Faculty Bibliography

Background Emerging evidence links acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 with higher mortality and respiratory morbidity, but the relationship of AKI with cardiovascular disease outcomes has not been reported in this population. We sought to evaluate associations between chronic kidney disease (CKD), AKI, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results In a large multicenter registry including 8574 patients with COVID-19 from 88 US hospitals, data were collected on baseline characteristics and serial laboratory data during index hospitalization. Primary exposure variables were CKD (categorized as no CKD, CKD, and end-stage kidney disease) and AKI (classified into no AKI or stages 1, 2, or 3 using a modification of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guideline definition). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The key secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, new-onset nonfatal heart failure, and nonfatal cardiogenic shock. CKD and end-stage kidney disease were not associated with mortality or major adverse cardiac events after multivariate adjustment. In contrast, AKI was significantly associated with mortality (stage 1 hazard ratio [HR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.46-2.03]; stage 2 HR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.52-2.20]; stage 3 HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.44-1.98]; versus no AKI) and major adverse cardiac events (stage 1 HR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.74-2.71]; stage 2 HR, 2.70 [95% CI, 2.07-3.51]; stage 3 HR, 3.06 [95% CI, 2.52-3.72]; versus no AKI). Conclusions This large study demonstrates a significant association between AKI and all-cause mortality and, for the first time, major adverse cardiovascular events in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:Obesity may contribute to adverse outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, studies of large, broadly generalizable patient populations are lacking, and the effect of body mass index (BMI) on COVID-19 outcomes- particularly in younger adults-remains uncertain. METHODS:We analyzed data from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 88 US hospitals enrolled in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry with data collection through July 22, 2020. BMI was stratified by World Health Organization obesity class, with normal weight prespecified as the reference group. RESULTS:) was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death only in those ≤50 years (hazard ratio, 1.36 [1.01-1.84]). In adjusted analyses, higher BMI was associated with dialysis initiation and with venous thromboembolism but not with major adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS:Obese patients are more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19, and are at higher risk of in-hospital death or mechanical ventilation, in particular, if young (age ≤50 years). Obese patients are also at higher risk for venous thromboembolism and dialysis. These observations support clear public health messaging and rigorous adherence to COVID-19 prevention strategies in all obese individuals regardless of age.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) over the last decade. The results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients and led to the approval of TAVR for use across the risk spectrum. Heart teams around the world will now be faced with evaluating a deluge of younger, healthier patients with severe AS. Prior to the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk studies, this heterogenous patient population would have undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unlikely that TAVR will completely supplant SAVR for the treatment of severe AS in patients with a low surgical risk, as SAVR has excellent short- and long-term outcomes and years of durability data. In this review, we outline the critical role that SAVR will continue to play in the treatment of severe AS in the post-PARTNER 3/Evolut Low Risk era.

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in additional challenges for systems designed to perform expeditious primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. There are 2 important considerations: the guideline-recommended time goals were difficult to achieve for many patients in high-income countries even before the pandemic, and there is a steep increase in mortality when primary percutaneous coronary intervention cannot be delivered in a timely fashion. Although the use of fibrinolytic therapy has progressively decreased over the last several decades in high-income countries, in circumstances when delays in timely delivery of primary percutaneous coronary intervention are expected, a modern fibrinolytic-based pharmacoinvasive strategy may need to be considered. The purpose of this review is to systematically discuss the contemporary role of an evidence-based fibrinolytic reperfusion strategy as part of a pharmacoinvasive approach, in the context of the emerging coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND:Lifetime risk of heart failure has been estimated to range from 20% to 46% in diverse sex and race groups. However, lifetime risk estimates for the 2 HF phenotypes, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are not known. METHODS:Participant-level data from 2 large prospective cohort studies, the CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study) and MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), were pooled, excluding individuals with prevalent HF at baseline. Remaining lifetime risk estimates for HFpEF (EF ≥45%) and HFrEF (EF <45%) were determined at different index ages with the use of a modified Kaplan-Meier method with mortality and the other HF subtype as competing risks. RESULTS:We included 12 417 participants >45 years of age (22.2% blacks, 44.8% men) who were followed up for median duration of 11.6 years with 2178 overall incident HF events with 561 HFrEF events and 726 HFpEF events. At the index age of 45 years, the lifetime risk for any HF through 90 years of age was higher in men than women (27.4% versus 23.8%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFrEF was higher in men than women (10.6% versus 5.8%). In contrast, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was similar in men and women. In race-stratified analyses, lifetime risk for overall HF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (25.9% versus 22.4%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (11.2% versus 7.7%), whereas that for HFrEF was similar across the 2 groups. Among participants with antecedent myocardial infarction before HF diagnosis, the remaining lifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF were up to 2.5-fold and 4-fold higher, respectively, compared with those without antecedent myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS:Lifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF vary by sex, race, and history of antecedent myocardial infarction. These insights into the distribution of HF risk and its subtypes could inform the development of targeted strategies to improve population-level HF prevention and control.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:This paper highlights the dynamic relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and heart failure (HF). As heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) surpasses heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in prevalence, our void in understanding how to treat this syndrome becomes less justifiable. As such, significant attention has been given to the role that obesity and physical inactivity play, as both risk factors for heart failure, and therapeutic targets for its treatment. RECENT FINDINGS:Previous findings have shown that low CRF, obesity, and physical inactivity are all risk factors for HF. More recently, it has been discovered that these factors are even more significant when applied to HFpEF, even after accounting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. As such, new investigations have attempted to discover whether improvements in CRF could be utilized as a tool for prevention of HF. In addition, small studies have shown that interventions to improve CRF in patients with HF could improve both quality of life and fitness. The role of CRF, PA, and obesity in the development of HF is now well established; however, our ability to attenuate that risk is yet to be determined. Observational data have signaled a correlation between improvements in PA, CRF and lower risk of HF however, large randomized controlled trials are still required to truly determine whether exercise training could be used in the prevention and treatment of HF, particularly HFpEF.