mortality rate has decreased (7.2% to 2.5%), stroke has started to decrease (2.75% to 2.3%), but pacemaker need is unchanged (10.9% to 10.8%). Alive with acceptable patient-reported outcomes is achieved in 8 of 10 patients at 1 year. The Registry is a national resource to improve care and analyze TAVR’s evolution. Real-world outcomes, site performance, and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 will be subsequently studied. (STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry TVT Registry; NCT01737528)
Display omitted
•The STS-ACC TVT Registry documents the growth of TAVR in the United States.•Low-risk patients and valve-in-valve procedures are rapidly growing subsets of TAVR procedures.•The Registry will continue to gather data on the demographics and outcomes of TAVR procedures and allow assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 on patients and health systems involved in this procedure.
Summary Background The relation between platelet reactivity and stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and other adverse events after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents has been ...incompletely characterised. We aimed to determine the relation between platelet reactivity during dual therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel and clinical outcomes after successful coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. Methods ADAPT-DES was a prospective, multicentre registry of patients successfully treated with one or more drug-eluting stents and given aspirin and clopidogrel at 10–15 US and European hospitals. We assessed platelet reactivity in those patients after successful percutaneous coronary intervention using VerifyNow point-of-care assays, and assigned different cutoffs to define high platelet reactivity. The primary endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis; other endpoints were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and clinically relevant bleeding. We did a propensity-adjusted multivariable analysis to determine the relation between platelet reactivity and subsequent adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00638794. Findings Between Jan 7, 2008, and Sept 16, 2010, 8665 patients were prospectively enrolled at 11 sites, of which 8582 were eligible. At 1-year follow-up, stent thrombosis had occurred in 70 (0·8%) patients, myocardial infarction in 269 (3·1%), clinically relevant bleeding in 531 (6·2%), and death in 161 (1·9%) patients. High platelet reactivity on clopidogrel was strongly related to stent thrombosis (adjusted HR 2·49 95% CI 1·43–4·31, p=0·001) and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 1·42 1·09–1·86, p=0·01), was inversely related to bleeding (adjusted HR 0·73 0·61–0·89, p=0·002), but was not related to mortality (adjusted HR 1·20 0·85–1·70, p=0·30). High platelet reactivity on aspirin was not significantly associated with stent thrombosis (adjusted HR 1·46 0·58–3·64, p=0·42), myocardial infarction, or death, but was inversely related to bleeding (adjusted HR 0·65 0·43–0·99, p=0·04). Interpretation The findings from this study emphasise the counter-balancing effects of haemorrhagic and ischaemic complications after stent implantation, and suggest that safer drugs or tailored strategies for the use of more potent agents must be developed if the benefits of greater platelet inhibition in patients with cardiovascular disease are to be realised. Funding Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Cordis, Biosensors, The Medicines Company, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Volcano, and Accumetrics
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in patients who are inoperable or at high risk for surgery. However, the ...intermediate- to long-term mortality is high, emphasizing the importance of patient selection. We, therefore, sought to evaluate the prognostic value of frailty in older recipients of TAVR, hypothesizing that frail patients would experience a higher mortality rate and a higher likelihood of poor outcome 1 year after TAVR. This substudy of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves trial was conducted at 3 high-enrolling sites where frailty was assessed systematically before TAVR. In total, 244 patients received TAVR at the participating sites. Frailty was assessed using a composite of 4 markers (serum albumin, dominant handgrip strength, gait speed, and Katz activity of daily living survey), which were combined into a frailty score. The cohort was dichotomized at median frailty score. Outcomes measures were the time to death from any cause for >1 year of follow-up and poor outcome at 1 year. Poor outcome was defined as (1) death, (2) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score <60, or (3) decrease of ≥10 points in the KCCQ-OS score from baseline to 1 year. At 1 year, the Kaplan-Meier–estimated all-cause mortality rate was 32.7% in the frail group and 15.9% in the nonfrail group (log-rank p = 0.004). At 1 year, poor outcome occurred in 50.0% of the frail group and 31.5% of the nonfrail group (p = 0.02). In conclusion, frailty was associated with increased mortality and a higher rate of poor outcome 1 year after TAVR.
The optimal method of revascularization for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been considered the ...gold standard therapy, and recent randomized trials comparing CABG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) have reported conflicting outcomes. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis comparing CABG to PCI with DES for the treatment of LMCAD.
We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing PCI with DES vs. CABG in patients with LMCAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization. All analyses were by intention-to-treat. There were five eligible trials in which 4612 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the risk of all-cause mortality relative risk (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.32; P = 0.779 or cardiac death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79-1.34; P = 0.817). There were also no significant differences in the risk of stroke (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.35-1.50; P = 0.400) or MI (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.96-1.56; P = 0.110). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased risk of unplanned revascularization (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.49-2.02; P < 0.001).
The totality of randomized clinical trial evidence demonstrated similar long-term mortality after PCI with DES compared with CABG in patients with LMCAD. Nor were there significant differences in cardiac death, stroke, or MI between PCI and CABG. Unplanned revascularization procedures were less common after CABG compared with PCI. These findings may inform clinical decision-making between cardiologists, surgeons, and patients with LMCAD.
BACKGROUND:Measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR) with a pressure wire remains underutilized because of the invasiveness of guide wire placement or the need for a hyperemic stimulus. FFR derived ...from routine coronary angiography (FFRangio) eliminates both of these requirements and displays FFR values of the entire coronary tree. The FFRangio Accuracy versus Standard FFR (FAST-FFR) study is a prospective, multicenter, international trial with the primary goal of determining the accuracy of FFRangio.
METHODS:Coronary angiography was performed in a routine fashion in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. FFR was measured in vessels with coronary lesions of varying severity using a coronary pressure wire and hyperemic stimulus. Based on angiograms of the respective arteries acquired in ≥2 different projections, on-site operators blinded to FFR then calculated FFRangio using proprietary software. Coprimary end points were the sensitivity and specificity of the dichotomously scored FFRangio for predicting pressure wire–derived FFR using a cutoff value of 0.80. The study was powered to meet prespecified performance goals for sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS:Ten centers in the United States, Europe, and Israel enrolled a total of 301 subjects and 319 vessels meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria which were included in the final analysis. The mean FFR was 0.81 and 43% of vessels had an FFR≤0.80. The per-vessel sensitivity and specificity were 94% (95% CI, 88% to 97%) and 91% (86% to 95%), respectively, both of which exceeded the prespecified performance goals. The diagnostic accuracy of FFRangio was 92% overall and remained high when only considering FFR values between 0.75 to 0.85 (87%). FFRangio values correlated well with FFR measurements (r=0.80, P<0.001) and the Bland–Altman 95% confidence limits were between −0.14 and 0.12. The device success rate for FFRangio was 99%.
CONCLUSIONS:FFRangio measured from the coronary angiogram alone has a high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared with pressure wire–derived FFR. FFRangio has the promise to substantially increase physiological coronary lesion assessment in the catheterization laboratory, thereby potentially leading to improved patient outcomes.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URLhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique IdentifierNCT03226262.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can result in a hyperinflammatory state, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), myocardial injury, and thrombotic complications, among other ...sequelae. Statins, which are known to have anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic properties, have been studied in the setting of other viral infections, but their benefit has not been assessed in COVID-19. This is a retrospective analysis of patients admitted with COVID-19 from February 1
through May 12
, 2020 with study period ending on June 11
, 2020. Antecedent statin use was assessed using medication information available in the electronic medical record. We constructed a multivariable logistic regression model to predict the propensity of receiving statins, adjusting for baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and outpatient medications. The primary endpoint includes in-hospital mortality within 30 days. A total of 2626 patients were admitted during the study period, of whom 951 (36.2%) were antecedent statin users. Among 1296 patients (648 statin users, 648 non-statin users) identified with 1:1 propensity-score matching, statin use is significantly associated with lower odds of the primary endpoint in the propensity-matched cohort (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36-0.62, p < 0.001). We conclude that antecedent statin use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated with lower inpatient mortality.
PDF
