Faculty Bibliography

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents an unprecedented challenge and opportunity for translational investigators to rapidly develop safe and effective therapeutic interventions. Greater risk of severe disease in COVID-19 patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus, obesity, and heart disease may be attributable to synergistic activation of vascular inflammation pathways associated with both COVID-19 and cardiometabolic disease. This mechanistic link provides a scientific framework for translational studies of drugs developed for treatment of cardiometabolic disease as novel therapeutic interventions to mitigate inflammation and improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Air pollution is a major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Fine particulate matter <2.5 µm in diameter may be a modifiable risk factor for hypertension. The benefits of in-home air filtration on systolic blood pressure (BP) and diastolic BP are unclear. To examine the effects of in-home personal air cleaner use on fine particulate exposure and BP, we queried PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register, Inspec, and EBSCO GreenFILE databases for relevant clinical trials. Included studies were limited to nonsmoking participants in smoke-free homes with active or sham filtration on indoor fine particulate concentrations and changes in systolic and diastolic BP. Of 330 articles identified, 10 trials enrolling 604 participants who met inclusion criteria were considered. Over a median 13.5 days, there was a significant reduction of mean systolic BP by ≈4 mm Hg (-3.94 mm Hg [95% CI, -7.00 to -0.89]; P=0.01) but a nonsignificant difference in mean diastolic BP (-0.95 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.81 to 0.91]; P=0.32). Subgroup analyses indicated no heterogeneity of effect by age, level of particulate exposure, or study duration. Given the variation in study design, additional study is warranted to confirm and better quantify the observed benefits in systolic BP found with personal air cleaner use.

BACKGROUND:In patients with stable coronary heart disease, it is not known whether achievement of standard of care (SOC) targets in addition to evidence-based medicine (EBM) is associated with lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. METHODS:EBM use was recommended in the STabilisation of Atherosclerotic plaque By Initiation of darapLadIb TherapY trial. SOC targets were blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mm Hg and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) <100 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL. In patients with diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7% and BP of <130/80 mm Hg were recommended. Feedback to investigators about rates of EBM and SOC was provided regularly. RESULTS:In 13,623 patients, 1-year landmark analysis assessed the association between EBM, SOC targets, and MACE during follow-up of 2.7 years (median) after adjustment in a Cox proportional hazards model. At 1 year, aspirin was prescribed in 92.5% of patients, statins in 97.2%, β-blockers in 79.0%, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-II receptor blockers in 76.9%. MACE was lower with LDL-C < 100 mg/dL (70-99 mg/dL) compared with LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL (hazard ratio [HR] 0.694, 95% CI 0.594-0.811) and lower with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL compared with LDL-C < 100 mg/dL (70-99 mg/dL) (HR 0.834, 95% CI 0.708-0.983). MACE was lower with HbA1c < 7% compared with HbA1c ≥ 7% (HR 0.705, 95% CI 0.573-0.866). There was no effect of BP targets on MACE. CONCLUSIONS:MACE was lower with LDL-C < 100 mg/dL (70-99 mg/dL) and even lower with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL. MACE in patients with diabetes was lower with HbA1c < 7%. Achievement of targets is associated with improved patient outcomes.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with high mortality. In the absence of data to support coronary revascularization beyond the infarct artery and selection of circulatory support devices or medications, clinical practice may vary substantially.

BACKGROUND:There is concern about the potential of an increased risk related to medications that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), because the viral receptor is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). METHODS:We assessed the relation between previous treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or thiazide diuretics and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on Covid-19 testing as well as the likelihood of severe illness (defined as intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death) among patients who tested positive. Using Bayesian methods, we compared outcomes in patients who had been treated with these medications and in untreated patients, overall and in those with hypertension, after propensity-score matching for receipt of each medication class. A difference of at least 10 percentage points was prespecified as a substantial difference. RESULTS:Among 12,594 patients who were tested for Covid-19, a total of 5894 (46.8%) were positive; 1002 of these patients (17.0%) had severe illness. A history of hypertension was present in 4357 patients (34.6%), among whom 2573 (59.1%) had a positive test; 634 of these patients (24.6%) had severe illness. There was no association between any single medication class and an increased likelihood of a positive test. None of the medications examined was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of severe illness among patients who tested positive. CONCLUSIONS:We found no substantial increase in the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19 or in the risk of severe Covid-19 among patients who tested positive in association with five common classes of antihypertensive medications.

BACKGROUND:Myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high mortality. Early coronary revascularization improves survival, but the optimal mode of revascularization remains uncertain. We sought to characterize practice patterns and outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with MI complicated by CS. METHODS:Patients hospitalized for MI with CS between 2002 and 2014 were identified from the United States National Inpatient Sample. Trends in management were evaluated over time. Propensity score matching was performed to identify cohorts with similar baseline characteristics and MI presentations who underwent PCI and CABG. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. RESULTS:A total of 386,811 hospitalizations for MI with CS were identified; 67% were STEMI. Overall, 62.4% of patients underwent revascularization, with PCI in 44.9%, CABG in 14.1%, and a hybrid approach in 3.4%. Coronary revascularization for MI and CS increased over time, from 51.5% in 2002 to 67.4% in 2014 (P for trend < .001). Patients who underwent CABG were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (35.5% vs. 29.2%, P < .001) and less likely to present with STEMI (48.7% vs. 80.9%, P < .001) than those who underwent PCI. CABG (without PCI) was associated with lower mortality than PCI (without CABG) overall (18.9% vs. 29.0%, P < .001) and in a propensity-matched subgroup of 19,882 patients (19.0% vs. 27.0%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:CABG was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than PCI among patients with MI complicated by CS. Due to the likelihood of residual confounding, a randomized trial of PCI versus CABG in patients with MI, CS, and multi-vessel coronary disease is warranted.