Faculty Bibliography

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Traditional time-to-event analyses rate events occurring early as more important than later events, even if later events are more severe, eg, death. Days alive out of hospital (DAOH) adds a patient-focused perspective beyond trial end points. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare DAOH between invasive management and conservative management, including invasive protocol-assigned stays, in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:In this prespecified analysis of the ISCHEMIA trial, DAOH was compared between 5179 patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia randomized to invasive management or conservative management. Participants were recruited from 320 sites in 37 countries. Stays included overnight stays in hospital or extended care facility (skilled nursing facility, rehabilitation, or nursing home). DAOH was separately analyzed excluding invasive protocol-assigned procedures. Data were collected from July 2012 to June 2019, and data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Invasive management with angiography and revascularization if feasible or conservative management, with both groups receiving optimal medical therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The hypothesis was formulated before data lock in July 2020. The primary end point was mean DAOH per patient between randomization and 4 years. Initial stays for invasive protocol-assigned procedures were prespecified to be excluded. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 5179 included patients, 1168 (22.6%) were female, and the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (58-70) years. The average DAOH was higher in the conservative management group compared with the invasive management group at 1 month (30.8 vs 28.4 days; P < .001), 1 year (362.2 vs 355.9 days; P < .001), and 2 years (718.4 vs 712.1 days; P = .001). At 4 years, the 2 groups' DAOH were not significantly different (1415.0 vs 1412.2 days; P = .65). In the invasive management group, 2434 of 4002 stays (60.8%) were for protocol-assigned procedures. There were no clear differences at any time point in DAOH when protocol-assigned procedures were excluded from the invasive management group. There were more hospital and extended care stays in the invasive management vs conservative management group during follow-up (4002 vs 1897; P < .001). Excluding protocol-assigned procedures, there were fewer stays in the invasive vs conservative group (1568 vs 1897; P = .001). Cardiovascular stays following the initial assigned procedures were lower in the invasive management group (685 of 4002 [17.1%] vs 1095 of 1897 [57.8%]; P < .001) due to decreased spontaneous myocardial infarction stays (65 [1.6%] vs 123 [6.5%]; P < .001) and unstable angina stays (119 [3.0%] vs 216 [11.4%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:DAOH was higher for patients in the conservative management group in the first 2 years but not different at 4 years. DAOH was decreased early in the invasive management group due to protocol-assigned procedures. Hospital stays for myocardial infarction and unstable angina during follow-up were lower in the invasive management group. DAOH provides a patient-focused metric that can be used by clinicians and patients in shared decision-making for management of stable coronary artery disease. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522.

BACKGROUND:Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS:In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS:The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS:In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

BACKGROUND:Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS:In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS:The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS:In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

BACKGROUND:Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and coronary artery disease frequently undergo preemptive revascularization before kidney transplant listing. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In this post-hoc analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD, we compared outcomes of patients not listed versus those listed according to management strategy. METHODS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD (n=777), 194 patients (25%) with chronic coronary syndromes and at least moderate ischemia were listed for transplant. The primary (all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) and secondary (death, nonfatal MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke) outcomes were analyzed using Cox multivariable modeling. Heterogeneity of randomized treatment effect between listed versus not listed groups was assessed. RESULTS:Compared with those not listed, listed patients were younger (60 versus 65 years), less likely of Asian race (15% versus 29%), more likely on dialysis (83% versus 44%), had fewer anginal symptoms, and more likely to have coronary angiography and coronary revascularization irrespective of treatment assignment. Among patients assigned to an invasive strategy versus conservative strategy, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the primary outcome were 0.91 (0.54-1.54) and 1.03 (0.78-1.37) for those listed and not listed, respectively (pinteraction=0.68). Adjusted HR for secondary outcomes were 0.89 (0.55-1.46) in listed and 1.17 (0.89-1.53) in those not listed (pinteraction=0.35). CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, an invasive strategy in kidney transplant candidates did not improve outcomes compared with conservative management. These data do not support routine coronary angiography or revascularization in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes listed for transplant.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to examine the concordance of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) assessment of coronary anatomy and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference standard in patients enrolled in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA). BACKGROUND:Performance of CCTA compared with ICA has not been assessed in patients with very high burdens of stress-induced ischemia and a high likelihood of anatomically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). A blinded CCTA was performed after enrollment to exclude patients with left main (LM) disease or no obstructive CAD before randomization to an initial conservative or invasive strategy, the latter guided by ICA and optimal revascularization. METHODS:Rates of concordance were calculated on a per-patient basis in patients randomized to the invasive strategy. Anatomic significance was defined as ≥50% diameter stenosis (DS) for both modalities. Sensitivity analyses using a threshold of ≥70% DS for CCTA or considering only CCTA images of good-to-excellent quality were performed. RESULTS:In 1,728 patients identified by CCTA as having no LM disease ≥50% and at least single-vessel CAD, ICA confirmed 97.1% without LM disease ≥50%, 92.2% with at least single-vessel CAD and no LM disease ≥50%, and only 4.9% without anatomically significant CAD. Results using a ≥70% DS threshold or only CCTA of good-to-excellent quality showed similar overall performance. CONCLUSIONS:CCTA before randomization in ISCHEMIA demonstrated high concordance with subsequent ICA for identification of patients with angiographically significant disease without LM disease.

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.

BACKGROUND:A systemic inflammatory response is observed in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Elevated serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of systemic inflammation, are associated with severe disease in bacterial or viral infections. We aimed to explore associations between CRP concentration at initial hospital presentation and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:Consecutive adults aged ≥18 years with COVID-19 admitted to a large New York healthcare system between 1 March and 8 April 2020 were identified. Patients with measurement of CRP were included. Venous thrombo-embolism (VTE), acute kidney injury (AKI), critical illness, and in-hospital mortality were determined for all patients. Among 2782 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 2601 (93.5%) had a CRP measurement [median 108 mg/L, interquartile range (IQR) 53-169]. CRP concentrations above the median value were associated with VTE [8.3% vs. 3.4%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61-3.36], AKI (43.0% vs. 28.4%; aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.76-2.52), critical illness (47.6% vs. 25.9%; aOR 2.83, 95% CI 2.37-3.37), and mortality (32.2% vs. 17.8%; aOR 2.59, 95% CI 2.11-3.18), compared with CRP below the median. A dose response was observed between CRP concentration and adverse outcomes. While the associations between CRP and adverse outcomes were consistent among patients with low and high D-dimer levels, patients with high D-dimer and high CRP have the greatest risk of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Systemic inflammation, as measured by CRP, is strongly associated with VTE, AKI, critical illness, and mortality in COVID-19. CRP-based approaches to risk stratification and treatment should be tested.

Guideline-based medical therapy is the foundation of treatment for individuals with coronary artery disease. However, revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting may be beneficial in patients with acute coronary syndromes, refractory symptoms, or in other specific scenarios (eg, left main disease and heart failure). While the goal of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting is to achieve complete revascularization, anatomical and ischemic definitions of complete revascularization and their methodology for assessment remain highly variable. Such lack of consensus invariably contributes to the absence of standardized approaches for invasive treatment of coronary artery disease. Herein, we propose a novel, comprehensive, yet pragmatic algorithm with both anatomical and ischemic parameters that aims to provide a systematic method to assess complete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in both clinical practice and clinical trials.