Faculty Bibliography

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.

Aim/UNASSIGNED:inhibitor or aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods and results/UNASSIGNED:inhibitor used. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:inhibitor monotherapy for secondary prevention is associated with a significant reduction in atherothrombotic events compared with aspirin alone without an increased risk of major bleeding.

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.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Prior trials of invasive vs conservative management of chronic coronary disease (CCD) have not enrolled patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). As such, outcomes across kidney function are not well characterized. Objectives/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate clinical and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes across the spectrum of CKD following conservative and invasive treatment strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:Participants from the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) trials were categorized by CKD stage: stage 1 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 90 mL/min/1.73m2 or greater), stage 2 (eGFR 60-89 mL/min/1.73m2), stage 3 (eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73m2), stage 4 (eGFR 15-29 mL/min/1.73m2), or stage 5 (eGFR less than 15 mL/min/1.73m2 or receiving dialysis). Enrollment took place from July 26, 2012, through January 31, 2018, with a median follow-up of 3.1 years. Data were analyzed from January 2020 to May 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Initial invasive management of coronary angiography and revascularization with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs initial conservative management of GDMT alone. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary clinical outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI). The primary QoL outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. Results/UNASSIGNED:Among the 5956 participants included in this analysis (mean [SD] age, 64 [10] years; 1410 [24%] female and 4546 [76%] male), 1889 (32%), 2551 (43%), 738 (12%), 311 (5%), and 467 (8%) were in CKD stages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. By self-report, 18 participants (<1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 1676 (29%), Asian; 267 (5%), Black; 861 (16%), Hispanic or Latino; 18 (<1%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 3884 (66%), White; and 13 (<1%), multiple races or ethnicities. There was a monotonic increase in risk of the primary composite end point (3-year rates, 9.52%, 10.72%, 18.42%, 34.21%, and 38.01% respectively), death, cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke in individuals with higher CKD stages. Invasive management was associated with an increase in stroke (3-year event rate difference, 1%; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.7) and procedural MI (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3) and a decrease in spontaneous MI (-2.5%; 95% CI, -3.9 to -1.1) with no difference in other outcomes; the effect was similar across CKD stages. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect for QoL outcomes such that invasive management was associated with an improvement in angina-related QoL in individuals with CKD stages 1 to 3 and not in those with CKD stages 4 to 5. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Among participants with CCD, event rates were inversely proportional to kidney function. Invasive management was associated with an increase in stroke and procedural MI and a reduced risk in spontaneous MI, and the effect was similar across CKD stages with no difference in other outcomes, including death. The benefit for QoL with invasive management was not observed in individuals with poorer kidney function.

OBJECTIVE:Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition effectively treats immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs); however, concern over the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains. We aimed to evaluate the safety (VTE and MACE outcomes) of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of IMIDs. METHODS:A search in PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of JAK inhibitors across IMIDs. Primary outcomes were VTE and MACE with JAK inhibitors compared with placebo and active comparator arms stratified by follow-up time. RESULTS: = 0.01). No increased risk of VTE was seen when comparing JAK inhibitors with placebo arms. For the outcome of MACE, the results were largely similar but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.19; 95% CI: 0.86-1.64). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:JAK inhibitors when compared with active comparator arms increased the risk of VTE, which was dependent on duration of exposure. Future clinical trials with extended follow-up are needed to clarify the safety profiles of JAK inhibitors.

Background The role of invasive management compared with medical management in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is uncertain, given the increased risk of procedural complications in patients with CKD. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of invasive management with medical management in patients with NSTEMI-CKD. Methods and Results We identified NSTEMI and CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease admissions using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes from the Nationwide Readmission Database 2016 to 2018. Patients were stratified into invasive and medical management. Primary outcome was mortality (in-hospital and 6 months after discharge). Secondary outcomes were in-hospital postprocedural complications (acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, major bleeding) and postdischarge 6-month safety and major adverse cardiovascular events. Out of 141 052 patients with NSTEMI-CKD, 85 875 (60.9%) were treated with invasive management, whereas 55 177 (39.1%) patients were managed medically. In propensity-score matched cohorts, invasive strategy was associated with lower in-hospital (CKD 3: odds ratio [OR], 0.47 [95% CI, 0.43-0.51]; P<0.001; CKD 4: OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.89]; P<0.001; CKD 5: OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.49-1.06]; P=0.096; end-stage renal disease: OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.46-0.56]; P<0.001) and 6-month mortality. Invasive management was associated with higher in-hospital postprocedural complications but no difference in postdischarge safety outcomes. Invasive management was associated with a lower hazard of major adverse cardiovascular events at 6 months in all CKD groups compared with medical management. Conclusions Invasive management was associated with lower mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events but minimal increased in-hospital complications in patients with NSTEMI-CKD compared with medical management, suggesting patients with NSTEMI-CKD should be offered invasive management.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of coronary artery bifurcation lesions entails technical challenges and carries a higher risk of adverse events on follow-up, driven by repeat revascularisation and stent thrombosis. While most bifurcations can be tackled with a provisional (single-stent) approach, more complex lesions involving both branches (true bifurcation lesions) require a two-stent approach. In the latter context, several techniques have been proposed. Among them, the crush technique has dramatically evolved in recent years, and its more recent iterations have been shown to provide excellent and durable results, both for left main and non-left main bifurcations. The aim of the present work is to discuss the technical aspects and outcomes of the variants of the crush technique from the first description in the early 2000s to the present day.

AIM:The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE:Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.