Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The optimal duration of hemostatic compression post transradial access is controversial. Longer duration increases the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) while shorter duration increases the risk of access site bleeding or hematoma. As such, a target of 2 hours is typically used. Whether a shorter or longer duration is better is not known. METHODS:A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials of different duration (<90 minutes, 90 minutes, 2 hours, and 2-4 hours) of hemostasis banding. The efficacy outcome was RAO, primary safety outcome was access site hematoma, and secondary safety outcome was access site rebleeding. Primary analysis compared the effect of various duration in reference to the 2 hours duration using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. RESULTS:Of the 10 randomized clinical trials included with 4911 patients, when compared to the 2-hour reference duration, there was a significantly higher risk of access site hematoma with 90 minutes (odds ratio, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.40-4.06]) and <90 minutes (odds ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 1.79-7.29]) but not with the 2 to 4 hours duration. When compared with the 2-hour reference, there was no significant difference in access site rebleeding or RAO with shorter or longer duration but the point estimates favored longer duration for access site rebleeding and shorter duration for RAO. Duration of <90 minutes and 90 minutes ranked 1 and duration of 2 hours ranked 2 as the most efficacious duration whereas duration of 2 hours ranked 1 and 2 to 4 hours ranked 2 as the safest duration. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing transradial access for coronary angiography or intervention, a hemostasis duration of 2 hours offers the best balance for efficacy (prevention of RAO) and safety (prevention of access site hematoma/rebleeding).

BACKGROUND:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, 777 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic coronary disease had similar all-cause mortality with either an initial invasive or conservative strategy (27.2% vs 27.8%, respectively). OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This prespecified secondary analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) was conducted to determine whether an initial invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy decreased the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) vs non-CV causes of death. METHODS:Three-year cumulative incidences were calculated for the adjudicated cause of death. Overall and cause-specific death by treatment strategy were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. The association between cause of death, risk factors, and treatment strategy were identified. RESULTS:A total of 192 of the 777 participants died during follow-up, including 94 (12.1%) of a CV cause, 59 (7.6%) of a non-CV cause, and 39 (5.0%) of an undetermined cause. The 3-year cumulative rates of CV death were similar between the invasive and conservative strategies (14.6% vs 12.6%, respectively; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.75-1.70). Non-CV death rates were also similar between the invasive and conservative arms (8.4% and 8.2%, respectively; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.75-2.09). Sudden cardiac death (46.8% of CV deaths) and infection (54.2% of non-CV deaths) were the most common cause-specific deaths and did not vary by treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, CV death was more common than non-CV or undetermined death during the 3-year follow-up. The randomized treatment assignment did not affect the cause-specific incidences of death in participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).

BACKGROUND:A substantial proportion of patients with HF and kidney disease have poorly controlled blood pressures. This study aimed to evaluate patterns of blood pressure after initiation of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) /angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) across the spectrum of kidney function. METHODS:Between 2016 and 2020, we evaluated 26,091 patients admitted to a Veterans Affairs hospital for an acute heart failure exacerbation with reduced ejection fraction. We assessed patterns of systolic and diastolic blood pressure among those started on ARNI or ACEI/ARB over 6 months, overall and across estimated glomerular filtration rate. To account for differential treatment factors, we applied 1:1 propensity score matching using 15 known baseline covariates. RESULTS:>0.10 for both). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The use of ARNI was associated with significant BP reduction as compared with the ACEI/ARB group overall and across the eGFR spectrum, including in advanced CKD.

BACKGROUND:Ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) is common clinically, particularly among women, but its prevalence among patients with at least moderate ischemia and the relationship between ischemia severity and non-obstructive atherosclerosis severity are unknown. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The authors investigated predictors of INOCA in enrolled, nonrandomized participants in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), sex differences, and the relationship between ischemia and atherosclerosis in patients with INOCA. METHODS:Core laboratories independently reviewed screening noninvasive stress test results (nuclear imaging, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance testing), and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), blinded to results of the screening test. INOCA was defined as all stenoses <50% on CCTA in a patient with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. INOCA patients, who were excluded from randomization, were compared with randomized participants with ≥50% stenosis in ≥1 vessel and moderate or severe ischemia. RESULTS:Among 3,612 participants with core laboratory-confirmed moderate or severe ischemia and interpretable CCTA, 476 (13%) had INOCA. Patients with INOCA were younger, were predominantly female, and had fewer atherosclerosis risk factors. For each stress testing modality, the extent of ischemia tended to be less among patients with INOCA, particularly with nuclear imaging. There was no significant relationship between severity of ischemia and extent or severity of nonobstructive atherosclerosis on CCTA. On multivariable analysis, women female sex was independently associated with INOCA (odds ratio: 4.2 [95% CI: 3.4-5.2]). CONCLUSIONS:Among participants enrolled in ISCHEMIA with core laboratory-confirmed moderate or severe ischemia, the prevalence of INOCA was 13%. Severity of ischemia was not associated with severity of nonobstructive atherosclerosis. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Cardiovascular risk has traditionally been defined by modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors, such as tobacco use, hyperlipidemia, and family history. However, chemicals and pollutants may also play a role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is widely distributed in the Earth's crust. Inorganic arsenic (iAs) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, with chronic high-dose exposure to iAs (> 100 µg/L) being linked to CVD; however, whether low-to-moderate dose exposures of iAs (< 100 µg/L) are associated with the development of CVD is unclear. Due to limitations of the existing literature, it is difficult to define a threshold for iAs toxicity. Studies demonstrate that the effect of iAs on CVD is far more complex with influences from several factors, including diet, genetics, metabolism, and traditional risk factors such as hypertension and smoking. In this article, we review the existing data of low-to-moderate dose iAs exposure and its effect on CVD, along with highlighting the potential mechanisms of action.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The evidence supporting the use of the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score for risk stratification is controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting that reported their outcomes stratified by SYNTAX score, focusing on between-strata comparisons. METHODS:A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases was performed. Incidence rate ratios were pooled with a random effect model. Between-group statistical heterogeneity according to accepted SYNTAX score tertiles was computed in the main analysis. Ratios of incidence rate ratios were computed to appraise between-strata effect, as sensitivity analysis. Primary and secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, respectively. Separate sub-analyses were performed for left main and multivessel disease. RESULTS:From 425 citations, 6 trials were eventually included (8269 patients [4134 percutaneous coronary interventions, 4135 coronary artery bypass graftings]; mean follow-up: 6.2 years [range: 3.8-10]). Overall, percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significant increase in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (incidence rate ratio, 1.39, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.51) and nonsignificant increase in all-cause mortality (incidence rate ratio, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.40). There was no significant statistical heterogeneity of treatment effect by SYNTAX score for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events or mortality (P = .40 and P = .34, respectively). Results were consistent also for patients with left main and multivessel disease (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events: P = .85 in left main, P = .78 in multivessel disease 0.78; mortality: P = .12 in left main; P = .34 in multivessel disease). Results of analysis based on ratios of incidence rate ratios were consistent with the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS:No significant association was found between SYNTAX score and the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. These findings have implications for clinical practice, future guidelines, and the design of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting trials.

OBJECTIVE:To compare rates of clopidogrel response among patients receiving medication produced by 2 different manufacturers after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS:This quality-improvement project included 515 adult patients receiving clopidogrel for ACS or ischemic heart disease and referred for coronary angiography/ percutaneous coronary intervention. The project was divided into 2 phases: (1) retrospective collection of baseline data (April 2019-October 2020); and (2) two 12-week, prospective phases in which all clopidogrel in the hospital was restricted to a single manufacturer at a time (November 2020-May 2021). The primary outcome was clopidogrel response measured by platelet function testing, defined as adenosine diphosphate (ADP) response <40% on light transmission aggregometry. RESULTS:Of 515 total patients included in both phases (mean age, 64.5 ± 11.4 years; 351 men [68.2%]; 450 with ACS [87.4%]), 52% were found to be clopidogrel responders based on results of platelet function testing. Among 135 patients in the prospective phase, there was a significantly lower proportion of patients who were clopidogrel responders in the Manufacturer 1 group compared with the Manufacturer 2 group (34.8% vs 55.1%, respectively; P=.03). After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, aspirin response, therapeutic hypothermia, left heart catheterization indication, clopidogrel loading dose, time between loading dose and lab measurement, and manufacturer, aspirin response (odds ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.97; P<.001) and manufacturer (odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-5.22; P=.02) were associated with clopidogrel response. CONCLUSIONS:In a large public hospital, we observed that pharmacodynamic response to clopidogrel varied by drug manufacturer. Further investigation and/or regulation is needed to minimize inter-manufacturer variability.