Faculty Bibliography

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard to evaluate clinical interventions, producing the highest level of evidence while minimizing potential bias. Inadequate recruitment is a commonly encountered problem that undermines the completion and generalizability of RCTs-and is even more challenging when enrolling amidst a pandemic. Here, we reflect on our experiences with virtual recruitment of non-hospitalized patients in the United States for ColCorona, an international, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drug trial. Recruitment challenges during a pandemic include constraints created by shelter-in-place policies and targeting enrollment according to national and local fluctuations in infection rate. Presenting a study to potential participants who are sick with COVID-19 and may be frightened, overwhelmed, or mistrusting of clinical research remains a challenge. Strategies previously reported to improve recruitment include transparency, patient and site education, financial incentives, and person-to-person outreach. Active measures taken during ColCorona to optimize United States recruitment involved rapid expansion of sites, adjustment of recruitment scripts, assessing telephone calls versus text messages for initial contact with participants, institutional review board-approved financial compensation, creating an infrastructure to systematically identify potentially eligible patients, partnering with testing sites, appealing to both self-interest and altruism, and large-scale media efforts with varying degrees of success.

BACKGROUND:Perioperative myocardial infarction is frequently attributed to type 2 myocardial infarction, a mismatch in myocardial oxygen supply-demand without unstable coronary artery disease. Our aim was to identify characteristics, management, and outcomes of perioperative type 1 versus type 2 myocardial infarction among surgical inpatients. METHODS:Adults age ≥45 years hospitalized for noncardiac surgery were identified in the United States. Perioperative myocardial infarction were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes. Clinical characteristics, invasive myocardial infarction management, mortality, and readmissions were assessed by myocardial infarction subtype. RESULTS:Among 4,755,382 surgical hospitalizations, we identified 38,975 perioperative myocardial infarctions (0.82%), with type 2 infarction in 42%. Patients with type 2 myocardial infarction were older, more likely to be women, and less likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities compared with type 1 myocardial infarction. Fewer patients with type 2 myocardial infarction underwent invasive management than type 1 myocardial infarction (6.7% vs 28.8%, P < .001). Type 2 myocardial infarction mortality was lower than type 1 myocardial infarction mortality (12.1% vs 17.4%, P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.59). Invasive management of perioperative myocardial infarction was associated with lower mortality in type 1 (aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.49-0.74) but not type 2 (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 0.77-1.85) myocardial infarction. Among survivors, there was no difference in 90-day hospital readmission between type 2 and type 1 perioperative myocardial infarction (36.5% vs 36.1%, P = .72). CONCLUSIONS:Type 2 myocardial infarctions account for approximately 40% of perioperative myocardial infarctions. Patients with type 2 perioperative myocardial infarction are less likely to undergo invasive management and have lower mortality compared with those with type 1 perioperative myocardial infarction.

Inflammation plays a prominent role in the development of atherosclerosis and other cardiovascular diseases, and anti-inflammatory agents may improve cardiovascular outcomes. For years, colchicine has been used as a safe and well-tolerated agent in diseases such as gout and familial Mediterranean fever. The widely available therapeutic has several anti-inflammatory effects, however, that have proven effective in a broad spectrum of cardiovascular diseases as well. It is considered standard-of-care therapy for pericarditis, and several clinical trials have evaluated its role in postoperative and postablation atrial fibrillation, postpericardiotomy syndrome, coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary interventions, and cerebrovascular disease. We aim to summarize colchicine's pharmacodynamics and the mechanism behind its anti-inflammatory effect, outline thus far accumulated evidence on treatment with colchicine in cardiovascular disease, and present ongoing randomized clinical trials. We also emphasize real-world clinical implications that should be considered on the basis of the merits and limitations of completed trials. Altogether, colchicine's simplicity, low cost, and effectiveness may provide an important addition to other standard cardiovascular therapies. Ongoing studies will address complementary questions pertaining to the use of low-dose colchicine for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Over the last decade, evidence has demonstrated that long-term, low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg daily) is effective for preventing gout flare and cardiovascular (CV) events in a wide range of patients. Given the potentially expanding use of colchicine in CV disease, we here review and update the biologic effects and safety of colchicine based on recent data gathered from bench and pharmacodynamic studies, clinical reports, controlled clinical trials, and meta-analyses, integrated with important studies over the last 50 years, to offer a consensus perspective by experts from multiple specialties familiar with colchicine's long-term use. We conclude that the clinical benefits of colchicine in gout and CV disease achieved at low dose do not sustain serum levels above the upper limit of safety when used in patients without advanced renal or liver disease or when used concomitantly with most medications. Further, data accrued over the last 50 years strongly suggest that the biologic effects of long-term colchicine do not increase the risk of cancer, sepsis, cytopenia, or myotoxicity.

BACKGROUND:The initial wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in an influx of patients with acute viral illness and profound changes in healthcare delivery in New York City. The impact of this pandemic on the presentation and invasive management of acute myocardial infarction (MI) is not well described. METHODS:This single-center retrospective study compared patients with MI who underwent invasive coronary angiography at New York University from March-April 2020, during the peak of the first wave of the pandemic, with those presenting in March-April 2019. RESULTS:Only 35 patients with MI underwent angiography during the study period in 2020 vs 109 patients in 2019. No differences in comorbidities or baseline medications were identified. The proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) was higher in 2020 than in 2019 (48.6% vs 24.8%, respectively; P=.01). Median peak troponin concentration was higher (14.5 ng/mL vs 2.9 ng/mL; P<.01) and left ventricular ejection fraction was lower (43.34% vs 51.1%; P=.02) during the pandemic. Among patients with non-STEMI, time from symptom onset to presentation was delayed in 2020 compared with 2019 (median, 24 hours vs 10 hours; P=.04). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was a dramatic decrease in the number of patients with MI undergoing coronary angiography during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of those who presented, patients tended to seek care later after symptom onset and had excess myocardial injury. These data indicate a need for improved patient education to ensure timely cardiovascular care during public health emergencies.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

BACKGROUND:Women have a higher rate of adverse events after mitral valve surgery. We sought to evaluate whether outcomes after transcatheter edge-to-edge repair intervention by sex have similar trends to mitral valve surgery. METHODS:The primary outcome was 1-year major adverse events defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and any bleeding in the overall study cohort. Patients who underwent transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for mitral regurgitation with the MitraClip system in the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry were evaluated. Linked administrative claims from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used to evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes. Associations between sex and outcomes were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital outcomes and Cox model for 1-year outcomes. RESULTS:<0.001) and had a lower adjusted odds ratio of device success (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.90]), driven by lower odds of residual mitral gradient <5 mm Hg (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54 [CI, 0.46-0.63]) when compared with males. At 1-year follow-up, the primary outcome did not differ by sex. Female sex was associated with lower adjusted 1-year risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80 [CI, 0.68-0.94]), but the adjusted 1-year risk of stroke and any bleeding did not differ by sex. CONCLUSIONS:No difference in composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, and any bleeding was observed between females and males. Adjusted 1-year all-cause mortality was lower in females compared with males.