Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE:Biomarkers may improve prediction of cardiovascular events for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), but their importance in addition to clinical tests of inducible ischemia and CAD severity is unknown. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the prognostic value of multiple biomarkers in stable outpatients with obstructive CAD and moderate or severe inducible ischemia. DESIGN AND SETTING:The ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA CKD trials randomized 5,956 participants with CAD to invasive or conservative management from July 2012 to January 2018; 1,064 participated in the biorepository. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular death or MI. Improvements in prediction were assessed by cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for an interquartile increase in each biomarker, controlling for other biomarkers, in a base clinical model of risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and ischemia severity. Secondary analyses were performed among patients in whom core-lab confirmed severity of CAD was ascertained by computed cardiac tomographic angiography (CCTA). EXPOSURES:Baseline levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), lipoprotein a (Lp[a]), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Cystatin C, soluble CD 40 ligand (sCD40L), myeloperoxidase (MPO), and matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP3). RESULTS:Among 757 biorepository participants, median (IQR) follow-up was 3 (2-5) years, age was 67 (61-72) years, and 144 (19%) were female; 508 had severity of CAD by CCTA available. In an adjusted multimarker model with hsTnT, GDF-15, NT-proBNP and sCD40L, the adjusted HR for the primary outcome per interquartile increase in each biomarker was 1.58 (95% CI 1.22, 2.205), 1.60 (95% CI 1.16, 2.20), 1.61 (95% 1.22, 2.14), and 1.46 (95% 1.12, 1.90), respectively. The adjusted multimarker model also improved prediction compared with the clinical model, increasing the AUC from 0.710 to 0.792 (P < .01) and 0.714 to 0.783 (P < .01) for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Similar findings were observed after adjusting for core-lab confirmed atherosclerosis severity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among ISCHEMIA biorepository participants, biomarkers of myocyte injury/distension, inflammation, and platelet activity improved cardiovascular event prediction in addition to risk factors, LVEF, and assessments of ischemia and atherosclerosis severity. These biomarkers may improve risk stratification for patients with stable CAD.

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) present increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection. Although the systemic inflammatory response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection likely contributes to this increased cardiovascular risk, whether SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and attendant atherosclerotic plaques remains unknown. Here we report that SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA is detectable and replicates in coronary lesions taken at autopsy from severe COVID-19 cases. SARS-CoV-2 targeted plaque macrophages and exhibited a stronger tropism for arterial lesions than adjacent perivascular fat, correlating with macrophage infiltration levels. SARS-CoV-2 entry was increased in cholesterol-loaded primary macrophages and dependent, in part, on neuropilin-1. SARS-CoV-2 induced a robust inflammatory response in cultured macrophages and human atherosclerotic vascular explants with secretion of cytokines known to trigger cardiovascular events. Our data establish that SARS-CoV-2 infects coronary vessels, inducing plaque inflammation that could trigger acute cardiovascular complications and increase the long-term cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND:The timing of antihypertensive drugs administration is controversial. The aim was to compare the efficacy of dosing of antihypertensive drugs in the morning versus evening. METHODS:A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases search for randomized clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies where patients were randomized to morning versus evening dosing. The outcomes were ambulatory blood pressure parameters (day-time, night-time, and 24/48-hour systolic blood pressure [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS:Evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs significantly reduced ambulatory blood pressure parameters and lowered cardiovascular events but the effect was mainly driven by trials by Hermida group. Unless the intention is to specifically lower night-time blood pressure, antihypertensive drugs should be taken at a time of day that is convenient, optimizes adherence, and minimizes undesirable effects.

BACKGROUND:Cardiovascular disease remains the primary source of morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We characterized the change over time in the use of evidence-based therapies to reduce cardiovascular risk in US patients with T2D. METHODS:Data from a longitudinal outpatient diabetes registry were used to calculate the prescription of SGLT2i or GLP-1RA over time and among those with high-risk comorbidities (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure [HF], chronic kidney disease [CKD]) and a diabetes cardiovascular composite score (DCCS; calculated as: #eligible medications prescribed/#eligible medications x 100 for SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, statin, antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy, ACEi/ARB/ARNI). Scores ranged from 0% to 100% (higher=more optimal care). RESULTS:Among 1,001,542 outpatients from 391 US sites, 51.7% patients had ASVCD, 17.7% HF, and 23.0% CKD. The percentage of patients prescribed an SGLT2i or GLP-1RA increased over time (7.3% in 2013 to 28.8% in 2019), and 18.3% of patients with ASCVD, HF, or CKD were on at least one of these medications at last follow-up vs 25.5% of patients without any of these comorbidities. Mean DCCS was 54±36%; 54±25% in patients with ASCVD, HF, or CKD vs 52±50% in patients without any of these comorbidities (P<0.001 for both). In a hierarchical linear model, male sex, and a diagnosis of CKD were independently associated with higher DCCS whereas a diagnosis of HF or ASCVD was associated with a lower DCCS. CONCLUSIONS:In a large, contemporary cohort of patients with T2D, we found improvement in the use of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA but unexpectedly lower use in patients with ASCVD, heart failure, and CKD, highlighting a treatment-risk paradox. Further education is needed to shift the understanding of these medications as tools for glucose-lowering to cardiovascular risk reduction and to improve their implementation in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND:Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS:One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS: = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS:Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

BACKGROUND:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, 777 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic coronary disease had similar all-cause mortality with either an initial invasive or conservative strategy (27.2% vs 27.8%, respectively). OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This prespecified secondary analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) was conducted to determine whether an initial invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy decreased the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) vs non-CV causes of death. METHODS:Three-year cumulative incidences were calculated for the adjudicated cause of death. Overall and cause-specific death by treatment strategy were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. The association between cause of death, risk factors, and treatment strategy were identified. RESULTS:A total of 192 of the 777 participants died during follow-up, including 94 (12.1%) of a CV cause, 59 (7.6%) of a non-CV cause, and 39 (5.0%) of an undetermined cause. The 3-year cumulative rates of CV death were similar between the invasive and conservative strategies (14.6% vs 12.6%, respectively; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.75-1.70). Non-CV death rates were also similar between the invasive and conservative arms (8.4% and 8.2%, respectively; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.75-2.09). Sudden cardiac death (46.8% of CV deaths) and infection (54.2% of non-CV deaths) were the most common cause-specific deaths and did not vary by treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, CV death was more common than non-CV or undetermined death during the 3-year follow-up. The randomized treatment assignment did not affect the cause-specific incidences of death in participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).