Faculty Bibliography

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: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.

OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to assess whether an obesity paradox (lower event rates with higher body mass index [BMI]) exists in participants with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic coronary disease in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness of Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)-CKD, and whether BMI modified the effect of initial treatment strategy. METHODS:). Associations between BMI and the primary outcome of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (D/MI), and all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and MI individually were estimated. Associations with health status were also evaluated using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7, the Rose Dyspnea Scale, and the EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS:was marginally associated with D/MI (HR 1.43 [1.00-2.04]) and greater dyspnea throughout follow-up (P < .05 at all time points). Heterogeneity of treatment effect between baseline BMI was not evident for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS:In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, an obesity paradox was not detected. Higher BMI was associated with worse dyspnea, and a trend toward increased D/MI and MI risk. Larger studies to validate these findings are warranted.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The long-term effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute treatments on postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC) is unknown. The CONTAIN-Extend study explores the long-term impact of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy on postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) symptoms and general health 18 months following hospitalization. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The CONTAIN-Extend study examined 281 participants from the original CONTAIN COVID-19 trial (CONTAIN-RCT, NCT04364737) at 18 months post-hospitalization for acute COVID-19. Symptom surveys, global health assessments, and biospecimen collection were performed from November 2021 to October 2022. Multivariable logistic and linear regression estimated associations between the randomization arms and self-reported symptoms and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores and adjusted for covariables, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, disease severity, and CONTAIN enrollment quarter and sites. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:There were no differences in symptoms or PROMIS scores between CCP and placebo (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of general symptoms, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.67). However, females (aOR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.73-5.34), those 45-64 years (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-6.23), and April-June 2020 enrollees (aOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.10-5.19) were more likely to report general symptoms and have poorer PROMIS physical health scores than their respective reference groups. Hispanic participants (difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -5.82 to -0.27) and Black participants (-4.48; 95% CI, -7.94 to -1.02) had poorer PROMIS physical health than White participants. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:CCP demonstrated no lasting effect on PASC symptoms or overall health in comparison to the placebo. This study underscores the significance of demographic factors, including sex, age, and timing of acute infection, in influencing symptom reporting 18 months after acute hypoxic COVID-19 hospitalization.

BACKGROUND:Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a sensitive marker for identifying subclinical myocardial dysfunction in obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Little is known about the relationship between GLS and ischemia in patients with myocardial ischemia and no obstructive CAD (INOCA). OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the relationship between resting GLS and ischemia on stress echocardiography (SE) in patients with INOCA. METHODS:Left ventricular GLS was calculated offline on resting SE images at enrollment (n = 144) and 1-year follow-up (n = 120) in the CIAO-ISCHEMIA (Changes in Ischemia and Angina over One year in International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial screen failures with no obstructive CAD on computed tomography [CT] angiography) study, which enrolled participants with moderate or severe ischemia by local SE interpretation (≥3 segments with new or worsening wall motion abnormality and no obstructive (<50% stenosis) on coronary computed tomography angiography. RESULTS:Global longitudinal strain values were normal in 83.3% at enrollment and 94.2% at follow-up. Global longitudinal strain values were not associated with a positive SE at enrollment (GLS = -21.5% positive SE vs GLS = -19.9% negative SE, P = .443) or follow-up (GLS = -23.2% positive SE vs GLS = -23.1% negative SE, P = .859). Significant change in GLS was not associated with positive SE in follow-up (P = .401). Regional strain was not associated with colocalizing ischemia at enrollment or follow-up. Changes in GLS and number of ischemic segments from enrollment to follow-up showed a modest but not clinically meaningful correlation (β = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.67; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS:In this cohort of INOCA patients, resting GLS values were largely normal and did not associate with the presence, severity, or location of stress-induced ischemia. These findings may suggest the absence of subclinical myocardial dysfunction detectable by echocardiographic strain analysis at rest in INOCA.

IMPORTANCE:Biomarkers may improve prediction of cardiovascular events for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), but their importance in addition to clinical tests of inducible ischemia and CAD severity is unknown. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the prognostic value of multiple biomarkers in stable outpatients with obstructive CAD and moderate or severe inducible ischemia. DESIGN AND SETTING:The ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA CKD trials randomized 5,956 participants with CAD to invasive or conservative management from July 2012 to January 2018; 1,064 participated in the biorepository. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular death or MI. Improvements in prediction were assessed by cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for an interquartile increase in each biomarker, controlling for other biomarkers, in a base clinical model of risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and ischemia severity. Secondary analyses were performed among patients in whom core-lab confirmed severity of CAD was ascertained by computed cardiac tomographic angiography (CCTA). EXPOSURES:Baseline levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), lipoprotein a (Lp[a]), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Cystatin C, soluble CD 40 ligand (sCD40L), myeloperoxidase (MPO), and matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP3). RESULTS:Among 757 biorepository participants, median (IQR) follow-up was 3 (2-5) years, age was 67 (61-72) years, and 144 (19%) were female; 508 had severity of CAD by CCTA available. In an adjusted multimarker model with hsTnT, GDF-15, NT-proBNP and sCD40L, the adjusted HR for the primary outcome per interquartile increase in each biomarker was 1.58 (95% CI 1.22, 2.205), 1.60 (95% CI 1.16, 2.20), 1.61 (95% 1.22, 2.14), and 1.46 (95% 1.12, 1.90), respectively. The adjusted multimarker model also improved prediction compared with the clinical model, increasing the AUC from 0.710 to 0.792 (P < .01) and 0.714 to 0.783 (P < .01) for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Similar findings were observed after adjusting for core-lab confirmed atherosclerosis severity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among ISCHEMIA biorepository participants, biomarkers of myocyte injury/distension, inflammation, and platelet activity improved cardiovascular event prediction in addition to risk factors, LVEF, and assessments of ischemia and atherosclerosis severity. These biomarkers may improve risk stratification for patients with stable CAD.