Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Coronary slow flow (CSF) by invasive coronary angiography is frequently understood to be an indicator of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) in patients with ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries. However, the relationship between visual estimates of CSF and quantitative wire-based invasive diagnosis of CMD is uncertain. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We prospectively enrolled adults aged ≥18 years with stable ischemic heart disease who were referred for invasive coronary angiography. Individuals with ≥50% epicardial coronary artery stenosis were excluded. Invasive coronary angiography was reviewed for CSF, defined as ≥3 cardiac cycles to opacify distal vessels with contrast. Coronary function testing was performed in the left anterior descending coronary artery using bolus coronary thermodilution techniques to measure coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR). Invasively determined CMD was defined as abnormal CFR (<2.5), abnormal IMR (≥25), or both. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:=0.31) were not different in patients with versus without CSF. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Among patients with ischemia with nonobstructive coronary artery, CSF was not associated with abnormal CFR, IMR, or either abnormal CFR or IMR. CSF is not a reliable angiographic surrogate of abnormal CFR or IMR as determined by invasive, wire-based physiology testing. REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03537586.

BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need to conduct efficient randomized clinical trials with interim monitoring guidelines for efficacy and futility. Several randomized coronavirus disease 2019 trials, including the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial (mpRCT), used Bayesian guidelines with the belief that they would lead to quicker efficacy or futility decisions than traditional "frequentist" guidelines, such as spending functions and conditional power. We explore this belief using an intuitive interpretation of Bayesian methods as translating prior opinion about the treatment effect into imaginary prior data. These imaginary observations are then combined with actual observations from the trial to make conclusions. Using this approach, we show that the Bayesian efficacy boundary used in mpRCT is actually quite similar to the frequentist Pocock boundary. METHODS:The mpRCT's efficacy monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 99% probability that the treatment was effective (odds ratio greater than 1). The mpRCT's futility monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 95% probability that the treatment was less than 20% effective (odds ratio less than 1.2). The mpRCT used a normal prior distribution that can be thought of as supplementing the actual patients' data with imaginary patients' data. We explore the effects of varying probability thresholds and the prior-to-actual patient ratio in the mpRCT and compare the resulting Bayesian efficacy monitoring guidelines to the well-known frequentist Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming efficacy guidelines. We also contrast Bayesian futility guidelines with a more traditional 20% conditional power futility guideline. RESULTS:A Bayesian efficacy and futility monitoring boundary using a neutral, weakly informative prior distribution and a fixed probability threshold at all interim analyses is more aggressive than the commonly used O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary coupled with a 20% conditional power threshold for futility. The trade-off is that more aggressive boundaries tend to stop trials earlier, but incur a loss of power. Interestingly, the Bayesian efficacy boundary with 99% probability threshold is very similar to the classic Pocock efficacy boundary. CONCLUSIONS:In a pandemic where quickly weeding out ineffective treatments and identifying effective treatments is paramount, aggressive monitoring may be preferred to conservative approaches, such as the O'Brien-Fleming boundary. This can be accomplished with either Bayesian or frequentist methods.

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA trial found that patients with chronic coronary disease randomized to invasive strategy had better health status than those randomized to conservative strategy. It is unclear how best to translate these population-level results to individual patients. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The authors sought to identify patient characteristics associated with health status from invasive and conservative strategies, and develop a prediction algorithm for shared decision-making. METHODS:One-year disease-specific health status was assessed in ISCHEMIA with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Summary Score (SAQ SS) and Angina Frequency, Physical Limitations (PL), and Quality of Life (QL) domains (range 0-100, higher = less angina/better health status). RESULTS:Among 4,617 patients from 320 sites in 37 countries, mean SAQ SS was 74.1 ± 18.9 at baseline and 85.7 ± 15.6 at 1 year. Lower baseline SAQ SS and younger age were associated with better 1-year health status with invasive strategy (P interaction = 0.009 and P interaction = 0.004, respectively). For the individual domains, there were significant treatment interactions for baseline SAQ score (Angina Frequency, PL), age (PL, QL), anterior ischemia (PL), and number of baseline antianginal medications (QL), with more benefit of invasive in patients with worse baseline health status, younger age, anterior ischemia, and on more antianginal medications. Parsimonious prediction models were developed for 1-year SAQ domains with invasive or conservative strategies to support shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:In the management of chronic coronary disease, individual patient characteristics are associated with 1-year health status, with younger age and poorer angina-related health status showing greater benefit from invasive management. This prediction algorithm can support the translation of the ISCHEMIA trial results to individual patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

BACKGROUND:Ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries is frequently caused by coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). Consensus diagnostic criteria for CMD include baseline angiographic slow flow by corrected TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) frame count (cTFC), but correlations between slow flow and CMD measured by invasive coronary function testing (CFT) are uncertain. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate relationships between cTFC and invasive CFT for CMD. METHODS:Adults with ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries underwent invasive CFT with thermodilution-derived baseline coronary blood flow, coronary flow reserve (CFR), and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR). CMD was defined as abnormal CFR (<2.5) and/or abnormal IMR (≥25). cTFC was measured from baseline angiography; slow flow was defined as cTFC >25. Correlations between cTFC and baseline coronary flow and between CFR and IMR and associations between slow flow and invasive measures of CMD were evaluated, adjusted for covariates. All patients provided consent. RESULTS:Among 508 adults, 49% had coronary slow flow. Patients with slow flow were more likely to have abnormal IMR (36% vs 26%; P = 0.019) but less likely to have abnormal CFR (28% vs 42%; P = 0.001), with no difference in CMD (46% vs 51%). cTFC was weakly correlated with baseline coronary blood flow (r = -0.35; 95% CI: -0.42 to -0.27), CFR (r = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.28), and IMR (r = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.07-0.24). In multivariable models, slow flow was associated with lower odds of abnormal CFR (adjusted OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.80). CONCLUSIONS:Coronary slow flow was weakly associated with results of invasive CFT and should not be used as a surrogate for the invasive diagnosis of CMD.

BACKGROUND:Electronic health record (EHR) tools can improve prescribing of guideline-recommended therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but their effectiveness may vary by physician workload. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This paper aims to assess whether physician workload modifies the effectiveness of EHR tools for HFrEF. METHODS:This was a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BETTER CARE-HF (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations for Heart Failure) cluster-randomized trial, which compared effectiveness of an alert vs message vs usual care on prescribing of mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs). The trial included adults with HFrEF seen in cardiology offices who were eligible for and not prescribed MRAs. Visit volume was defined at the cardiologist-level as number of visits per 6-month study period (high = upper tertile vs non-high = remaining). Analysis at the patient-level used likelihood ratio test for interaction with log-binomial models. RESULTS:Among 2,211 patients seen by 174 cardiologists, 932 (42.2%) were seen by high-volume cardiologists (median: 1,853; Q1-Q3: 1,637-2,225 visits/6 mo; and median: 10; Q1-Q3: 9-12 visits/half-day). MRA was prescribed to 5.5% in the high-volume vs 14.8% in the non-high-volume groups in the usual care arm, 10.3% vs 19.6% in the message arm, and 31.2% vs 28.2% in the alert arm, respectively. Visit volume modified treatment effect (P for interaction = 0.02) such that the alert was more effective in the high-volume group (relative risk: 5.16; 95% CI: 2.57-10.4) than the non-high-volume group (relative risk: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.29-2.90). CONCLUSIONS:An EHR-embedded alert increased prescribing by >5-fold among patients seen by high-volume cardiologists. Our findings support use of EHR alerts, especially in busy practice settings. (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations for Heart Failure [BETTER CARE-HF]; NCT05275920).

BACKGROUND:Therapeutic-dose heparin decreased days requiring organ support in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 but its impact on persistent symptoms or quality of life (QoL) is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION/OBJECTIVE:In the ACTIV-4a trial, was randomization of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 illness to therapeutic-dose vs. prophylactic heparin associated with less symptoms and better QoL at 90-days? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:This was an open-label randomized controlled trial at 34 hospitals in the US and Spain. 727 non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from September 2020 to June 2021 were randomized to therapeutic-dose vs. prophylactic heparin. Only patients with 90-day data on symptoms and QoL were analyzed. We ascertained symptoms and QoL by EQ-5D-5L at 90-day follow-up in a pre-planned analysis for the ACTIV-4a trial. Individual domains assessed by the EQ-5D-5L were mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed. RESULTS:Among 571 patients, 288 (50.4%) reported at least one symptom. In 410 patients, 148 (36.1%) reported moderate to severe impairment in one or more domains of EQ-5D-5L. Presence of 90-day symptoms were associated with moderate-severe impairment in the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.37, 95% CI 1.22-4.59), usual activity (aOR 3.66, 95% CI 1.75-7.65), pain (aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.43-4.12), and anxiety (aOR 4.32, 95% CI 2.06-9.02), compared to patients reporting no symptoms There were no differences in symptoms or the overall EQ-5D-5L index score between treatment groups. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less moderate-severe impairment in all physical functioning domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities) but was independently significant only in the self-care domain (aOR 0.32, CI 0.11-0.96). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:In a randomized controlled trial of hospitalized non-critically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less severe impairment in the self-care domain of EQ-5D-5L. However, this type of impairment was uncommon, affecting 23 individuals. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:NCT04505774.

BACKGROUND:Women with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:=0.49), with no significant sex-by-treatment-group interactions. CONCLUSIONS:Women had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: http://wwwclinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis.