Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 is partly mediated by thromboinflammation. In noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:We investigated whether therapeutic-dose heparin reduces the incidence of AKI or death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We report a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC open-label, multiplatform randomized trial of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of severe AKI (≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) or all-cause mortality in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Bayesian statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, D-dimer, enrollment period, country, site, and platform. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 1922 enrolled, 23 were excluded due to pre-existing end stage kidney disease and 205 were missing baseline or follow-up creatinine measurements. Severe AKI or death occurred in 4.4% participants assigned to therapeutic-dose heparin and 5.5% assigned to thromboprophylaxis (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.47, 1.10); the posterior probability of superiority for therapeutic-dose heparin (relative risk < 1.0) was 93.6%. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a 97.7% probability of superiority to reduce the composite of stage 3 AKI or death (3.1% vs 4.6%; aRR: 0.64; 95% CrI: 0.40, 0.99) compared to thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a high probability of superiority to reduce the incidence of in-hospital severe AKI or death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

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.

Centers specializing in coronary function testing are critical to ensure a systematic approach to the diagnosis and treatment of angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA). Management leveraging lifestyle, pharmacology, and device-based therapeutic options for ANOCA can improve angina burden and quality of life in affected patients. Multidisciplinary care teams that can tailor and titrate therapies based on individual patient needs are critical to the success of comprehensive programs. As coronary function testing for ANOCA is more widely adopted, collaborative research initiatives will be fundamental to improve ANOCA care. These efforts will require standardized symptom assessments and data collection, which will propel future large-scale clinical trials.

Angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA) is increasingly recognized and may affect nearly one-half of patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography for suspected ischemic heart disease. This working diagnosis encompasses coronary microvascular dysfunction, microvascular and epicardial spasm, myocardial bridging, and other occult coronary abnormalities. Patients with ANOCA often face a high burden of symptoms and may experience repeated presentations to multiple medical providers before receiving a diagnosis. Given the challenges of establishing a diagnosis, patients with ANOCA frequently experience invalidation and recidivism, possibly leading to anxiety and depression. Advances in scientific knowledge and diagnostic testing now allow for routine evaluation of ANOCA noninvasively and in the cardiac catheterization laboratory with coronary function testing (CFT). CFT includes diagnostic coronary angiography, assessment of coronary flow reserve and microcirculatory resistance, provocative testing for endothelial dysfunction and coronary vasospasm, and intravascular imaging for identification of myocardial bridging, with hemodynamic assessment as needed.

BACKGROUND:The impact of complete revascularization (CR) on angina-related health status (symptoms, function, quality of life) in chronic coronary disease (CCD) has not been well studied. OBJECTIVES:Among patients with CCD randomized to invasive (INV) vs conservative (CON) management in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), we compared the following: 1) the impact of anatomic and functional CR on health status compared with incomplete revascularization (ICR); and 2) the predicted impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON. METHODS:Multivariable regression adjusting for patient characteristics was used to compare 12-month health status after independent core laboratory-defined CR vs ICR in INV patients who underwent revascularization. Propensity-weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR or ICR been achieved in all INV patients, compared with CON. RESULTS:Anatomic and functional CR were achieved in 43.3% and 57.8% of 1,641 INV patients, respectively. Among revascularized patients, CR was associated with improved Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency compared with ICR after adjustment for baseline differences. After modeling CR and ICR in all INV patients, patients with CR and ICR each had greater improvements in health status than CON, with better health status with CR than ICR. The projected benefits of CR were most pronounced in patients with baseline daily/weekly angina and not seen in those with no angina. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with CCD in ISCHEMIA, health status improved more with CR compared with ICR or CON, particularly in those with frequent angina. Anatomic and functional CR provided comparable improvements in quality of life. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

IMPORTANCE:Platelet activation is a potential therapeutic target in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of P2Y12 inhibition among critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This international, open-label, adaptive platform, 1:1 randomized clinical trial included critically ill (requiring intensive care-level support) patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled between February 26, 2021, through June 22, 2022. Enrollment was discontinued on June 22, 2022, by the trial leadership in coordination with the study sponsor given a marked slowing of the enrollment rate of critically ill patients. INTERVENTION:Participants were randomly assigned to receive a P2Y12 inhibitor or no P2Y12 inhibitor (usual care) for 14 days or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Ticagrelor was the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death and, for participants who survived to hospital discharge, the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 of the index hospitalization. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. RESULTS:At the time of trial termination, 949 participants (median [IQR] age, 56 [46-65] years; 603 male [63.5%]) had been randomly assigned, 479 to the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 470 to usual care. In the P2Y12 inhibitor group, ticagrelor was used in 372 participants (78.8%) and clopidogrel in 100 participants (21.2%). The estimated adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for the effect of P2Y12 inhibitor on organ support-free days was 1.07 (95% credible interval, 0.85-1.33). The posterior probability of superiority (defined as an OR > 1.0) was 72.9%. Overall, 354 participants (74.5%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 339 participants (72.4%) in the usual care group survived to hospital discharge (median AOR, 1.15; 95% credible interval, 0.84-1.55; posterior probability of superiority, 80.8%). Major bleeding occurred in 13 participants (2.7%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 13 (2.8%) in the usual care group. The estimated mortality rate at 90 days for the P2Y12 inhibitor group was 25.5% and for the usual care group was 27.0% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this randomized clinical trial of critically ill participants hospitalized for COVID-19, treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor did not improve the number of days alive and free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. The use of the P2Y12 inhibitor did not increase major bleeding compared with usual care. These data do not support routine use of a P2Y12 inhibitor in critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04505774.

BACKGROUND:COVID-19 has been associated with endothelial injury and resultant microvascular inflammation and thrombosis. Activated endothelial cells release and express P-selectin and von Willebrand Factor (VWF), both of which are elevated in severe COVID-19 and may be implicated in the disease pathophysiology. We hypothesized that crizanlizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to P-selectin, would reduce morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS:An international, adaptive randomized-controlled platform trial, funded by the NHLBI, randomly assigned 422 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, with either moderate or severe illness, to receive either a single infusion of the P-selectin inhibitor crizanlizumab (at a dose of 5 mg/kg) plus standard-of-care, or standard-of-care alone, in an open-label 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale consisting of the number of days alive free of organ support through the first 21 days after trial entry. RESULTS:The study was stopped for futility by the data safety monitoring committee. Among 421 randomized patients with known 21-day outcome, 163 (77%) patients randomized to the crizanlizumab plus standard-of-care arm did not require any respiratory or cardiovascular organ support compared with 169 (80%) in the standard-of-care only arm. The adjusted OR for the effect of crizanlizumab on organ support-free days was 0.70 (95% CrI, 0.43 to 1.16), where OR>1 indicates treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility Pr(OR<1.2) of 98% and a posterior probability of inferiority Pr(OR<1.0) of 91%. Overall, there were 37 deaths (17.5%) in the crizanlizumab arm and 27 (12.8%) deaths in the standard-of-care arm (HR=1.42, 95% CrI 0.90-2.36, Pr(HR>1) = 0.934). CONCLUSIONS:Crizanlizumab, a P-selectin inhibitor, did not result in improvement in organ-support free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:Anatomic complete revascularization (ACR) and functional complete revascularization (FCR) have been associated with reduced death and myocardial infarction (MI) in some prior studies. The impact of complete revascularization (CR) in patients undergoing an invasive (INV) compared with a conservative (CON) management strategy has not been reported. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Among patients with chronic coronary disease without prior coronary artery bypass grafting randomized to INV vs CON management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, we examined the following: 1) the outcomes of ACR and FCR compared with incomplete revascularization; and 2) the potential impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON management. METHODS:ACR and FCR in the INV group were assessed at an independent core laboratory. Multivariable-adjusted outcomes of CR were examined in INV patients. Inverse probability weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR been achieved in all INV patients compared with CON management. RESULTS:ACR and FCR were achieved in 43.4% and 58.4% of 1,824 INV patients. ACR was associated with reduced 4-year rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared with incomplete revascularization. By inverse probability weighted modeling, ACR in all 2,296 INV patients compared with 2,498 CON patients was associated with a lower 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI (difference -3.5; 95% CI: -7.2% to 0.0%). In comparison, the event rate difference of cardiovascular death or MI for INV minus CON in the overall ISCHEMIA trial was -2.4%. Results were similar but less pronounced with FCR. CONCLUSIONS:The outcomes of an INV strategy may be improved if CR (especially ACR) is achieved. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Background Psychological well-being is important among individuals with myocardial infarction (MI) given the clear links between stress, depression, and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Stress and depressive disorders are more prevalent in women than men after MI. Resilience may protect against stress and depressive disorders after a traumatic event. Longitudinal data are lacking in populations post MI. We examined the role of resilience in the psychological recovery of women post MI, over time. Methods and Results We analyzed a sample from a longitudinal observational multicenter study (United States, Canada) of women post MI, between 2016 and 2020. Perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale-4 [PSS-4]) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 [PHQ-2]) were assessed at baseline (time of MI) and 2 months post MI. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and resilience (Brief Resilience Scale [BRS]) were collected at baseline. Low and normal/high resilience groups were established as per published cutoffs (BRS scores <3 or ≥3). Mixed-effects modeling was used to examine associations between resilience and psychological recovery over 2 months. The sample included 449 women, mean (SD) age, 62.2 (13.2) years, of whom 61.1% identified as non-Hispanic White, 18.5% as non-Hispanic Black, and 15.4% as Hispanic/Latina. Twenty-three percent had low resilience. The low resilience group had significantly higher PSS-4 and PHQ-2 scores than the normal/high resilience group at all time points. In adjusted models, both groups showed a decrease in PSS-4 scores over time. Conclusions In a diverse cohort of women post MI, higher resilience is associated with better psychological recovery over time. Future work should focus on developing strategies to strengthen resilience and improve psychological well-being for women with MI. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02905357; Unique identifier: NCT02905357.