Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Understanding the prognostic impact of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) in cardiogenic shock (CS) is a key step toward rational diagnostic and treatment algorithms and improved outcomes. Using a large multicenter registry, we assessed (1) the association between hemodynamic markers of RVD and in-hospital mortality, (2) the predictive value of invasive hemodynamic assessment incorporating RV evaluation, and (3) the impact of RVD severity on survival in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:, P < .001), reflecting relatively preserved RV function. Paradoxically, multiple RVD parameters (PAPI, RVSWI) were associated with mortality in the HF but not the AMI cohort. RVD was more severe with advanced SCAI stage, although its prognostic value was progressively diluted in stages D and E. Multivariable modelling incorporating the RA/PCWP improved the predictive value of SCAI staging (area under the curve [AUC] 0.78 vs 0.73, P < .001), largely driven by patients with HF (AUC 0.82 vs 0.71, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:RVD is associated with poor outcomes in CS, with key differences across etiology and shock severity. Further studies are needed to assess the usefulness of RVD assessment in guiding therapy.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of empagliflozin, in addition to optimal medical treatment, on epicardial adipose tissue (EAT), interstitial myocardial fibrosis, and aortic stiffness in nondiabetic patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND:Several randomized clinical trials have established the benefits of the inhibitors of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 receptor (SGLT2-i) in HFrEF, independent of their hypoglycemic effects. The mechanisms of the benefits of SGLT2-i in HFrEF have not been well defined. METHODS:mapping (extracellular volume). Aortic stiffness was calculated by using pulsed wave velocity, and EAT was measured from the cine sequences. RESULTS:[95% CI: -2.72 to 20.99]; P < 0.05). Empagliflozin-treated patients reported a reduction in extracellular volume (-1.25% [±0.56 95% CI] vs 0.24% [±0.57 95% CI]; (P < 0.01)]; specifically, empagliflozin reduced both matrix volume (-7.24 mL [95% CI: -11.59 to -2.91] vs 0.70 mL [95% CI: -0.89 to 2.29]; P < 0.001) and cardiomyocyte volume (-11.08 mL [95% CI: -19.62 to -2.55] vs 0.80 mL [95% CI: -1.96 to 3.55]; P < 0.05). Pulsed wave velocity was also significantly reduced in the empagliflozin group (-0.58 cm/s [95% CI: -0.92 to -0.25] vs 0.60 cm/s [95% CI: 0.14 to 1.06]; P < 0.01). Using proteomics, empagliflozin was associated with a significant reduction in inflammatory biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS:Empagliflozin significantly improved adiposity, interstitial myocardial fibrosis, aortic stiffness, and inflammatory markers in nondiabetic patients with HFrEF. These results shed new light on the mechanisms of action of the benefits of SGLT2-i. (Are the "Cardiac Benefits" of Empagliflozin Independent of Its Hypoglycemic Activity [ATRU-4] [EMPA-TROPISM]; NCT03485222).

Women are under-represented as leaders of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials, representing 1 in 10 lead authors of cardiovascular trials published in high-impact journals. Although the proportion of cardiovascular specialists who are women has increased in recent years, the proportion of cardiovascular clinical trialists who are women has not. This gap, underpinned by systemic sexism, has not been adequately addressed. The benefits of diverse randomized controlled trial leadership extend to patients and professionals. In this position statement, we present strategies adopted by some organizations to end gender inequality in research leadership. We offer an actionable roadmap for early-career researchers, scientists, academic institutions, professional societies, trial sponsors, and journals to follow, with the goal of harnessing the strength of women and under-represented groups as research leaders and facilitating a just culture in the cardiovascular clinical trial enterprise.

OBJECTIVE:The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health crisis, with over 33 million cases and 999 000 deaths worldwide. Data are needed regarding the clinical course of hospitalised patients, particularly in the USA. We aimed to compare clinical characteristic of patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital mortality with those who were discharged alive. DESIGN:Demographic, clinical and outcomes data for patients admitted to five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 between 27 February and 2 April 2020 were identified through institutional electronic health records. We performed a retrospective comparative analysis of patients who had in-hospital mortality or were discharged alive. SETTING:All patients were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System, a large quaternary care urban hospital system. PARTICIPANTS:Participants over the age of 18 years were included. PRIMARY OUTCOMES:We investigated in-hospital mortality during the study period. RESULTS:A total of 2199 patients with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period. As of 2 April, 1121 (51%) patients remained hospitalised, and 1078 (49%) completed their hospital course. Of the latter, the overall mortality was 29%, and 36% required intensive care. The median age was 65 years overall and 75 years in those who died. Pre-existing conditions were present in 65% of those who died and 46% of those discharged. In those who died, the admission median lymphocyte percentage was 11.7%, D-dimer was 2.4 μg/mL, C reactive protein was 162 mg/L and procalcitonin was 0.44 ng/mL. In those discharged, the admission median lymphocyte percentage was 16.6%, D-dimer was 0.93 μg/mL, C reactive protein was 79 mg/L and procalcitonin was 0.09 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS:In our cohort of hospitalised patients, requirement of intensive care and mortality were high. Patients who died typically had more pre-existing conditions and greater perturbations in inflammatory markers as compared with those who were discharged.

BACKGROUND:COVID-19 has infected millions of people worldwide and is responsible for several hundred thousand fatalities. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated thoughtful resource allocation and early identification of high-risk patients. However, effective methods to meet these needs are lacking. OBJECTIVE:The aims of this study were to analyze the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City; to develop machine learning models for making predictions about the hospital course of the patients over clinically meaningful time horizons based on patient characteristics at admission; and to assess the performance of these models at multiple hospitals and time points. METHODS:We used Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and baseline comparator models to predict in-hospital mortality and critical events at time windows of 3, 5, 7, and 10 days from admission. Our study population included harmonized EHR data from five hospitals in New York City for 4098 COVID-19-positive patients admitted from March 15 to May 22, 2020. The models were first trained on patients from a single hospital (n=1514) before or on May 1, externally validated on patients from four other hospitals (n=2201) before or on May 1, and prospectively validated on all patients after May 1 (n=383). Finally, we established model interpretability to identify and rank variables that drive model predictions. RESULTS:Upon cross-validation, the XGBoost classifier outperformed baseline models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for mortality of 0.89 at 3 days, 0.85 at 5 and 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days. XGBoost also performed well for critical event prediction, with an AUC-ROC of 0.80 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. In external validation, XGBoost achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.88 at 3 days, 0.86 at 5 days, 0.86 at 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days for mortality prediction. Similarly, the unimputed XGBoost model achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.78 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. Trends in performance on prospective validation sets were similar. At 7 days, acute kidney injury on admission, elevated LDH, tachypnea, and hyperglycemia were the strongest drivers of critical event prediction, while higher age, anion gap, and C-reactive protein were the strongest drivers of mortality prediction. CONCLUSIONS:We externally and prospectively trained and validated machine learning models for mortality and critical events for patients with COVID-19 at different time horizons. These models identified at-risk patients and uncovered underlying relationships that predicted outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Thromboembolic disease is common in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). There is limited evidence on association of in-hospital anticoagulation (AC) with outcomes and postmortem findings. OBJECTIVE:To examine association of AC with in-hospital outcomes and describe thromboembolic findings on autopsies. METHODS:A retrospective analysis examining association of AC with mortality, intubation and major bleeding. We also conducted sub-analyses on association of therapeutic vs prophylactic AC initiated ≤48 hours from admission. We describe thromboembolic disease contextualized by pre-mortem AC among consecutive autopsies. RESULTS:Among 4,389 patients, median age was 65 years with 44% female. Compared to no AC (n=1530, 34.9%), therapeutic (n=900, 20.5%) and prophylactic AC (n=1959, 44.6%) were associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=0.53; 95%CI: 0.45-0.62, and aHR=0.50; 95%CI: 0.45-0.57, respectively), and intubation (aHR 0.69; 95%CI: 0.51-0.94, and aHR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58-0.89, respectively). When initiated ≤48 hours from admission, there was no statistically significant difference between therapeutic (n=766) vs. prophylactic AC (n=1860) (aHR 0.86, 95%CI: 0.73-1.02; p=0.08). Overall, 89 patients (2%) had major bleeding adjudicated by clinician review, with 27/900 (3.0%) on therapeutic, 33/1959 (1.7%) on prophylactic, and 29/1,530 (1.9%) on no AC. Of 26 autopsies, 11 (42%) had thromboembolic disease not clinically suspected and 3/11 (27%) were on therapeutic AC. CONCLUSIONS:AC was associated with lower mortality and intubation among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Compared to prophylactic AC, therapeutic AC was associated with lower mortality, though not statistically significant. Autopsies revealed frequent thromboembolic disease. These data may inform trials to determine optimal AC regimens.

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736).

BACKGROUND:Orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) recipients may be particularly vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OHT during the pandemic presents unique challenges in terms of feasibility and safety. METHODS:Chart review was performed for consecutive OHT recipients with COVID-19 and waitlisted patients who underwent OHT from March 1, 2020 to May 15, 2020. RESULTS:Of the approximately 400 OHT recipients followed at our institution, 22 acquired COVID-19. Clinical characteristics included median age 59 (range, 49-71) years, 14 (63.6%) were male, and median time from OHT to infection was 4.6 (2.5-20.6) years. Symptoms included fever (68.2%), gastrointestinal complaints (55%), and cough (46%). COVID-19 was severe or critical in 5 (23%). All patients had elevated inflammatory biomarkers. Immunosuppression was modified in 85% of patients. Most (n = 16, 86.4%) were hospitalized, 18% required intubation, and 14% required vasopressor support. Five patients (23%) expired. None of the patients requiring intubation survived. Five patients underwent OHT during the pandemic. They were all males, ranging from 30 to 59 years of age. Two were transplanted at United Network of Organ Sharing Status 1 or 2, 1 at Status 3, and 2 at Status 4. All were successfully discharged and are alive without allograft dysfunction or rejection. One contracted mild COVID-19 after the index hospitalization. CONCLUSION:OHT recipients with COVID-19 appear to have outcomes similar to the general population hospitalized with COVID-19. OHT during the pandemic is feasible when appropriate precautions are taken. Further study is needed to guide immunosuppression management in OHT recipients affected by COVID-19.