Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We aimed to compare the visit-to-visit variability in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) according to different lipid-lowering strategies and evaluate its prognostic implications using data from previous trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We analyzed two randomized clinical trials: the RACING trial and the LODESTAR trial. LDL-C variability was evaluated using standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation, and variation independent of mean. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS:<0.001). Every 1-SD increase in LDL-C variability (SD) was also independently associated with higher risk of myocardial infarction by 2.1%, stroke by 3.5%, and coronary revascularization by 2.7%. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared to high-intensity statin therapy, LDL-C variability was not increased with the moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy; however, it was increased in the treat-to-target strategy. Even among those treated with moderate- or high-intensity statins or statins with a target LDL-C levels of 50-70 mg/dL, increased LDL-C variability was associated with higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) are being increasingly used for the management of patients admitted with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and are endorsed by societal guidelines. Whether PERT improves outcomes remains unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients with acute PE treated by a PERT versus no PERT.A systematic review and study level meta-analysis was conducted by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until November 10, 2024 and included studies evaluating efficacy of PERT vs no PERT in patients admitted for acute PE. Outcomes included all-cause mortality (in-hospital and 30-day mortality), major and clinically relevant bleeding, advanced therapies utilization, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission. Twenty-four retrospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 15,809 patients (mean age 61.6 years with 49% male) with acute PE of which 6228 were treated with a PERT and 9,581 without a PERT. Lower all-cause mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) [odds ratio (OR)= 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.93; 24 studies], major or clinically relevant bleeding (OR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.86; 15 studies), higher utilization of advanced therapies (OR= 3.16; 95% CI: 1.81 to 5.49; 19 studies), and lower hospital LOS (MD= -1.49; 95% CI: -2.59 to -0.39; 14 studies) were seen in the patients treated by a PERT compared to those not treated by a PERT. In this large meta-analysis of observational studies comparing outcomes in patients treated by PERT versus not treated by PERT, there were significantly lower short-term mortality, lower major or clinically relevant bleeding, higher utilization of advanced therapies and lower hospital length of stay with the existence of PERT. PERT should be the standard of care for the management of patients with acute PE.

BACKGROUND:Catheter-based percutaneous mechanical aspiration (PMA) is an emerging acute intervention for debulking infective vegetations in right-sided infective endocarditis (RSIE); however, its outcomes and safety remain undefined. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The authors sought to assess early clinical outcomes and safety of PMA in patients with RSIE. METHODS:The CLEAR-IE (Cardiac Lesion Extraction and Aspiration Registry for Infective Endocarditis) is a large multicenter retrospective registry of consecutive patients with RSIE who have undergone PMA. Procedural success was defined as a ≥70% reduction in site-reported vegetation size or a residual size ≤1 cm on intraprocedural echocardiography, which included transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), selected at the operator's discretion to guide the intervention. The primary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital mortality, new pulmonary embolism (PE), or emergency surgery. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint and in-hospital worsening tricuspid regurgitation (TR). RESULTS:Between January 2014 and January 2024, 256 patients from 19 institutions were included. Median age was 43 years; 43% were women, and 51% had history of injection drug use. Acute PE (50.8%) and shock (27%) were frequent at presentation. Tricuspid valve involvement was present in 70%, with a median site-reported vegetation size of 2.4 cm (Q1-Q3: 0.6-9 cm). Severe TR was noted in 31.3% at baseline. Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant pathogen (73.8%). Procedural success was achieved in 89.4%, with a median residual vegetation size of 0.7 cm (Q1-Q3: 0.2-1.1 cm). Overall, 86.9% completed the procedure free from procedure-related complications. The primary endpoint occurred in 18% (mortality: 9.8%; new PE: 8.3%; emergency surgery: 3.1%). Among those without baseline severe TR, worsening TR occurred in 16.9%. On univariate analysis, shock (OR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.15-4.43; P = 0.03) and hypoxia (OR: 3.62; 95% CI: 1.83-7.17; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with the primary endpoint, whereas worsening TR was not. On multivariate analysis, hypoxia (OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.34-5.73; P = 0.006) remained significantly associated with the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS:PMA of RSIE is feasible with high procedural success. Adverse events were acceptable and largely driven by underlying RSIE. Randomized trials are warranted to confirm the clinical impact and safety of PMA in RSIE.

BACKGROUND:In patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), guidelines recommend further risk stratification (Class 1 indication). However, head-to-head comparison of different risk stratification tools are lacking. Our objective was to compare the performance of 4 scores in predicting adverse clinical events in intermediate-risk PE. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of 192 intermediate-risk PE patients spanning October 2016 to July 2019. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to compare the predictive performance of the composite PE shock (CPES) score, Bova, simplified PE shock index (sPESI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory types for the primary outcome, which was a composite of PE-related in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation and its individual components. RESULTS:A total of 28 patients (14.6%) experienced the primary composite outcome. CPES demonstrated the highest discriminatory power for predicting the primary composite outcome (AUC: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.83) as well as its individual components compared to the other risk scores (p = 0.008). The AUCs for the other scores were as follows: Bova, 0.66 (95% CI: 0.56-0.76); sPESI, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.77); NEWS, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63-0.82) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory, AUC of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.51-0.68). The ESC intermediate-risk subcategory exhibited the lowest performance for the primary composite outcome and across all individual components. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CPES score outperformed other commonly used risk stratification tools for PE-related morbidity and mortality in intermediate-risk PE patients. The findings support the integration of CPES into clinical practice to enhance patient selection for escalated care and timely interventions.

BACKGROUND:Pulmonary embolism (PE) is can present with cardiac arrest. Catheter-based therapies (CBT) provide rapid reperfusion for patients with PE, though their effect on outcomes of patients with PE and cardiac arrest are not well known. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of CBT on outcomes among patients with PE and cardiac arrest. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with PE and cardiac arrest from 2017 to 2020, using the National Readmission Database (NRD). We compared patients who underwent CBT versus no CBT and patients managed with CBT alone versus systemic thrombolysis alone. The primary endpoint was in-hospital death; exploratory outcomes were 90-day death and readmissions. Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used. RESULTS:Nine hundred and seventy-three patients were included (111 with CBT). CBT was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death (36.9% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.015; aOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.85) with no difference in 90-day readmission (11.3% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.19; aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.27-1.47). Among the 390 patients with either CBT or systemic thrombolysis alone in-hospital death (34.4% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.023; aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.21-1.25) and 90-day readmissions (13.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.79; aHR 1.04, 95% CI 0.39-2.76) were similar. Ninety-day survival was higher with CBT when compared with no CBT or systemic thrombolytic alone (log-rank p = 0.050 and 0.020, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with PE and cardiac arrest, CBT was associated with decreased risk of in-hospital death and 90-day survival compared with no CBT. Further prospective study on utility of CBT in PE and cardiac arrest is needed.

The Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular EVENTS (PREVENT) equations, created and endorsed by the American Heart Association, provide cardiovascular risk estimates for the general population, but have not yet been tested in multiethnic populations. In the present study, in a large nationwide multiethnic sample of US veterans, the utility of PREVENT to predict the risk of total cardiovascular disease (CVD: fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure; PREVENT-CVD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD: fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke; PREVENT ASCVD) and heart failure was evaluated. We assessed the discrimination and calibration performance of ASCVD prediction with PREVENT ASCVD compared with a previous risk-prediction score, pooled cohort equations (PCEs). Among 2,500,291 veterans aged 30-79 years (93.9% men and 6.1% women), 407,342 total CVD events occurred over a median (interquartile range (IQR)) follow-up of 5.8 (IQR = 3.1-8.3) years. The Concordance index (C-index) (95% confidence interval (CI)) for PREVENT-CVD was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.65-0.65) in the overall sample and was similar across different race and ethnic groups (Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.70 (95% CI = 0.69-0.71); Hispanic, 0.70 (95% CI = 0.69-0.70); non-Hispanic Black. 0.68 (95% CI = 0.68-0.69) and non-Hispanic White, 0.65 (95% CI = 0.64-0.65)). C-indices were similar between PREVENT ASCVD and PCEs and ranged from 0.61 to 0.63. Calibration slopes for PREVENT-CVD and -ASCVD in the overall sample were 1.09 (s.e. = 0.04) and 1.15 (s.e. = 0.04), respectively. In contrast, PCEs demonstrated overprediction for ASCVD with a calibration slope of 0.51 (s.e. = 0.06). Calibration slopes for PREVENT and PCEs were similar across race and ethnic groups. Among US veterans, the PREVENT equations accurately estimated CVD and ASCVD risk with some variability across race and ethnicity groups and outperformed PCEs for ASCVD risk prediction.

BACKGROUND:The relationship between syncope and invasive hemodynamics in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the ability of syncope, as a single clinical variable, to predict a low cardiac index in patients with acute PE. METHODS:) in patients with acute intermediate- high risk PE. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, hemodynamic instability, 90-day readmission rates, other invasive hemodynamic parameters, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. Regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between cardiac index and syncope. RESULTS:A total of 132 patients (86% intermediate- and 14% high-risk) were included in the study, with 27 (20%) presenting with syncope. Among the 114 intermediate-risk patients, 24 (21%) presented with syncope. In all-comers, there was no significant difference between groups at baseline. Within the intermediate-only subgroup, there were no significant differences between groups at baseline, except that the syncope group was older (62.6 ± 14.9 vs. 56.1 ± 13.9, p=0.048, Table 2) and had significantly higher troponin elevation at presentation (684.3 ± 1361.8ng/L vs. 195.6 ± 278.1ng/L, p=0.003, Table 2). In all-comers, there was no difference in rates of low cardiac index (63% vs. 59%, p=0.71) or mPAP (33.9 ± 8.6 vs. 32.7 ± 9.6 mm Hg, p=0.57) between patients who presented with and without syncope. Similarly, among intermediate-risk patients, there was also no difference in the rates of low cardiac index (67% vs. 57%, p=0.38) or mPAP (34.0 ± 9.2 vs. 33.1 ± 9.8 mmHg, p=0.69) between patients with and without syncope. There was no difference in clinical outcomes between those who presented with and without syncope. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In conclusion, in patients with acute PE, syncope was not associated with a low cardiac index or higher mPAP.

BACKGROUND:The recently published PEERLESS trial compared catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, it included a low proportion of patients with contraindications to thrombolytic therapy (4.4%), leaving uncertainty about how CDT would perform relative to CBT in a real-world cohort with higher bleeding risk. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:This study aims to address this gap by comparing real-world outcomes of CDT and CBT in patients with acute PE. METHODS:This retrospective analysis included patients who underwent CDT and CBT at two tertiary care centers from January 2020 to January 2024. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline variables. RESULTS:A total of 162 (mean age 58 years, 45.7% women, 17.3% high-risk, 28% contraindication to lytics, 28% CDT, 72% CBT) patients were included, with 12.4% patients experiencing the primary outcome. There was no difference in the rates of the primary outcome between CBT versus CDT (11.2% vs. 15.2%, IPTW HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.27-2.38, p = 0.69). CBT was associated with a lower risk of hemodynamic decompensation (5% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.036), major bleeding (7.8% vs. 17.4%, IPTW HR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.07-0.95, p = 0.042) and ICH (0 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.024) compared to CDT. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among a real-world cohort of patients with acute PE with higher bleeding risk than PEERLESS undergoing catheter-based therapies, CBT was associated with a lower rate of hemodynamic deterioration, major bleeding, and ICH with similar rate of primary composite outcome when compared with CDT. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.