Faculty Bibliography

The increase of intravenous drug use has led to an increase in right-sided infective endocarditis and its complications including septic pulmonary embolism. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of tricuspid valve (TV) operations in patients with drug-use infective endocarditis (DU-IE) complicated by septic pulmonary emboli (PE). Hospitalizations for DU-IE complicated by septic PE were identified from the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2019. Outcomes of patients who underwent TV operations were compared with medical management. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest. An inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis was utilized to adjust for the differences between the cohorts. A total of 9,029 cases of DU-IE with septic PE were identified (mean age 33.6 years), of which 818 patients (9.1%) underwent TV operation. Surgery was associated with a higher rate of MACE (14.5% vs 10.8%, p <0.01), driven by a higher rate of cardiogenic shock (6.1% vs 1.2%, p <0.01) but a lower rate of mortality (2.7% vs 5.7%, p <0.01). Moreover, TV operation was associated with an increased need for permanent pacemakers, blood transfusions, and a higher risk of acute kidney injury. In the inverse probability treatment weighting analysis, TV operation was associated with an increased risk for MACE driven by a higher rate of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, but a lower rate of mortality when compared with medical therapy alone. In conclusion, TV operations in patients with DU-IE complicated by septic PE are associated with an increased risk for MACE but a decreased risk of mortality. Although surgical management may be beneficial in some patients, alternative options such as percutaneous debulking should be considered given the higher risk.

Aims/UNASSIGNED:We aimed to use optical coherence tomography (OCT) to identify differences in atherosclerotic culprit lesion morphology in women with myocardial infarction (MI) with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) compared with MI with obstructive coronary artery disease (MI-CAD). Methods and results/UNASSIGNED:Women with an OCT-determined atherosclerotic aetiology of non-ST segment elevation (NSTE)-MINOCA (angiographic diameter stenosis <50%) who were enrolled in the multicentre Women's Heart Attack Research Program (HARP) study were compared with a consecutive series of women with NSTE-MI-CAD who underwent OCT prior to coronary intervention at a single institution. Atherosclerotic pathologies identified by OCT included plaque rupture, plaque erosion, intraplaque haemorrhage (IPH, a region of low signal intensity with minimum attenuation adjacent to a lipidic plaque without fibrous cap disruption), layered plaque (superficial layer with clear demarcation from the underlying plaque indicating early thrombus healing), or eruptive calcified nodule.We analysed 58 women with NSTE-MINOCA and 52 women with NSTE-MI-CAD. Optical coherence tomography features of underlying vulnerable plaque (thin-cap fibroatheroma) were less common in MINOCA (3 vs. 35%) than in MI-CAD. Intraplaque haemorrhage (47 vs. 2%) and layered plaque (31 vs. 12%) were more common in MINOCA than MI-CAD, whereas plaque rupture (14 vs. 67%), plaque erosion (8 vs. 14%), and calcified nodule (0 vs. 6%) were less common in MINOCA. The angle of ruptured cavity was smaller and thrombus burden was lower in MINOCA. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:The prevalence of atherothrombotic culprit lesion subtype varied substantially between MINOCA and MI-CAD. A majority of culprit lesions in MINOCA had the appearance of IPH or layered plaque. Clinical Trial Registration Information/UNASSIGNED:

BACKGROUND:]). Our objective was to evaluate the relationship between achievement of cardiovascular guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) goals and clinical outcomes for CKD G5D versus CKD G4-5. METHODS:This was a subgroup analysis of ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) participants with CKD G4-5 or CKD G5D and moderate-to-severe myocardial ischemia on stress testing. Exposures included dialysis requirement at randomization and GDMT goal achievement during follow-up. The composite outcome was all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Individual GDMT goal (smoking cessation, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL, statin use, aspirin use) trajectory was modeled. Percentage point difference was estimated for each GDMT goal at 24 months between CKD G5D and CKD G4-5, and for association with key predictors. Probability of survival free from all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction by GDMT goal achieved was assessed for CKD G5D versus CKD G4-5. RESULTS:A total of 415 CKD G5D and 362 CKD G4-5 participants were randomized. Participants with CKD G5D were less likely to receive statin (-6.9% [95% CI, -10.3% to -3.7%]) and aspirin therapy (-3.0% [95% CI, -5.6% to -0.6%]), with no difference in other GDMT goal attainment. Cumulative exposure to GDMT achieved during follow-up was associated with reduction in all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.87-0.90]; per each GDMT goal attained over 60 days), irrespective of dialysis status. CONCLUSIONS:CKD G5D participants received statin or aspirin therapy less often. Cumulative exposure to GDMT goals achieved was associated with lower incidence of all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction in participants with advanced CKD and chronic coronary disease, regardless of dialysis status. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA and the ISCHEMIA-CKD trials found no statistical difference in the primary clinical endpoint between initial invasive management and initial conservative management of patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate to severe ischemia on stress testing without or with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). In ISCHEMIA, there was numerically lower cardiovascular mortality but higher non-cardiovascular mortality with no significant difference in all-cause death with an initial invasive strategy when compared with a conservative strategy. However, an invasive strategy increased peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) but decreased spontaneous MI with continued separation of curves over time, which potentially may lead to reduced risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Thus, the long-term effect of invasive management strategy on mortality remains unclear. In ISCHEMIA-CKD, the treatment and cause-specific mortality rates were similar during follow-up. METHODS:Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the ISCHEMIA-EXTEND observational study is the long-term follow-up of surviving participants (projected median of 10 years) with chronic coronary disease from the ISCHEMIA trial. In the ISCHEMIA trial, 5,179 participants with moderate or severe stress-induced ischemia were randomized to initial invasive management with angiography, revascularization when feasible, and guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), or initial conservative management with GDMT alone and angiography reserved for failure of medical therapy. ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND is the long-term follow-up of surviving participants (projected median of 9 years) from the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, a companion trial that included 777 patients with advanced CKD. Ascertainment of death will be conducted via direct participant contact, medical record review, and/or vital status registry search. The overarching objective of long-term follow-up is to assess whether there are between-group differences in long-term all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality, and increase precision around the treatment effect estimates for risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality. We will conduct Bayesian survival modeling to take advantage of rich inferences using the posterior distribution of the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS:The long-term effect of an initial invasive versus conservative strategy on all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality will be assessed. The findings of ISCHEMIA-EXTEND and ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND will inform patients, practitioners, practice guidelines, and health policy.

The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) found that there was no statistical difference in cardiovascular events with an initial invasive strategy as compared with an initial conservative strategy of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with moderate to severe ischemia on noninvasive testing. In this study, we describe the reasons that potentially eligible patients who were screened for participation in the ISCHEMIA trial did not advance to enrollment, the step prior to randomization. Of those who preliminarily met clinical inclusion criteria on screening logs submitted during the enrollment period, over half did not participate due to physician or patient refusal, a potentially modifiable barrier. This analysis highlights the importance of physician equipoise when advising patients about participation in randomized controlled trials.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized participants with chronic coronary disease (CCD) to guideline-directed medical therapy with or without angiography and revascularization. The study examined the association of nonadherence with health status outcomes. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The study sought to compare 12-month health status outcomes of adherent and nonadherent participants with CCD with an a priori hypothesis that nonadherent patients would have better health status if randomized to invasive management. METHODS:Self-reported medication-taking behavior was assessed at randomization with a modified 4-item Morisky-Green-Levine Adherence Scale, and participants were classified as adherent or nonadherent. Twelve-month health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7) summary score (SS), which ranges from 0 to 100 (higher score = better). The association of adherence with outcomes was evaluated using Bayesian proportional odds models, including an interaction by study arm (conservative vs invasive). RESULTS:Among 4,480 randomized participants, 1,245 (27.8%) were nonadherent at baseline. Nonadherent participants had worse baseline SAQ-7 SS in both conservative (72.9 ± 19.3 vs 75.6 ± 18.4) and invasive (71.0 ± 19.8 vs 74.2 ± 18.7) arms. In adjusted analyses, adherence was associated with higher 12-month SAQ-7 SS in both treatment groups (mean difference in SAQ-7 SS with conservative treatment = 1.6 [95% credible interval: 0.3-2.9] vs with invasive management = 1.9 [95% credible interval: 0.8-3.1]), with no interaction by treatment. CONCLUSIONS:More than 1 in 4 participants reported medication nonadherence, which was associated with worse health status in both conservative and invasive treatment strategies at baseline and 12 months. Strategies to improve medication adherence are needed to improve health status outcomes in CCD, regardless of treatment strategy. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

BACKGROUND:ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) reported an initial invasive treatment strategy did not reduce the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) compared with a conservative treatment strategy in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, stable coronary disease, and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. The cumulative frequency of different MI type after randomization and subsequent prognosis have not been reported. METHODS:MI classification was based on the Third Universal Definition for MI. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary MI definition used cTn (cardiac troponin); both definitions included elevated biomarker-only events with higher thresholds than nonprocedural MIs. The cumulative frequency of MI type according to treatment strategy was determined. The association of MI with subsequent all-cause death and new dialysis initiation was assessed by treating MI as a time-dependent covariate. RESULTS:The 3-year incidence of type 1 or 2 MI with the primary MI definition was 11.2% in invasive treatment strategy and 13.6% in conservative treatment strategy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.42-1.02]). Procedural MIs were more frequent in invasive treatment strategy and accounted for 9.8% and 28.3% of all MIs with the primary and secondary MI definitions, respectively. Patients had an increased risk of all-cause death after type 1 MI (adjusted HR, 4.35 [95% CI, 2.73-6.93]) and after procedural MI with the primary (adjusted HR, 2.75 [95% CI, 0.99-7.60]) and secondary MI definitions (adjusted HR, 2.91 [95% CI, 1.73-4.88]). Dialysis initiation was increased after a type 1 MI (HR, 6.45 [95% CI, 2.59-16.08]) compared with patients without an MI. CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, the invasive treatment strategy had higher rates of procedural MIs, particularly with the secondary MI definition, and lower rates of type 1 and 2 MIs. Procedural MIs, type 1 MIs, and type 2 MIs were associated with increased risk of subsequent death. Type 1 MI increased the risk of dialysis initiation. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

BACKGROUND:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of omega-3-fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular events have largely shown no benefit. However, there is debate about the benign nature of the placebo in these trials. We aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis of RCTs to compare the outcomes of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to various placebo oils. METHODS:MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through May, 2021 to identify RCTs investigating cardiovascular outcomes with omega-3-fatty acid formulations [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), decosahexanoic acid (DHA), or the combination] versus placebo or standard of care controls. RESULTS:Our analysis included 17 RCTs that enrolled a total of 141,009 patients randomized to EPA (n=13,655), EPA+DHA (n=56,908), mineral oil placebo (n=5,338), corn oil placebo (n =8,876), olive oil placebo (n=41,009), and controls (no placebo oil; n=15,223). Rates of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval, CI) =0.80 (0.65-0.98); p =0.033], myocardial infarction [HR (95% CI) =0.73 (0.55-0.97); p=0.029] and stroke [HR (95% CI) =0.74 (0.58-0.94); p=0.014] were significantly lower in those receiving EPA compared to those receiving mineral oil, but were not different from rates in those receiving other oils or controls. Rates of coronary revascularization were significantly lower in those receiving EPA than in those receiving either EPA+DHA, mineral oil, corn oil, or olive oil placebo, but not controls. All-cause death was similar among all groups, but combined EPA+DHA was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared to controls [HR (95%CI): 0.83 (0.71-0.98)]. CONCLUSIONS:Our analyses demonstrate that although EPA supplementation lowers risk of coronary revascularization more than other oils, there may not be a benefit relative to standard of care. Further, EPA reduces the risk of cardiovascular events only in comparison to mineral oil and not when compared with other placebo oils or controls. In contrast, combined EPA+DHA was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared to controls.