Faculty Bibliography

Background: Alport syndrome is a rare and serious inherited form of CKD affecting as many as 60,000 persons in the US with no specific therapies approved for its treatment.
Method(s): An international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 trial (CARDINAL; NCT03019185) evaluated the safety and efficacy of bardoxolone methyl (Bard) in patients with Alport syndrome 12 to 70 years of age with baseline eGFR 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m² and UACR<= 3500mg/g. As an exploratory endpoint, the trial assessed patient global impression of change (PGIC), a non-disease specific 7-point scale that asks patients to rate how much their illness has changed as very much/much/minimally improved (1, 2, and 3 pts), no change (4 pts), or minimally/much/ very much worse (5, 6, and 7 pts) after 48 and 100 weeks of treatment.
Result(s): A total of 157 patients were randomized to Bard (n=77) or placebo (n=80). In addition to significant on-treatment and off-treatment increases in mean eGFR relative to placebo (between-group differences of 7.7 +/- 2.1 [p=0.0005] at Week 100 and 4.3 +/- 1.9 mL/min/1.73 m² [p=0.023] at Week 104, respectively), Bard improved PGIC scores relative to placebo (lower values) after 48 and 100 weeks. Categorical summaries also showed more patients randomized to bardoxolone (34%) reported their condition had improved compared to those on placebo (19%) after 100 weeks of treatment.
Conclusion(s): In CARDINAL, Bard significantly preserved eGFR in patients with Alport syndrome and also resulted in improvements in how patients evaluated their wellbeing. (Figure Presented)

Background: The role of invasive management compared with medical management in patients with non-ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is uncertain, given the increased risk of procedural complications in patients with CKD. We examined the efficacy and safety of invasive management in patients with NSTEMI-CKD compared with medical management.
Method(s): We identified NSTEMI and CKD stages 3, 4, 5, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) admissions using administrative codes from the Nationwide Readmission Database 2016 to 2018. Invasive approach was defined as coronary angiography with or without revascularization procedure, and other patients were categorized into medical management. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, stroke, or death at 6 months. The safety outcome was a composite of acute kidney injury (AKI), vascular complication, major bleeding, or stroke at 6 months. We matched 2 groups using propensity score and applied Cox-proportional hazard regression to compute hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Result(s): Of 133,642 patients with NSTEMI and CKD, 62.3% were treated with the invasive management, whereas 37.7% patients were managed medically. Invasive management was associated with a lower hazard of MACE (CKD 3: HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.69-0.76, P < 0.001]; CKD 4: HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.70-0.81, P < 0.001]; CKD 5: HR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.54-0.84, P < 0.001]; ESRD: HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.75-0.86, P < 0.001]) without increasing safety outcomes (CKD 3: HR: 0.99 [95% CI: 0.89-1.10, P = 0.822]; CKD 4: HR: 1.07 [95% CI: 0.91-1.26, P = 0.406]; CKD 5: HR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.55-1.49, P = 0.698]; ESRD: HR: 1.14 [95% CI: 0.93-1.41, P = 0.213]) at 6 months in all CKD groups compared with medical management. Similarly, invasive management was associated with reduced hazard of mortality across all the CKD groups compared with medical management (Figures 1A and 1B). [Formula presented]
Conclusion(s): The benefits of invasive management remained significantly higher in patients with NSTEMI and CKD compared with medical management, without any difference in safety. Categories: CORONARY: Acute Myocardial Infarction
Copyright

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.

An acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event is associated with a high risk of recurrent ACS, stroke, and death. To ameliorate the risk of subsequent events, current guidelines for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation ACS recommend long-term management strategies for secondary prevention including risk factor modification and anti-ischemic and antiplatelet therapies. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), comprising aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, is a critical component of secondary prevention therapy following ACS. However, despite the importance of DAPT for secondary prevention after ACS, questions remain over the optimal duration of therapy. Clinical evidence is emerging that maintenance DAPT >12 months lowers the risk of recurrent ACS events; however, this benefit must be considered against any potential risks of prolonged DAPT such as bleeding. Several tools for bleeding risk assessment have shown promise; however, their limited accuracy and discriminative power necessitates further development. Assessment of patient ischemic risk should consider the complexity of the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure, anatomic burden of coronary artery disease, and additional underlying risk factors. Consequently, identifying patients in whom the risk:benefit ratio favors prolonged DAPT may prove invaluable for clinicians in deciding which patients should continue or stop taking DAPT at 12 months after PCI, or consider P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy as an option. This article reviews the most recent information about the risks and benefits of DAPT continued for >12 months after ACS and provides critical guidance to assist physicians in identifying patients most likely to benefit from a secondary prevention strategy with DAPT.

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.

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.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), emerged in Wuhan, China, and rapidly led to a global pandemic that affected 213 countries, more than 5.8 million cases, and 360,000 deaths worldwide as of May 28, 2020. The United States currently has the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world and contributes to nearly a third of the global death rate. The prevalence of COVID myocarditis is unclear but generally considered rare, with estimates up to 7% of COVID-related deaths. However, these patients suffered catastrophic worsening disease with respiratory compromise requiring intubation and often death. We report the case of a patient with COVID-19-induced myocarditis who was successfully treated with dexamethasone and review the literature.

BACKGROUND:The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is unknown. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this analysis was to compare 1 vs 3 months of DAPT in HBR patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS:The XIENCE Short DAPT program comprised 3 prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies of HBR patients treated with a short DAPT course followed by aspirin monotherapy after PCI with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. In this exploratory analysis, patients who received 1-month DAPT (XIENCE 28 USA and 28 Global) were compared with those on 3-month DAPT (XIENCE 90) using propensity score stratification. Ischemic and bleeding outcomes were assessed between 1 and 12 months after index PCI. RESULTS:A total of 3,652 patients were enrolled and 1,392 patients after 1-month DAPT and 1,972 patients after 3-month DAPT were eligible for the analyses. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction was similar between the 2 groups (7.3% vs 7.5%; difference -0.2%; 95% CI: -2.2% to 1.7%; P = 0.41). The key secondary endpoint of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 2-5 bleeding was lower with 1-month DAPT compared with 3-month DAPT (7.6% vs 10.0%; difference -2.5%; 95% CI: -4.6% to -0.3%; P = 0.012). Major BARC type 3-5 bleeding did not differ at 12 months (3.6% vs 4.7%; difference -1.1%; 95% CI: -2.6% to 0.4%; P = 0.082), but was lower with 1-month DAPT at 90 days (1.0% vs 2.1%; P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS:Among HBR patients undergoing PCI, 1 month of DAPT, compared with 3 months of DAPT, was associated with similar ischemic outcomes and lower bleeding risk. (XIENCE 90 Study; NCT03218787; XIENCE 28 USA Study; NCT03815175; XIENCE 28 Global Study; NCT03355742).

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.

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.