Faculty Bibliography

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent in chronic kidney disease (CKD). CKD modifies the effects of traditional risk factors on atherosclerosis, with CKD-specific mechanisms, such as inflammation and altered mineral metabolism, playing a dominant pathophysiological role as kidney function declines. Traditional risk models and cardiovascular screening tests perform relatively poorly in the CKD population, and medical treatments including lipid-lowering therapies have reduced efficacy. Clinical presentation of cardiac ischemia in CKD is atypical, whereas invasive therapies are associated with higher rates of complications than in with patients with normal or near normal kidney function. The main focus of the present review is on the invasive approach to management of CAD in late-stage CKD, with an in-depth discussion of the findings of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-CKD trial, and their implications for therapeutic approach and future research in this area. We also briefly discuss the existing evidence in the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and medical management of CAD in late-stage CKD, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and kidney transplant recipients. We enumerate the evidence gap left by the frequent exclusion of patients with CKD from randomized controlled trials and highlight the priority areas for future research in the CKD population.

Cardiac catheterization procedures have rapidly evolved and expanded in scope and techniques over the past few decades. However, although some practices have emerged based on evidence, many traditions have persisted based on beliefs and theoretical concerns. The aim of this review is to highlight common preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure catheterization laboratory practices where evidence has accumulated over the past few decades to support or discount traditionally held practices.

AIMS /UNASSIGNED:Contemporary 2nd-generation thin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered standard of care for revascularization of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A previous meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 11 658 patients demonstrated a 16% reduction in the 1-year risk of target lesion failure (TLF) with ultrathin-strut DES compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. Whether this benefit is sustained longer term is not known, and newer trial data may inform these relative outcomes. We therefore sought to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing clinical outcomes with ultrathin-strut DES (≤70 µm strut thickness) with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. METHODS AND RESULTS /UNASSIGNED:We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of all RCTs comparing ultrathin-strut DES to conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. The pre-specified primary endpoint was long-term TLF, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Secondary endpoints included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. There were 16 eligible trials in which 20 701 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 2.5 years. Ultrathin-strut DES were associated with a 15% reduction in long-term TLF compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES [relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.96, P = 0.008] driven by a 25% reduction in CD-TLR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92, P = 0.005). There were no significant differences between stent types in the risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS /UNASSIGNED:At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, ultrathin-strut DES reduced the risk of TLF, driven by less CD-TLR compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES, with similar risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.

BACKGROUND:Endovascular renal denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, but its efficacy in patients with true resistant hypertension has not been shown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of endovascular ultrasound renal denervation in patients with hypertension resistant to three or more antihypertensive medications. METHODS:In a randomised, international, multicentre, single-blind, sham-controlled trial done at 28 tertiary centres in the USA and 25 in Europe, we included patients aged 18-75 years with office blood pressure of at least 140/90 mm Hg despite three or more antihypertensive medications including a diuretic. Eligible patients were switched to a once daily, fixed-dose, single-pill combination of a calcium channel blocker, an angiotensin receptor blocker, and a thiazide diuretic. After 4 weeks of standardised therapy, patients with daytime ambulatory blood pressure of at least 135/85 mm Hg were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer (stratified by centres) to ultrasound renal denervation or a sham procedure. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation. Addition of antihypertensive medications was allowed if specified blood pressure thresholds were exceeded. The primary endpoint was the change in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 2 months in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02649426. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between March 11, 2016, and March 13, 2020, 989 participants were enrolled and 136 were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=69) or a sham procedure (n=67). Full adherence to the combination medications at 2 months among patients with urine samples was similar in both groups (42 [82%] of 51 in the renal denervation group vs 47 [82%] of 57 in the sham procedure group; p=0·99). Renal denervation reduced daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure more than the sham procedure (-8·0 mm Hg [IQR -16·4 to 0·0] vs -3·0 mm Hg [-10·3 to 1·8]; median between-group difference -4·5 mm Hg [95% CI -8·5 to -0·3]; adjusted p=0·022); the median between-group difference was -5·8 mm Hg (95% CI -9·7 to -1·6; adjusted p=0·0051) among patients with complete ambulatory blood pressure data. There were no differences in safety outcomes between the two groups. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared with a sham procedure, ultrasound renal denervation reduced blood pressure at 2 months in patients with hypertension resistant to a standardised triple combination pill. If the blood pressure lowering effect and safety of renal denervation are maintained in the long term, renal denervation might be an alternative to the addition of further antihypertensive medications in patients with resistant hypertension. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:ReCor Medical.

Aortic stenosis with concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD) represents a clinical challenge. Aortic stenosis is more prevalent and progresses more rapidly and unpredictably in CKD, and the presence of CKD is associated with worse short-term and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement. Because patients with advanced CKD and end-stage kidney disease have been excluded from randomized trials, clinicians need to make complex management decisions in this population that are based on retrospective and observational evidence. This statement summarizes the epidemiological and pathophysiological characteristics of aortic stenosis in the context of CKD, evaluates the nuances and prognostic information provided by noninvasive cardiovascular imaging with echocardiography and advanced imaging techniques, and outlines the special risks in this population. Furthermore, this statement provides a critical review of the existing literature pertaining to clinical outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in this high-risk population to help guide clinical decision making in the choice of aortic valve replacement and specific prosthesis. Finally, this statement provides an approach to the perioperative management of these patients, with special attention to a multidisciplinary heart-kidney collaborative team-based approach.

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.

BACKGROUND:Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and coronary artery disease frequently undergo preemptive revascularization before kidney transplant listing. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In this post-hoc analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD, we compared outcomes of patients not listed versus those listed according to management strategy. METHODS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD (n=777), 194 patients (25%) with chronic coronary syndromes and at least moderate ischemia were listed for transplant. The primary (all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) and secondary (death, nonfatal MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke) outcomes were analyzed using Cox multivariable modeling. Heterogeneity of randomized treatment effect between listed versus not listed groups was assessed. RESULTS:Compared with those not listed, listed patients were younger (60 versus 65 years), less likely of Asian race (15% versus 29%), more likely on dialysis (83% versus 44%), had fewer anginal symptoms, and more likely to have coronary angiography and coronary revascularization irrespective of treatment assignment. Among patients assigned to an invasive strategy versus conservative strategy, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the primary outcome were 0.91 (0.54-1.54) and 1.03 (0.78-1.37) for those listed and not listed, respectively (pinteraction=0.68). Adjusted HR for secondary outcomes were 0.89 (0.55-1.46) in listed and 1.17 (0.89-1.53) in those not listed (pinteraction=0.35). CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA-CKD, an invasive strategy in kidney transplant candidates did not improve outcomes compared with conservative management. These data do not support routine coronary angiography or revascularization in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes listed for transplant.