Faculty Bibliography

Background: Risk calculators to predict perioperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) often rely on logistic regression (LR) analysis. Automated machine learning (AutoML) processes regularly outperform regular machine learning (ML) and LR methods for predictive accuracy. Commercial AutoML systems have not yet been applied to predict perioperative MACCE after non-cardiac and cardiac surgeries.
Method(s): We used a commercial AutoML system, Google AutoML Tables (GAMLT), to predict perioperative MACCE in the 2019 ACS NSQIP database. MACCE was defined as death, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or stroke. Default AutoML settings were used, with 80% of cases randomly selected for training, 10% for validation, and 10% for testing. Global feature importance was determined through the Shapley method. Two models were generated: Model 1 included 81 pre-operative features; Model 2 included the top 21 features from Model 1 and was independently validated with 2016-2018 NSQIP data.
Result(s): Model 1 yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.934 in the 2019 ACS NSQIP dataset. Model 2, an ensemble of 25 feedforward neural net models, yielded an AUROC of 0.914-0.920 for MACCE in 2016-2019 (Figure).
Conclusion(s): Compared to existing risk calculators, GAMLT-derived models offered novel feature detection and comparable predictive performance for MACCE. AutoML analyses should be considered for risk estimation of perioperative MACCE. [Formula presented]
Copyright

Gender-specific differences in thrombosis have been reported in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We sought to investigate the influence of age on the relation between gender and incident thrombosis or death in COVID-19. We identified consecutive adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, to April 17, 2020, at a large New York health system. In-hospital thrombosis and all-cause mortality were evaluated by gender and stratified by age group. Logistic regression models were generated to estimate the odds of thrombosis or death after multivariable adjustment. In 3,334 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 61% were men. Death or thrombosis occurred in 34% of hospitalizations and was more common in men (36% vs 29% in women, p <0.001; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36 to 1.91). When stratified by age, men had a higher incidence of death or thrombosis in younger patients (aged 18 to 54 years: 21% vs 9%, aOR 3.17, 95% CI 2.06 to 5.01; aged 55 to 74 years: 39% vs 28%, aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.10), but not older patients (aged ≥75 years: 55% vs 48%; aOR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.59) (interaction p value: 0.01). For the individual end points, men were at higher risk of thrombosis (19% vs 12%; aOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.05) and mortality (26% vs 23%; aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69) than women, and gender-specific differences were attenuated with older age. Associations between thrombosis and mortality were most striking in younger patients (aged 18 to 54 years, aOR 8.25; aged 55 to 74 years, aOR 2.38; aged >75 years, aOR 1.88; p for interaction <0.001) but did not differ by gender. In conclusion, the risk of thrombosis or death in COVID-19 is higher in men compared with women and is most apparent in younger age groups.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine the sex differences in the risk profile, management, and outcomes among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). BACKGROUND:Contemporary clinical data regarding sex differences in the management and outcomes of AMI patients presenting with CS are scarce. METHODS:Patients admitted with AMI-CS from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI registry between October 2008 to December 2017 were included. Sex differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes were compared. Patients ≥65 years of age with available linkage data to Medicare claims were included in the analysis of 1-year outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for patient and hospital-related covariates were used to estimate sex-specific differences in in-hospital and 1-year outcomes, respectively. RESULTS:Among 17,195 patients presenting with AMI-CS, 37.3% were women. Women were older, had a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and had worse renal function at presentation. Women were less likely to receive guideline-directed medical therapies within 24 hours and at discharge, undergo diagnostic angiography (85.0% vs 91.1%), or receive mechanical circulatory support (25.4% vs 33.8%). Women had higher risks of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19) and major bleeding (adjusted OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.12-1.34). For patients ≥65 years of age, women did not have a higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.88-1.09) and mortality or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.91-1.12) at 1 year compared with men. CONCLUSIONS:In this large nationwide analysis of patients with AMI-CS, women were less likely to receive guideline recommended care, including revascularization, and had worse in-hospital outcomes than men. At 1 year, there were no sex differences in the risk of mortality. Efforts are needed to address sex disparities in the initial care of AMI-CS patients.

Patients with ischemic heart disease frequently undergo noncardiac surgery. We examined perioperative surgical outcomes in patients with and without previous coronary revascularization by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Adults ≥45 years old who underwent noncardiac surgery between 2010 and 2014 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Previous CABG and PCI were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were defined as the composite of in-hospital mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and acute ischemic stroke. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between previous coronary revascularization and surgical outcomes after adjustment for clinical covariates. We identified 25,091,140 hospitalizations for noncardiac surgery, of which 8.4% had a history of coronary revascularization (47% previous CABG without PCI, 45% previous PCI without CABG, and 8% previous CABG and PCI). Hospitalized patients with versus without previous coronary revascularization had a higher crude incidence (4.0% vs 2.6%, p <0.001) but lower odds of MACCE (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98) driven by a lower risk of death and ischemic stroke. When analyzed by revascularization strategy, lower odds of MACCE were restricted to patients with previous CABG, driven by excess perioperative acute myocardial infarction risks after PCI. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, previous coronary revascularization was associated with lower odds of MACCE (adjusted odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.78), regardless of revascularization strategy. In conclusion, previous coronary revascularization is associated with lower odds of MACCE after noncardiac surgery, but perioperative risks vary by mode of coronary revascularization.

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is the leading cause of mortality in women. While traditional cardiovascular risk factors play an important role in the development of IHD in women, women may experience sex-specific IHD risk factors and pathophysiology, and thus female-specific risk stratification is needed for IHD prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Emerging data from the past 2 decades have significantly improved the understanding of IHD in women, including mechanisms of ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries and myocardial infarction with no obstructive coronary arteries. Despite this progress, sex differences in IHD outcomes persist, particularly in young women. This review highlights the contemporary understanding of coronary arterial function and disease in women with no obstructive coronary arteries, including coronary anatomy and physiology, mechanisms of ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries and myocardial infarction with no obstructive coronary arteries, noninvasive and invasive diagnostic strategies, and management of IHD.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) occurs in 5%-15% of all patients with acute myocardial infarction. Cardiac MR (CMR) and optical coherence tomography have been used to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism in MINOCA. The role of cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) in patients with MINOCA, however, has not been well studied so far. CCTA can be used to assess atherosclerotic plaque volume, vulnerable plaque characteristics as well as pericoronary fat tissue attenuation, which has not been yet studied in MINOCA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:MINOCA-GR is a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study based on a national registry that will use CCTA in combination with CMR and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) to evaluate the extent and characteristics of coronary atherosclerosis and its correlation with pericoronary fat attenuation in patients with MINOCA. A total of 60 consecutive adult patients across 4 participating study sites are expected to be enrolled. Following ICA and CMR, patients will undergo CCTA during index hospitalisation. The primary endpoints are quantification of extent and severity of coronary atherosclerosis, description of high-risk plaque features and attenuation profiling of pericoronary fat tissue around all three major epicardial coronary arteries in relation to CMR. Follow-up CCTA for the evaluation of changes in pericoronary fat attenuation will also be performed. MINOCA-GR aims to be the first study to explore the role of CCTA in combination with CMR and ICA in the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and assisting in diagnostic evaluation and prognosis of patients with MINOCA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/UNASSIGNED:The study protocol has been approved by the institutional review board/independent ethics committee at each site prior to study commencement. All patients will provide written informed consent. Results will be disseminated at national meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:NCT4186676.

BACKGROUND:Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) occurs due to a mismatch in myocardial oxygen supply and demand without unstable coronary artery disease. We sought to identify patterns, predictors and outcomes of invasive management of type 2 MI in the USA. METHODS:Adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with type 2 MI were identified in a cross-sectional study from the 2018 National Inpatient Sample. Invasive management was defined as invasive coronary angiography or revascularization. Patient, hospital and geographic characteristics associated with invasive management were identified by multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-matched cohorts were generated to evaluate associations between invasive vs. conservative management and mortality. RESULTS:We identified 268 850 admissions with type 2 MI in 2018. Type 2 MI patients had a high burden of comorbidities and were commonly admitted with diagnoses of circulatory (39.7%), infectious (23.1%) or respiratory (10.8%) illness. Only 11.2% of type 2 MI were managed invasively, of which 17.9% underwent coronary revascularization. Odds of invasive management were higher with commercial insurance [adjusted OR (aOR) 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.27-1.52] and lower with Medicaid (aOR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96) vs. Medicare. Significant heterogeneity in invasive management of type 2 MI was observed by geographic region (range 7.2-13.8%), independent of patient and hospital factors. Invasive management was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than conservative management overall (3.9 vs. 9.1%; P < 0.001) and in propensity-matched analyses (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Invasive management of type 2 MI varies by insurance status and geography, highlighting uncertainty regarding optimal management and potential disparities in clinical care.

BACKGROUND:Perioperative myocardial infarction is frequently attributed to type 2 myocardial infarction, a mismatch in myocardial oxygen supply-demand without unstable coronary artery disease. Our aim was to identify characteristics, management, and outcomes of perioperative type 1 versus type 2 myocardial infarction among surgical inpatients. METHODS:Adults age ≥45 years hospitalized for noncardiac surgery were identified in the United States. Perioperative myocardial infarction were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes. Clinical characteristics, invasive myocardial infarction management, mortality, and readmissions were assessed by myocardial infarction subtype. RESULTS:Among 4,755,382 surgical hospitalizations, we identified 38,975 perioperative myocardial infarctions (0.82%), with type 2 infarction in 42%. Patients with type 2 myocardial infarction were older, more likely to be women, and less likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities compared with type 1 myocardial infarction. Fewer patients with type 2 myocardial infarction underwent invasive management than type 1 myocardial infarction (6.7% vs 28.8%, P < .001). Type 2 myocardial infarction mortality was lower than type 1 myocardial infarction mortality (12.1% vs 17.4%, P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.59). Invasive management of perioperative myocardial infarction was associated with lower mortality in type 1 (aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.49-0.74) but not type 2 (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 0.77-1.85) myocardial infarction. Among survivors, there was no difference in 90-day hospital readmission between type 2 and type 1 perioperative myocardial infarction (36.5% vs 36.1%, P = .72). CONCLUSIONS:Type 2 myocardial infarctions account for approximately 40% of perioperative myocardial infarctions. Patients with type 2 perioperative myocardial infarction are less likely to undergo invasive management and have lower mortality compared with those with type 1 perioperative myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND:The initial wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in an influx of patients with acute viral illness and profound changes in healthcare delivery in New York City. The impact of this pandemic on the presentation and invasive management of acute myocardial infarction (MI) is not well described. METHODS:This single-center retrospective study compared patients with MI who underwent invasive coronary angiography at New York University from March-April 2020, during the peak of the first wave of the pandemic, with those presenting in March-April 2019. RESULTS:Only 35 patients with MI underwent angiography during the study period in 2020 vs 109 patients in 2019. No differences in comorbidities or baseline medications were identified. The proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) was higher in 2020 than in 2019 (48.6% vs 24.8%, respectively; P=.01). Median peak troponin concentration was higher (14.5 ng/mL vs 2.9 ng/mL; P<.01) and left ventricular ejection fraction was lower (43.34% vs 51.1%; P=.02) during the pandemic. Among patients with non-STEMI, time from symptom onset to presentation was delayed in 2020 compared with 2019 (median, 24 hours vs 10 hours; P=.04). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was a dramatic decrease in the number of patients with MI undergoing coronary angiography during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of those who presented, patients tended to seek care later after symptom onset and had excess myocardial injury. These data indicate a need for improved patient education to ensure timely cardiovascular care during public health emergencies.