Faculty Bibliography

Background There are limited data to inform policy mandating primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) volume benchmarks for catheterization laboratories in low- and middle-income countries. Methods and Results This prospective state-wide registry included ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with symptoms of <12 hours, or with ongoing ischemia at 12 to 24 hours, reperfused with PPCI. From June 2013 to March 2016, we recruited 5560 consecutive patients. We categorized hospitals on the basis of annual PPCI volumes into low, medium, and high volume (<100, 100-199, and ≥200 PPCIs per year, respectively). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were used to examine the association between PPCI volume and 1-year mortality. Among 42 recruiting hospitals, there were 24 (57.2%) low-volume, 8 (19%) medium-volume, and 10 (23.8%) high-volume hospitals. The median (25th-75th percentile) TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction risk score was 3 (2-5). Cardiac arrest before admission occurred in 4.2%, 2.1%, and 2.9% of cases at low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P=0.02). Total ischemic time differed significantly among low-volume (median [25th-75th percentile], 3.5 [2.4-5.5] hours), medium-volume (median, 3.8 [25th-75th percentile, 2.58-6.05] hours), and high-volume hospitals (median, 4.16 [25th-75th percentile 2.8-6.3] hours) (P=0.01). Vascular access was radial in 61.5%, 71.3%, and 63.2% of cases at low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P=0.01). The observed 1-year mortality rate was 6.5%, 3.4%, and 8.6% at low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P<0.01), and the difference did not attenuate after multivariate adjustment (low versus medium: hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.80 [1.12-2.90]; high versus medium: hazard ratio [95% CI], 2.53 [1.78-3.58]) (P<0.01). Conclusions Low- and middle-income countries, like India, may have a nonlinear relationship between institutional PPCI volume and outcomes, partly driven by procedural variations and inequalities in access to care.

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.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. It is still uncontrolled in most countries and no therapies are currently available. Various drugs are under investigation for its treatment. The disease is known to have worse outcomes in patients who have underlying cardiovascular disease. Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir and lopinavir/ritonavir are currently being studied in trials and show some promise. Conduction disorders, heart failure and mortality have been reported with the use of these drugs. It is important to have a knowledge of potential cardiotoxic effects of these drugs before using them for COVID-19 patients for better allocation of healthcare resources and improvement in clinical outcomes.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained global health care systems in ways that simply could not have been imagined just several months ago. Writing from the heart of New York City - the unfortunate new epicenter of this pandemic - we have been confronted with this new reality head-on. As directors of two major academic cardiac catheterization laboratories in the city, we both have had to operationalize logistical planning of physician and staff redeployments as well as modification of our respective hospital units including conversion of large portions of the catheterization laboratory into COVID-19 intensive care units in order to deal with the surge of COVID-19 patients within the hospital.

Background Detection of flow-limiting left main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) has both prognostic and therapeutic implications. Stress testing is the most common method to detect obstructive CAD, however stress markers of LM CAD remain unclear. We set out to identify markers of LM CAD using clinical and stress testing parameters. Methods The population consisted of patients enrolled in the ISCHEMIA trial who underwent non-imaging exercise tolerance testing, stress nuclear imaging or stress echocardiography (SE) and who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Patients were enrolled based on local determination of moderate or severe ischemia. Those with prior coronary artery bypass grafting were excluded. Multivariate modeling was used to identify predictors of >=50% LM diameter stenosis ("LM disease"), first without and then with stress testing parameters included in the model. Results Of the 5145 patients included (mean age: 63 years, male: 74%), 414 (8%) had LM disease. Predictors of LM disease are shown in the Table. The models were weakly predictive of LM disease (C index 0.643 for clinical model, 0.671 for clinical + stress model). Conclusion In patients with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing, clinical and stress testing parameters were weakly predictive of LM disease on CCTA. SE-detected TID and ST depression during ETT provided incremental information independent of clinical and other stress modality specific parameters for the prediction of LM disease. [Figure presented]
Copyright

Amputation has been known to be a rare adverse event of sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. It remains unclear whether the SGLT2 inhibitor as a class or specific categories of the SGLT2 inhibitors are linked with an increased risk of amputation. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the association between the amputation risk and the use of SGLT2 inhibitors. The main outcome measure was the risk of amputation. Multiple databases were searched up to February 2020 and data extraction was performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported risk of amputation with SGLT2 inhibitors over non-SGLT2 inhibitors or placebo. The risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane bias tool. The initial search yielded 1,873 citations and a total of five RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The five included studies evaluated a total of 39,067 patients with diabetes mellitus, including 21,395 patients on SGLT2 inhibitors. The incidence rate of amputation ranged from 0.36 to 3.18% in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and from 0% to 2.87% in the control group. Follow up duration ranged from 24 weeks to 4.2 years. Use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with significant increase in the risk of amputation as compared with controls (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.92-1.87, I² = 75%). Subgroup analysis showed that neither canagliflozin, empagliflozin, nor dapagliflozin associated with increased risk of amputation. In conclusion, our meta-analysis showed that neither canagliflozin nor other SGLT2 inhibitors increase the risk of amputation. Further studies are required as types of amputations could be heterogeneous and the results may be skewed.