Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee panel recommended a therapeutic target of systolic blood pressure (BP) <150 mm Hg in patients >/=60 years of age, a departure from prior recommendation of <140 mm Hg. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of intensive BP-lowering strategies in older (age >/=65 years) hypertensive patients. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials from 1965 through July 1, 2016. Cardiovascular (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure), and safety (serious adverse events and renal failure) were evaluated. Random and fixed effects analysis were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 4 high-quality trials involving 10,857 older hypertensive patients with a mean follow-up of 3.1 years. Intensive BP lowering was associated with a 29% reduction in MACE (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.84), 33% in cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.98), and 37% in heart failure (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.99) compared with standard BP lowering. Rates of myocardial infarction and stroke did not differ between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of serious adverse events (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09) or renal failure (RR: 1.81; 95% CI: 0.86 to 3.80) between the 2 groups. The fixed effects model yielded largely similar results, except for an increase in the risk of renal failure (RR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.30 to 3.18) with intensive BP-lowering therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In older hypertensive patients, intensive BP control (systolic BP <140 mm Hg) decreased MACE, including cardiovascular mortality and heart failure. Data on adverse events were limited, but suggested an increased risk of renal failure. When considering intensive BP control, clinicians should carefully weigh benefits against potential risks.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing coronary angiography (CA), adequate hydration and minimizing volume of contrast media (CM) are class 1b recommendations for preventing contrast induced nephropathy (CIN). Current data are insufficient to justify specific recommendations about isoosmolar vs. low-osmolar contrast media by the ACCF/AHA/SCAI guidelines. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing IOCM to LOCM in CKD stage 3 and above patients undergoing CA, and reporting incidence of CIN (defined by a rise in creatinine of 25% from baseline) were included in the analysis. The secondary outcome of the study was the incidence of serum creatinine increase by >1mg/dl. RESULTS: A total of 2839 patients were included in 10 trials, in which 1430 patients received IOCM and 1393 received LOCM. When compared to LOCM, IOCM was not associated with significant benefit in preventing CIN (OR=0.72, [CI: 0.50-1.04], P=0.08, I2=59%). Subgroup analysis revealed non-significant difference in incidence of CIN based on baseline use of N-acetylcystine (NAC), diabetes status, ejection fraction, and whether percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary angiography alone was performed. The difference between IOCM and LOCM was further attenuated when restricted to studies with larger sample size (>250 patients) (OR=0.93; [CI: 0.66-1.30]) or when compared with non-ionic LOCM (OR=0.79, [CI: 0.52-1.21]). CONCLUSION: In patients with CKD stage 3 and above undergoing coronary angiography, use of IOCM showed overall non-significant difference in incidence of CIN compared to LOCM. The difference was further attenuated when IOCM was compared with non-ionic LOCM.

In patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI), aggressive hypertension control and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction are important secondary prevention measures. However, residual risk remains despite aggressive treatment. Whether variability in blood pressure (BP) and LDL-C can explain this residual risk is not known. Patients enrolled in the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid-Lowering trial with at least 1 post-baseline measurement of LDL-C and blood pressure (BP) were included. Visit-to-visit LDL-C and BP variabilities were evaluated using various measures of variability. Primary outcome was any coronary event with the secondary outcomes of any cardiovascular event (CV), MI, stroke, death, and CV death. Among the 8,658 patients included, each 1-SD (10.8 mg/dl) increase in LDL-C variability increased the risk of any coronary event (adjusted HR [HRadj] 1.07; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.11; p <0.0001), any CV event, MI, and death (HRadj 1.19; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.25; p <0.0001). Similarly, each 1-SD (7.2 mm Hg) increase in systolic BP variability increased the risk of any coronary event (HRadj 1.15; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.20; p <0.0001), any CV event, MI, stroke, death (HRadj 1.28; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.38; p <0.0001), and CV death. Compared with the group with low variability for both LDL-C and systolic BP, the group with high variability for both had a significant increase in any coronary event (HRadj 1.48; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.70), any CV event (HRadj 1.43; 95% CI 1.27 to 1.61), and MI (HRadj 1.87; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.41). In conclusions, in patients with a history of MI, variabilities in LDL-C and BP are powerful and independent predictors of CV events including death.

Importance: Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) are a significant source of perioperative morbidity and mortality following noncardiac surgery. Objective: To evaluate national trends in perioperative cardiovascular outcomes and mortality after major noncardiac surgery and to identify surgical subtypes associated with cardiovascular events using a large administrative database of United States hospital admissions. Design, Setting, Participants: Patients who underwent major noncardiac surgery from January 2004 to December 2013 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Main Outcomes and Measures: Perioperative MACCE (primary outcome), defined as in-hospital, all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or acute ischemic stroke, were evaluated over time. Results: Among 10581621 hospitalizations (mean [SD] patient age, 65.74 [12.32] years; 5975798 female patients 56.60%]) for major noncardiac surgery, perioperative MACCE occurred in 317479 hospitalizations (3.0%), corresponding to an annual incidence of approximately 150000 events after applying sample weights. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events occurred most frequently in patients undergoing vascular (7.7%), thoracic (6.5%), and transplant surgery (6.3%). Between 2004 and 2013, the frequency of MACCE declined from 3.1% to 2.6% (P for trend <.001; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97) driven by a decline in frequency of perioperative death (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.81) and AMI (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89) but an increase in perioperative ischemic stroke from 0.52% in 2004 to 0.77% in 2013 (P for trend <.001; aOR 1.79; CI 1.73-1.86). Conclusions and Relevance: Perioperative MACCE occurs in 1 of every 33 hospitalizations for noncardiac surgery. Despite reductions in the rate of death and AMI among patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery in the United States, perioperative ischemic stroke increased over time. Additional efforts are necessary to improve cardiovascular care in the perioperative period of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) is frequently associated with late cardiovascular (CV) complications. The mean cardiac dose from irradiation of a left-sided breast cancer is much higher than that for a right-sided breast cancer. However, data is limited on the long-term risks of RT on CV mortality. HYPOTHESIS: RT for breast cancer is associated with long term CV mortality and left sided RT carries a greater mortality than right sided RT. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception through December 2015. Studies reporting CV mortality with RT for left- vs right-sided breast cancers were included. The principal outcome of interest was CV mortality. We calculated summary risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with the random-effects model. RESULTS: The analysis included 289 109 patients from 13 observational studies. Women who had received RT for left-sided breast cancer had a higher risk of CV death than those who received RT for a right-sided breast cancer (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.07-1.18, P < 0.001; number needed to harm: 353). Difference in CV mortality between left- vs right-sided breast RT was more apparent after 15 years of follow-up (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.08-1.41, P < 0.001; number needed to harm: 95). CONCLUSIONS: CV mortality from left-sided RT was significantly higher compared with right-sided RT for breast cancer and was more apparent after >/=15 years of follow-up.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) is a highly prevalent condition associated with increased costs, morbidity, and mortality. Management goals of SIHD can broadly be thought of in terms of improving prognosis and/or improving symptoms. Treatment options include medical therapy as well as revascularization, either with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. Herein, we will review the current evidence base for treatment of SIHD as well as its challenges and discuss ongoing studies to help address some of these knowledge gaps. RECENT FINDINGS: There has been no consistent reduction in death or myocardial infarction (MI) with revascularization vs. medical therapy in patients with SIHD in contemporary trials. Angina and quality of life have been shown to be relieved more rapidly with revascularization vs. optimal medical therapy; however, the durability of these results is uncertain. There have been challenges and limitations in several of the trials addressing the optimal treatment strategy for SIHD due to potential selection bias (due to knowledge of coronary anatomy prior to randomization), patient crossover, and advances in medical therapy and revascularization strategies since trial completion. The challenges inherent to prior trials addressing the optimal management strategy for SIHD have impacted the generalizability of results to real-world cohorts. Until the results of additional ongoing trials are available, the decision for revascularization or medical therapy should be based on patients' symptoms, weighing the risks and benefits of each approach, and patient preference.

OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the efficacy of renin angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronary artery disease without heart failure, compared with active controls or placebo. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized trials. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases until 1 May 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomized trials of RASi versus placebo or active controls in patients with stable coronary artery disease without heart failure (defined as left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40% or without clinical heart failure). Each trial had to enroll at least 100 patients with coronary artery disease without heart failure, with at least one year's follow-up. Studies were excluded if they were redacted or compared use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors with angiotensin receptor blockers. Outcomes were death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, incident diabetes, and drug withdrawal due to adverse effects. RESULTS: 24 trials with 198 275 patient years of follow-up were included. RASi reduced the risk of all cause mortality (rate ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.98), cardiovascular mortality (0.74, 0.59 to 0.94), myocardial infarction (0.82, 0.76 to 0.88), stroke (0.79, 0.70 to 0.89), angina, heart failure, and revascularization when compared with placebo but not when compared with active controls (all cause mortality, 1.05, 0.94 to 1.17; Pinteraction=0.006; cardiovascular mortality, 1.08, 0.93 to 1.25, Pinteraction<0.001; myocardial infarction, 0.99, 0.87 to 1.12, Pinteraction=0.01; stroke, 1.10, 0.93 to 1.31; Pinteraction=0.002). Bayesian meta-regression analysis showed that the effect of RASi when compared with placebo on all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality was dependent on the control event rate, such that RASi was only beneficial in trials with high control event rates (>14.10 deaths and >7.65 cardiovascular deaths per 1000 patient years) but not in those with low control event rates. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease without heart failure, RASi reduced cardiovascular events and death only when compared with placebo but not when compared with active controls. Even among placebo controlled trials in this study, the benefit of RASi was mainly seen in trials with higher control event rates but not in those with lower control event rates. Evidence does not support a preferred status of RASi over other active controls.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with cardiovascular disease and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Contemporary management and outcomes of AMI in patients with CKD have not been reported. METHODS: We analyzed United States National Inpatient Sample data for patients admitted with AMI with or without CKD from 2007 to 2012. Propensity score matching was used to identify patients with AMI and CKD with similar baseline characteristics who were managed invasively (cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) or conservatively. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 753,782 patients admitted with AMI, 17.8% had a diagnosis of CKD. Patients with CKD had lower odds of invasive management (49.9% vs. 73.1%; adjusted OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.57-0.58), were less likely to undergo revascularization (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.59-0.61), and had higher in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs. 5.0%; adjusted OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.51-1.59) than those without CKD. In a propensity-matched cohort of 89,630 CKD patients treated for AMI with invasive vs. conservative management, invasive management was associated with lower in-hospital mortality overall (5.9% vs. 10.9%, p<0.001; OR=0.51 (0.49-0.54)) as well as in subgroups by MI type and severity of CKD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AMI and CKD are less likely to receive invasive management, coronary revascularization, and have higher in-hospital mortality than patients without CKD. Invasive management of AMI was associated with lower in-hospital mortality versus conservative management in all patients, regardless of CKD severity.