Faculty Bibliography

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:Electronic health record (EHR) tools can improve prescribing of guideline-recommended therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but their effectiveness may vary by physician workload. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This paper aims to assess whether physician workload modifies the effectiveness of EHR tools for HFrEF. METHODS:This was a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BETTER CARE-HF (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations for Heart Failure) cluster-randomized trial, which compared effectiveness of an alert vs message vs usual care on prescribing of mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs). The trial included adults with HFrEF seen in cardiology offices who were eligible for and not prescribed MRAs. Visit volume was defined at the cardiologist-level as number of visits per 6-month study period (high = upper tertile vs non-high = remaining). Analysis at the patient-level used likelihood ratio test for interaction with log-binomial models. RESULTS:Among 2,211 patients seen by 174 cardiologists, 932 (42.2%) were seen by high-volume cardiologists (median: 1,853; Q1-Q3: 1,637-2,225 visits/6 mo; and median: 10; Q1-Q3: 9-12 visits/half-day). MRA was prescribed to 5.5% in the high-volume vs 14.8% in the non-high-volume groups in the usual care arm, 10.3% vs 19.6% in the message arm, and 31.2% vs 28.2% in the alert arm, respectively. Visit volume modified treatment effect (P for interaction = 0.02) such that the alert was more effective in the high-volume group (relative risk: 5.16; 95% CI: 2.57-10.4) than the non-high-volume group (relative risk: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.29-2.90). CONCLUSIONS:An EHR-embedded alert increased prescribing by >5-fold among patients seen by high-volume cardiologists. Our findings support use of EHR alerts, especially in busy practice settings. (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations for Heart Failure [BETTER CARE-HF]; NCT05275920).

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).

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: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/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.

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).

Background: Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes mellitus, and preterm birth are associated with ischemic heart disease in later life. Objectives: The authors aimed to study the features of premature myocardial infarction (MI) among women with and without prior APOs. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of women with premature MI (<65 years of age) referred for left heart catheterization matched with a database of abstracted pregnancy data. We compared MI characteristics and epicardial coronary anatomy between women with and without APOs during their index pregnancy and evaluated time from delivery to MI. Results: Of 391 women with premature MI and associated coronary angiography (age: 49 ± 8 years), 154 (39%) had a prior APO (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy n = 78, preeclampsia n = 35, gestational diabetes mellitus n = 28, and preterm birth n = 48). Women with APO history had a higher prevalence of diabetes (33% vs 16% without APO; P = 0.001) and presented earlier with MI following delivery (19.6 [IQR: 14.3-23.5] years vs those without APO 21.5 [IQR: 17.0-25.4] years; P = 0.012), driven by preeclampsia (17.1 [IQR: 12.7-22.4] years, P = 0.010). Women with and without APOs had similar MI features including rates of ST-segment elevation MI, obstructive and multi-vessel coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, and shock. Conclusions: Among women with premature MIs, 39% had a history of an APO. Women with APO history presented sooner after pregnancy but had similar MI characteristics vs those without APOs. Pregnancy history may identify women who warrant early, aggressive cardiovascular disease prevention.