Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Cardiac involvement in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is known, manifested by troponin elevation, and these patients have a worse prognosis than patients without myocardial injury. METHODS:We analyzed COVID-19-positive patients who presented to the MedStar Health system (11 hospitals in Washington, DC, and Maryland) during the pandemic (March 1-September 30, 2020). We compared renal function and subsequent in-hospital clinical outcomes based on the presence or absence of troponin elevation. The primary outcome was the incidence of acute kidney injury in COVID-19 patients with troponin elevation. We also evaluated in-hospital mortality, overall and based on the presence and absence of both troponin elevation and renal dysfunction. RESULTS:The cohort included 3386 COVID-19-positive admitted patients for whom troponin was drawn. Of these patients, 195 had troponin elevation (defined as ≥1.0 ng/mL), mean age was 61 ± 16 years, and 51% were men. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher (53.8%) in COVID-19-positive patients with concomitant troponin elevation than in those without troponin elevation (14.5%; p < 0.001). COVID-19-positive patients with troponin elevation had a higher prevalence of renal dysfunction (58.5%) than those without troponin elevation (23.4%; p < 0.001). Further analysis demonstrated that having both troponin elevation and renal dysfunction carried the worst in-hospital prognosis (in-hospital mortality 57.9%; intensive-care-unit admission 76.8%; ventilation requirement 63.2%), as compared to the absence or presence of either. CONCLUSION:COVID-19 patients with troponin elevation are at higher risk for worsening renal function, and these patients subsequently have worse in-hospital clinical outcomes. Efforts should focus on early recognition, evaluation, and intensifying care of these patients.

Refractory angina is considered a devastating condition with limited medical and therapeutic options. The Neovasc Reducer device, when implanted in the coronary sinus, is designed to alleviate anginal symptoms. However, the available clinical data are sparse. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assembled the Circulatory Systems Devices Panel to discuss the Reducer's safety and effectiveness. Because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, this meeting was held virtually. In this manuscript, we detail the deliberation and discussion among the circulatory panel members, including their final vote.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE:Several studies have reported that mitral regurgitation (MR) can improve following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) alone using earlier-generation valves. The purpose of this study was to determine the predictors and short-term outcome impact of MR in patients undergoing TAVR using all generation valves across all risk groups. METHODS/MATERIALS:In this retrospective, study from 2012 to 2020, we reviewed data on 1822 low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients who underwent TAVR. Included were 1266 patients with baseline MR who underwent transfemoral TAVR. Our primary outcome was persistence or worsening of baseline MR post-TAVR. Additional endpoints included an inpatient composite (intensive care unit length of stay >24 h, post-TAVR length of stay >2 days, and inpatient death), 30-day composite (30-day death or readmission), and 1-year composite (1-year death or readmission). RESULTS:Of the 1266 patients included, 665 had significant baseline MR (≥moderate), which improved in 79.4% of patients (n=528). Female patients, those with lower body mass indices, and those with higher right ventricular systolic pressures were more likely to have persistence or worsening of baseline MR. Patients whose baseline MR persisted or worsened, had higher rates (80.3% vs. 77.3%, p=0.0019) of our inpatient composite, higher rates (15.3% vs. 10.0%, p=0.0389) of our 30-day composite, and higher rates (36.7% vs. 26.8%, p=0.0107) of our 1-year composite when compared to patients whose baseline MR improved post-TAVR. CONCLUSIONS:Our study identifies clinical characteristics, which help identify patients who may require closer post-procedural follow-up and warrant possible staged mitral valve intervention post-TAVR across all risk groups.

Cardiac involvement in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been established. This is manifested by troponin elevation and associated with worse patient prognosis. We evaluated whether patient outcomes improved as experience accumulated during the pandemic. We analyzed COVID-19-positive patients with myocardial injury (defined as troponin elevation) who presented to the MedStar Health system (11 hospitals in Washington, DC, and Maryland) during the "Early Phase" of the pandemic (March 1 - June 30, 2020) and compared their characteristics and outcomes to the COVID-19-positive patients with the presence of troponin elevation in the "Later Phase" of the pandemic (October 1, 2020 - January 31, 2021). The cohort included 788 COVID-19-positive admitted patients for whom troponin was elevated, 167 during the "Early Phase" and 621 during the "Later Phase." Maximum troponin-I in the "Early Phase" was 13.46±34.72 ng/mL versus 11.21±20.57 ng/mL in the "Later Phase" (p = 0.553). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the "Later Phase" (50.3% vs. 24.6%; p<0.001), as were incidence of intensive-care-unit admission (77.8% vs. 46.1%; p<0.001) and need for mechanical ventilation (61.7% versus 28%; p<0.001). In addition, more "Early Phase" patients underwent coronary angiography (6% vs. 2.3%; p=0.013). Finally, 3% of "Early Phase" and 0.8% of "Later Phase" patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (p=0.025). In conclusion, treatment outcomes have significantly improved since the beginning of the pandemic in COVID-19-positive patients with troponin elevation. This may be attributed to awareness, severity of the disease, improvements in therapies, and provider experience.

Acute coronary artery occlusion is a rare but devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Coronary obstruction is angiographic evidence of a new-partial or complete-obstruction of a coronary artery. Key factors identifying patients at risk are aortic root anatomy, type of aortic valve, and type of transcatheter heart valve. Techniques to prevent coronary obstruction include intentional leaflet laceration. If acute coronary obstruction does occur, bailout stenting can be challenging and conversion to emergent open heart surgery may be required, both of which are associated with high morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE:Compare two large-bore vascular closure devices (VCDs), collagen-plug-based MANTA and suture-based dual Perclose ProGlide (PP), in patients undergoing contemporary transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND:The SAFE MANTA IDE clinical trial demonstrated that the collagen-plug-based MANTA VCDs were safe and effective in closing large-bore arteriotomies. However, data comparing this collagen-plug-based VCD to the suture-based VCD in contemporary practice are sparse. METHODS:This was a retrospective observational study in which we screened transfemoral (TF) TAVR patients at our institution from 2017 to 2020. Included were those whose large-bore TF access was closed using either MANTA or PP with and without Angio-Seal. Our primary outcome was VCD success. Additional in-hospital outcomes included major and minor vascular complications, post-TAVR length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS:We screened 696 patients who underwent TAVR. Using propensity scores, we matched 124 patients who received MANTA with 124 patients who received PP. Patients had a mean age of 77.2 years, 69.0% were men, and their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 3.4%. VCD success was equivalent between VCDs (95.2% vs. 95.2%; p = 1.000). Patients had similar rates of mortality (0% vs. 0.8%; p = .316), and no patients had major vascular complications. CONCLUSIONS:In contemporary TAVR, the collagen-plug-based MANTA VCD appears to be as safe and effective as the suture-based dual PP VCD, with no differences in VCD success, vascular complications, or mortality. Therefore, selection of VCD for TAVR should be left to operator discretion, taking into account anatomical considerations.

The efficacy of early administration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for secondary prevention after acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) is uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the safety and efficacy of early administration (<24 hours) of DAPT (using either clopidogrel or ticagrelor with aspirin) versus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT; aspirin alone) in acute non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or TIA, incorporating data from large randomized controlled trials. Published trials fulfilling our criteria were identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, with key words including: "clopidogrel or ticagrelor", "aspirin", "ischemic stroke", "transient ischemic attack", and "randomized controlled trial". Included were 3 randomized controlled trials of 21,067 patients assessing early administration (<24 hours from symptom onset) of DAPT versus SAPT in non-cardioembolic acute ischemic stroke or TIA. Our efficacy outcomes were ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality. Our safety outcome was severe bleeding. We performed a meta-analysis to pool results with a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model. Dual antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced the risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.54, 0.97), while increasing the risk of severe bleeding (HR, 2.48; 95% CrI: 1.07, 5.26). There was a non-significant numerical trend toward increased mortality with DAPT (HR, 1.29; 95% CrI: 0.73, 2.23). These observations were robust under the sensitivity analysis. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, DAPT reduced the risk of ischemic stroke at the cost of an increase in severe bleeding. Additional trials examining the ideal timing of DAPT administration are needed to thoroughly investigate the role, if any, of routine DAPT in patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA.

End-stage liver disease (ESLD) is increasingly prevalent and shares many risk factors with coronary artery disease (CAD). No specific guidelines exist for pre-liver transplant evaluation of CAD, and pretransplant cardiovascular testing varies widely. The aim of this study is to characterize pre-transplant cardiac testing practices with post-transplant clinical outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing initial liver transplantation at our transplant center between January 2015 and March 2019. Patients with previous liver transplantation or multi-organ transplantation were excluded. Electronic medical records were reviewed for relevant demographic and clinical data. We included 285 patients with a mean follow-up of 2.4 years. Of 274 patients (96.1%) with pre-transplant transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE), 18 (6.6%) were abnormal. Non-invasive ischemic testing was performed in 193 (68%) patients: 165 (58%) underwent stress TTE, 24 (8%) underwent myocardial perfusion imaging, 3 underwent coronary computed tomography, and 1 underwent exercise electrocardiogram. Sixteen patients (6%) had left heart catheterization of which 10 (63%) were abnormal and 5 proceeded to revascularization before transplant. There were 4 (1.4%) deaths within 30 days of transplant and 23 deaths (8.1%) in total. ST-elevation myocardial infarction was seen in 1 patient within 30 days and 1 patient after 30 days (0.7% total). No cardiovascular deaths were observed. Among patients undergoing liver transplantation, pre-transplantation cardiovascular testing is exceedingly common and post-transplant cardiovascular complications are rare. Additional research is needed to determine the optimal testing and surveillance in this patient population.

BACKGROUND:Myocardial injury is a complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We describe a large multi-center experience of COVID-19 patients with myocardial injury, examining the prognostic role left ventricular function plays on short-term outcomes. METHODS/MATERIALS:We included adult COVID-19 patients admitted to our health system with evidence of myocardial injury and who underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) during index admission. Patients were dichotomized into those with reduced ejection fraction (EF; <50%) and preserved EF (≥50%). RESULTS:Across our 11-hospital system, 5032 adult patients were admitted with COVID-19 from March-September 2020. Of these, 235 had evidence of myocardial injury (troponin ≥1 ng/mL). Included were 134 patients who underwent TTE, of whom 43.3% (n = 58) had reduced EF and 56.7% (n = 76) preserved EF. A subset of 6 patients had newly reduced EF, with 5 demonstrating evidence of stress cardiomyopathy and subsequently dying. Overall, mortality was high in those with reduced EF and preserved EF (in-hospital: 34.5% vs. 28.9%; p = 0.494; 6 months: 63.6% vs. 50.0%; p = 0.167; Kaplan-Meier estimates: p = 0.2886). Readmissions were frequent in both groups (30 days: 22.2% vs. 26.0%; p = 0.162; 6 months: 52.0% vs. 54.5%; p = 0.839). CONCLUSIONS:Many COVID-19 patients admitted with evidence of myocardial injury did not undergo TTE. For those who did, short-term mortality was high. Patients who survived hospitalization had frequent readmissions. In patients with newly reduced EF, most had evidence of stress cardiomyopathy and expired. Larger studies are needed to fully evaluate the prognosis of COVID-19 patients with evidence of myocardial injury and left ventricular dysfunction.