Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:High awareness that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death (LCOD) among women is critical to prevention. This study evaluated longitudinal trends in this awareness among women. METHODS AND RESULTS:Online surveys of US women (≥25 years of age) were conducted in January 2009 and January 2019. Data were weighted to the US population distribution of sociodemographic characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate knowledge of the LCOD. In 2009, awareness of heart disease as the LCOD was 65%, decreasing to 44% in 2019. In 2019, awareness was greater with older age and increasing education and lower among non-White women and women with hypertension. The 10-year awareness decline was observed in all races/ethnicities and ages except women ≥65 years of age. The greatest declines were among Hispanic women (odds ratio of awareness comparing 2019 to 2009, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07-0.28]), non-Hispanic Black women (odds ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.19-0.49]), and 25- to 34-year-olds (odds ratio, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.10-0.34]). In 2019, women were more likely than in 2009 to incorrectly identify breast cancer as the LCOD (odds ratio, 2.59 [95% CI, 1.86-3.67]), an association that was greater in younger women. Awareness of heart attack symptoms also declined. CONCLUSIONS:Awareness that heart disease is the LCOD among women declined from 2009 to 2019, particularly among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women and in younger women (in whom primordial/primary prevention may be most effective). An urgent redoubling of efforts by organizations interested in women's health is required to reverse these trends.

Background: Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) occurs in 6-15% of MI and disproportionately affects women. Scientific statements recommend multi-modality imaging in MINOCA to define the underlying cause. We performed coronary optical coherence tomography (OCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) to assess mechanisms of MINOCA. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, international, observational study, we enrolled women with a clinical diagnosis of MI. If invasive coronary angiography revealed <50% stenosis in all major arteries, multi-vessel OCT was performed, followed by CMR (cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, and T2-weighted imaging and/or T1 mapping). Angiography, OCT, and CMR were evaluated at blinded, independent core laboratories. Culprit lesions identified by OCT were classified as definite or possible. The CMR core laboratory identified ischemia-related and non-ischemic myocardial injury. Imaging results were combined to determine the mechanism of MINOCA, when possible. Results: Among 301 women enrolled at 16 sites, 170 were diagnosed with MINOCA, of whom 145 had adequate OCT image quality for analysis; 116 of these underwent CMR. A definite or possible culprit lesion was identified by OCT in 46.2% (67/145) of participants, most commonly plaque rupture, intra-plaque cavity or layered plaque. CMR was abnormal in 74.1% (86/116) of participants. An ischemic pattern of CMR abnormalities (infarction or myocardial edema in a coronary territory) was present in 53.4% of participants undergoing CMR (62/116). A non-ischemic pattern of CMR abnormalities (myocarditis, takotsubo syndrome or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy) was present in 20.7% (24/116). A cause of MINOCA was identified in 84.5% of the women with multi-modality imaging (98/116), higher than with OCT alone (p<0.001) or CMR alone (p=0.001). An ischemic etiology was identified in 63.8% of women with MINOCA (74/116), a non-ischemic etiology was identified in 20.7% (24/116), and no mechanism was identified in 15.5% (18/116). Conclusions: Multi-modality imaging with coronary OCT and CMR identified potential mechanisms in 84.5% of women with a diagnosis of MINOCA, three-quarters of which were ischemic and one-quarter of which were non-ischemic, alternate diagnoses to MI. Identification of the etiology of MINOCA is feasible and has the potential to guide medical therapy for secondary prevention. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT02905357.

The Go Red for Women movement was initiated by the American Heart Association (AHA) in the early 2000s to raise awareness concerning cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in women. In 2016, the AHA funded 5 research centers across the United States to advance our knowledge of the risks and presentation of CVD that are specific to women. This report highlights the findings of the centers, showing how insufficient sleep, sedentariness, and pregnancy-related complications may increase CVD risk in women, as well as presentation and factors associated with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in women. These projects were augmented by collaborative ancillary studies assessing the relationships between various lifestyle behaviors, including nightly fasting duration, mindfulness, and behavioral and anthropometric risk factors and CVD risk, as well as metabolomic profiling of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in women. The Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network enhanced the evidence base related to heart disease in women, promoting awareness of the female-specific factors that influence CVD.

BACKGROUND:Optimal medical therapy after myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA; <50% stenosis) is uncertain. We evaluated variability in discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors / angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) and beta-blockers (BB) to MINOCA patients between hospitals to assess physician equipoise about secondary prevention. METHODS:Patients with MINOCA between 2007-2014 were identified in the NCDR Chest Pain-MI Registry. Those with prior revascularization or missing demographic, angiographic, or medication data were excluded. Analysis was limited to high-volume hospitals with ≥20 MINOCA total discharges. Discharge prescriptions for ACEI/ARB and BB after MINOCA were analyzed for each hospital. Clinical data on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and diabetes mellitus status were extracted to identify other indications for ACEI/ARB or BB. RESULTS:Clinical data were available for 17,849 MINOCA patients, of whom 8,752 (49%) had LVEF <40%, GFR ≤60 mL/min, and/or diabetes. 5,913 patients without one of these indications for ACEI/ARB or BB were discharged from 156 high-volume hospitals. At discharge, ACEI/ARB was prescribed to between 16.0% and 88.8% of MINOCA patients (median 45.6%, IQR 38.0%-56.5%) and BB to between 28.0% and 97.5% (median 74.1%, IQR 64.7%-80.0%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is marked variability between hospitals in the proportions of patients receiving ACEI/ARB and BB after hospitalization for MINOCA, suggesting clinical equipoise about the routine use of these agents. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to establish the benefit of ACEI/ARB and BB to improve outcomes after MINOCA.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Black and Hispanic populations have higher rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization and mortality than White populations but lower in-hospital case-fatality rates. The extent to which neighborhood characteristics and comorbidity explain these disparities is unclear. Outcomes in Asian American populations have not been explored. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare COVID-19 outcomes based on race and ethnicity and assess the association of any disparities with comorbidity and neighborhood characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective cohort study was conducted within the New York University Langone Health system, which includes over 260 outpatient practices and 4 acute care hospitals. All patients within the system's integrated health record who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 between March 1, 2020, and April 8, 2020, were identified and followed up through May 13, 2020. Data were analyzed in June 2020. Among 11 547 patients tested, outcomes were compared by race and ethnicity and examined against differences by age, sex, body mass index, comorbidity, insurance type, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:Race and ethnicity categorized using self-reported electronic health record data (ie, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian, and multiracial/other patients). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The likelihood of receiving a positive test, hospitalization, and critical illness (defined as a composite of care in the intensive care unit, use of mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice, or death). Results/UNASSIGNED:Among 9722 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.7 [17.5] years; 58.8% women), 4843 (49.8%) were positive for COVID-19; 2623 (54.2%) of those were admitted for hospitalization (1047 [39.9%] White, 375 [14.3%] Black, 715 [27.3%] Hispanic, 180 [6.9%] Asian, 207 [7.9%] multiracial/other). In fully adjusted models, Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7) were more likely than White patients to test positive. Among those who tested positive, odds of hospitalization were similar among White, Hispanic, and Black patients, but higher among Asian (OR, 1.6, 95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and multiracial patients (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9) compared with White patients. Among those hospitalized, Black patients were less likely than White patients to have severe illness (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8) and to die or be discharged to hospice (hazard ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this cohort study of patients in a large health system in New York City, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely, and Asian patients less likely, than White patients to test positive; once hospitalized, Black patients were less likely than White patients to have critical illness or die after adjustment for comorbidity and neighborhood characteristics. This supports the assertion that existing structural determinants pervasive in Black and Hispanic communities may explain the disproportionately higher out-of-hospital deaths due to COVID-19 infections in these populations.