Faculty Bibliography

Importance: Reduced rates of cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) are an unintended consequence of public reporting of cardiogenic shock outcomes in New York. Objectives: To evaluate whether the referral rates for cardiac catheterization, PCI, or CABG have improved in New York since cardiogenic shock was excluded from public reporting in 2008 and compare them with corresponding rates in Michigan, New Jersey, and California. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction from 2002 to 2011 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock with similar baseline characteristics in New York and Michigan. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percutaneous coronary intervention (primary outcome), invasive management (cardiac catheterization, PCI, or CABG), revascularization (PCI or CABG), and CABG were evaluated with reference to 3 calendar year periods: 2002-2005 (time 1: cardiogenic shock included in publicly reported outcomes), 2006-2007 (time 2: cardiogenic shock excluded on a trial basis), and 2008 and thereafter (time 3: cardiogenic shock excluded permanently) in New York and compared with Michigan. Results: Among 2126 propensity score-matched patients representing 10795 (weighted) patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in New York and Michigan, 905 (42.6%) were women and mean (SE) age was 69.5 (0.3) years. A significantly higher proportion of the patients underwent PCI (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 31.1% vs 39.8% vs 40.7% [OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12-2.01; P = .005 for time 3 vs 1]), invasive management (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 59.7% vs 70.9% vs 73.8% [OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), or revascularization (43.1% vs 55.9% vs 56.3% [OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.26-2.20; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]) after the exclusion of cardiogenic shock from public reporting in New York. However, during the same periods, a greater proportion of patients underwent PCI (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 41.2% vs 52.6% vs 57.8% [OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.45-2.56; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), invasive management (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 64.4% vs 80.5% vs 78.6% [OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.74; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), or revascularization (51.2% vs 65.8% vs 68.0% [OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.50-2.66; P < .001 for times 3 vs 1]) in Michigan. Results were largely similar in several sensitivity analyses comparing New York with New Jersey or California. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the rates of PCI, invasive management, and revascularization have increased substantially after the exclusion of cardiogenic shock from public reporting in New York, these rates remain consistently lower than those observed in other states without public reporting.

BACKGROUND: Although metabolic surgery was originally performed to treat hypercholesterolemia, the effects of contemporary bariatric surgery on serum lipids have not been systematically characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies with >/=20 obese adults undergoing bariatric surgery [Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGBP), Adjustable Gastric Banding, Bilio-Pancreatic Diversion (BPD), or Sleeve Gastrectomy]. The primary outcome was change in lipids from baseline to one-year after surgery. The search yielded 178 studies with 25,189 subjects (pre-operative BMI 45.5+/-4.8kg/m2) and 47,779 patient-years of follow-up. In patients undergoing any bariatric surgery, compared to baseline, there were significant reductions in total cholesterol (TC; -28.5mg/dL), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; -22.0mg/dL), triglycerides (-61.6mg/dL) and a significant increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (6.9mg/dL) at one year (P<0.00001 for all). The magnitude of this change was significantly greater than that seen in non-surgical control patients (eg LDL-C; -22.0mg/dL vs -4.3mg/dL). When assessed separately, the magnitude of changes varied greatly by surgical type (Pinteraction<0.00001; eg LDL-C: BPD -42.5mg/dL, RYGBP -24.7mg/dL, Adjustable Gastric Banding -8.8mg/dL, Sleeve Gastrectomy -7.9mg/dL). In the cases of Adjustable Gastric Banding (TC and LDL-C) and Sleeve Gastrectomy (LDL-C), the response at one year following surgery was not significantly different from non-surgical control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary bariatric surgical techniques produce significant improvements in serum lipids, but changes vary widely, likely due to anatomic alterations unique to each procedure. These differences may be relevant in deciding the most appropriate technique for a given patient.

Objective: The optimal blood pressure(BP) target has been a matter of debate. The recent SPRINT trial showed significant benefits of a BP target of <120 mmHg albeit with an increase in serious adverse effects (SAE). Design and method: PUBMED/EMBASE/CENTRAL were searched for randomized trials comparing treating to different BP targets. Trial arms were grouped into five systolic BP target categories: 1) < 160 mmHg; 2) < 150 mmHg; 3) < 140 mmHg; 4) < 130 mmHg and 5) < 120 mmHg. Efficacy outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction, death, cardiovascular death, heart failure and safety outcomes of SAE were evaluated using a network meta-analysis. Results: Seventeen trials that enrolled 55,163 patients with 204,103 patient-years of follow-up were included. There was a significant decrease in stroke (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.29-1.00) and myocardial infarction with systolic BP < 120 mmHg (vs. < 160 mmHg) (RR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-1.00). Sensitivity analysis using achieved systolic BP showed a 72%, 97% and 227% increase in stroke with systolic BP of < 140 mmHg, < 150 mmHg and < 160 mm when compared with systolic BP < 120 mmHg. There was no difference in death, cardiovascular death or heart failure when comparing any of the BP targets. However, the point estimate favored lower BP targets (< 120 mmHg, < 130 mmHg) when compared with higher BP targets (< 140 mmHg or <150 mmHg). BP targets of < 120 mmHg and < 130 mmHg ranked #1 and #2 as the most efficacious target. There was a signifi- cant increase in SAE with systolic BP <120 mmHg vs. <150 mmHg (RR = 1.83; 95% CI 1.05-3.20) or vs. <140 mmHg (RR = 2.12; 95% CI 1.46-3.08). BP targets of < 140 mmHg and < 150 mmHg ranked #1 and #2 as the safest target for the outcome of SAE. Cluster plots for combined efficacy and safety showed that a systolic BP target of < 130 mmHg had optimal balance between efficacy and safety. Conclusions: Among patients with cardiovascular disease, a systolic BP target of < 130 mmHg achieved optimal balance between efficacy and safety

An elevated resting heart rate has been unequivocally linked to adverse cardiovascular events. Conversely, a physiologically low heart rate may confer longevity benefits. Moreover, pharmacological heart rate lowering reduces cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, with the magnitude of the reduction associated with survival benefit. In contrast, pharmacological heart rate lowering paradoxically increases cardiovascular events in hypertension, possibly because it elicits a ventricular-vascular mismatch, leading to increased central systolic blood pressure (BP). By the same hemodynamic mechanism, pharmacological heart rate lowering also engenders an increase in central (aortic) BP in coronary heart disease and, as a consequence, fails to decrease myocardial oxygen consumption. Whether in heart failure, hypertension, or coronary heart disease, or even athletes, heart rate lowering consistently increases central systolic pressure. The increase in central systolic BP is prone to abolish the potential benefits of heart rate lowering interventions, possibly accounting for failure to reduce outcomes in patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and triple therapy (TT, dual antiplatelet plus warfarin) in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or PCI with stenting (PCI-S) who also require chronic oral anticoagulation. BACKGROUND: Recommendations for the optimal antiplatelet/anticoagulant treatment regimen for patients undergoing PCI-S or MI who also require oral anticoagulation are largely based on evidence from observational studies and expert opinions. METHODS: A systematic search was performed for studies comparing TT vs. DAPT in patients post PCI-S or MI and requiring chronic anticoagulation. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, major bleeding, MI, and stent thrombosis. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies were included, with 14,921 patients [TT: 5,819(39%) and DAPT: 9,102(61%)] and a mean follow-up of 1.6 years. The majority of patients required oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Compared to DAPT, patients treated with TT had no significant difference in all-cause mortality [RR: 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-1.08, P = 0.15], MI [RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.51-1.06, P = 0.10], and stent thrombosis [RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.35-1.30, P = 0.24]. Patients treated with TT had significantly increased risk of major bleeding [RR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, P = 0.02], whereas the risk for ischemic stroke was significantly lower [RR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38-0.92, P = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality appears similar in patients treated with TT or DAPT although TT was associated with higher rates of major bleeding and a lower risk for ischemic stroke. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.