Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:With the high prevalence of COVID-19 infections worldwide, the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) is becoming an increasingly recognized entity. This syndrome presents in patients several weeks after infection with COVID-19 and is associated with thrombosis, elevated inflammatory markers, hemodynamic compromise and cardiac dysfunction. Treatment is often with steroids and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). The pathologic basis of myocardial injury in MIS-A, however, is not well characterized. In our case report, we obtained endomyocardial biopsy that revealed a pattern of myocardial injury similar to that found in COVID-19 cardiac specimens. CASE PRESENTATION:A 26-year-old male presented with fevers, chills, headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea 5 weeks after his COVID-19 infection. His SARS-CoV-2 PCR was negative and IgG was positive, consistent with prior infection. He was found to be in cardiogenic shock with biventricular failure, requiring inotropes and diuretics. Given concern for acute fulminant myocarditis, an endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) was performed, showing an inflammatory infiltrate consisting predominantly of interstitial macrophages with scant T lymphocytes. The histologic pattern was similar to that of cardiac specimens from COVID-19 patients, helping rule out myocarditis as the prevailing diagnosis. His case was complicated by persistent hypoxemia, and a computed tomography scan revealed pulmonary emboli. He received IVIg, steroids, and anticoagulation with rapid recovery of biventricular function. CONCLUSIONS:MIS-A should be considered as the diagnosis in patients presenting several weeks after COVID-19 infection with severe inflammation and multi-organ involvement. In our case, EMB facilitated identification of MIS-A and guided therapy. The patient's biventricular function recovered with IVIg and steroids.

BACKGROUND:Among patients with diabetes and chronic coronary disease, it is unclear if invasive management improves outcomes when added to medical therapy. METHODS:The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trials (ie, ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease) randomized chronic coronary disease patients to an invasive (medical therapy + angiography and revascularization if feasible) or a conservative approach (medical therapy alone with revascularization if medical therapy failed). Cohorts were combined after no trial-specific effects were observed. Diabetes was defined by history, hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or use of glucose-lowering medication. The primary outcome was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). Heterogeneity of effect of invasive management on death or MI was evaluated using a Bayesian approach to protect against random high or low estimates of treatment effect for patients with versus without diabetes and for diabetes subgroups of clinical (female sex and insulin use) and anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function). RESULTS:<0.001). At median 3.1-year follow-up the adjusted event-free survival was 0.54 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.48-0.60) and 0.66 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.61-0.71) for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, respectively, with a 12% (95% bootstrapped CI, 4%-20%) absolute decrease in event-free survival among participants with diabetes. Female and male patients with insulin-treated diabetes had an adjusted event-free survival of 0.52 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56) and 0.49 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56), respectively. There was no difference in death or MI between strategies for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, or for clinical (female sex or insulin use) or anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function) of patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS:Despite higher risk for death or MI, chronic coronary disease patients with diabetes did not derive incremental benefit from routine invasive management compared with initial medical therapy alone. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to determine patterns and predictors of utilization of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARBs) in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) and changes in kidney function at admission, hospitalization, and discharge in relation to clinical outcomes. METHODS:This retrospective analysis of the Veterans' Health Administration data (2016) included patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction who were hospitalized. Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration <15 cm3/min/1.73 m2 and those on dialysis were excluded. Patients were categorized based on the use of ACEI/ARB as continued, initiated, discontinued, or no therapy. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated predictors of being discharged home on an ACEI/ARB. Cox regression analysis evaluated outcomes (30 and 180-day mortality/HF readmissions). RESULTS:3,652 patients were included, of which 37% of patients hospitalized for AHF had ACEI/ARB discontinued on admission, or not initiated. After adjusting for age, blood pressure, and serum potassium, a per-unit increase in admission serum creatinine (SCr) was independently associated with lower rates of continuation or initiation of ACEI/ARB odds ratio 0.51 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.46-0.57). Discharge on ACEI/ARB was independently associated with lower odds of 30- and 180-day mortality hazard ratio (HR) 0.36 95% CI (0.25-0.52), and HR 0.23 95% CI (0.19-0.27), respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Higher SCr at admission is an important determinant of ACEI/ARB being discontinued or withheld in patients admitted with AHF. ACEI/ARB at discharge was associated with lower mortality in patients with AHF.

Ivabradine is a unique agent that is distinct from beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers as it reduces heart rate without affecting myocardial contractility or vascular tone. Ivabradine is a use-dependent inhibitor targeting the sinoatrial node. It is approved for use in the United States as an adjunct therapy for heart rate reduction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. In this scenario, ivabradine has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes due to reduction in heart failure readmissions. However, there has been conflicting evidence from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials for its use in stable ischemic heart disease regarding efficacy in symptom reduction and mortality benefit. Ivabradine may also play a role in the treatment of patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia, who often cannot tolerate beta-blockers and/or calcium channel blockers. In this review, we highlight the evidence for the nuances of using ivabradine in heart failure, stable ischemic heart disease, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia to raise awareness for its vital role in the treatment of select populations.

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy. METHODS:In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest). RESULTS:=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar. CONCLUSIONS:Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to evaluate 2 abbreviated dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND:Current-generation drug-eluting stents are preferred over bare-metal stents for HBR patients, but their optimal DAPT management remains unknown. METHODS:inhibitor. The postmarketing approval XIENCE V USA study was used as historical control in a propensity score-stratified analysis. RESULTS: = 0.0005). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2 to 5 bleeding was not significantly lower with 3- or 1-month DAPT, while BARC types 3 to 5 bleeding was reduced in both experimental groups. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was 0.2% in XIENCE 90 (P < 0.0001 for the performance goal of 1.2%) and 0.3% in XIENCE 28. CONCLUSIONS:Among HBR patients undergoing PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents, DAPT for 1 or 3 months was noninferior to 6 or 12 months of DAPT for ischemic outcomes and may be associated with less major bleeding and a low incidence of stent thrombosis.

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.

Tricuspid valve endocarditis with recurrent septic pulmonary emboli is an indication for surgery. We present the case of a 36-year old man with tricuspid valve endocarditis and septic pulmonary emboli with percutaneous extraction of the vegetation. We discuss the nuances of such an approach and the need for more evidence in the management of these complex patients.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic migitation measures on of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care. BACKGROUND:We previously reported a 38% decline in cardiac catheterization activations during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures. This study extends our early observations using a larger sample of STEMI programs representative of different US regions with the inclusion of more contemporary data. METHODS:Data from 18 hospitals or healthcare systems in the US from January 2019 to April 2020 were collecting including number activations for STEMI, the number of activations leading to angiography and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), and average door to balloon (D2B) times. Two periods, January 2019-February 2020 and March-April 2020, were defined to represent periods before (BC) and after (AC) initiation of pandemic mitigation measures, respectively. A generalized estimating equations approach was used to estimate the change in response variables at AC from BC. RESULTS:Compared to BC, the AC period was characterized by a marked reduction in the number of activations for STEMI (29%, 95% CI:18-38, p < .001), number of activations leading to angiography (34%, 95% CI: 12-50, p = .005) and number of activations leading to PPCI (20%, 95% CI: 11-27, p < .001). A decline in STEMI activations drove the reductions in angiography and PPCI volumes. Relative to BC, the D2B times in the AC period increased on average by 20%, 95%CI (-0.2 to 44, p = .05). CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 Pandemic has adversely affected many aspects of STEMI care, including timely access to the cardiac catheterization laboratory for PPCI.

Data on ischemic and bleeding outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are scarce. We aimed to evaluate the association between CKD and ischemic and bleeding outcomes in HBR patients who underwent PCI. Among 10,502 patients in the four post-approval registries evaluating patients undergoing PCI, 2,300 patients presented with at least one major or two minor ARC-HBR criteria. CKD was defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². These HBR patients were divided into 3 groups: eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² defined as severe CKD (N = 221), eGFR 30- < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² defined as moderate CKD (N = 970), eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m² defined as no CKD (N = 1,109). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis, and the safety endpoint was major bleeding up to 4-year follow-up. HBR patients with CKD were more often female and had higher rates of comorbidities compared to those without CKD. Reduced renal function was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint (severe CKD vs. moderate CKD vs. no CKD: 30.2% vs. 12.5% vs. 9.1%, P < 0.01) as well as major bleeding (10.3% vs. 8.9% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.03). After adjustment, severe CKD and moderate CKD in HBR patients remained independent predictors for the primary endpoint (HR [95%CI] 2.84 [1.94-4.16], P < 0.01, 1.48 [1.10-2.00], P < 0.01) compared to those with no CKD. However, decreased renal function was no longer significantly associated with major bleeding after adjustment. In conclusions, in HBR patients undergoing PCI, CKD has an important impact on major ischemic events after PCI.