Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Director, Heart Failure Research, Director, Post Graduate Medical Education in Heart Failure and Transplantation, Professor of Medicine at Cedars-Sinai. In this video, she speaks about A Clinician's Guide to the 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.
The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) 2022 Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure provides clinicians with patient-centered recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing heart failure patients (HF). 1 The document, the result of nearly two years of work by the writing committee's 26 members, includes 159 pages of text (including 40 pages of references), 14 sections, 33 tables, 15 figures, and 192 recommendations—a daunting task for any clinician interested in optimizing the care of patients with HF. What is the best strategy to approach a new policy?
Scott Wright, MD, Professor of Medicine, Chair of the IRB at the Mayo Clinic. In this video, he speaks about the Phase III ORION-9,10, and 11 Studies.
In summary:
This is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized Phase III research in patients with ASCVD with increased LDL-C despite the maximum tolerated dose of LDL-C lowering treatments to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of subcutaneous (SC) inclisiran injection (s). The study will be conducted in multiple locations across the United States.
Prakriti Gaba, MD, Cardiology Fellow at Harvard Medical School. In this video, she speaks about the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality With Icosapent Ethyl in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction.
Outline
Origins:
REDUCE-IT was a double-blind experiment in which 8,179 statin-treated individuals with reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and moderately increased triglycerides were randomly assigned to icosapent ethyl (IPE) or placebo. The primary objective, including death from cardiovascular (CV) causes, was significantly reduced. It was uncertain what effect IPE has on people who had previously had a myocardial infarction (MI).
Goals:
In REDUCE-IT, we wanted to look at the effect of IPE on ischemic events in patients who had previously had a MI.
Methodology:
We conducted post-hoc analysis on patients who had previously experienced MI. CV mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina were the primary endpoints. The most important secondary outcome was CV death, MI, or stroke.
Outcomes:
A total of 3,693 patients had a previous MI. With IPE vs placebo, the primary endpoint was lowered from 26.1 percent to 20.2 percent; HR: 0.74 (95 percent CI: 0.65-0.85; P = 0.00001). The main secondary endpoint was lowered from 18.0% to 13.3%; HR: 0.71 (95 percent CI: 0.61-0.84; P = 0.00006). There was also a substantial 35% relative risk reduction in total ischemia events (P = 0.0000001), 34% reduction in MI (P = 0.00009), 30% reduction in CV death (P = 0.01), and a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality (P = 0.054), despite a modest rise in atrial fibrillation. Sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest were also drastically reduced by 40% and 56%, respectively.
Inferences:
Patients in REDUCE-IT with a history of recent MI who were treated with IPE had large and significant relative and absolute risk reductions in ischemic events, including CV mortality. (AMR101 Study to Assess Its Ability to Reduce Cardiovascular Events in High-Risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia and Statin Use. The primary goal is to assess the effect of 4 g/day AMR101 on the occurrence of a first major cardiovascular event. NCT01492361; [REDUCE-IT])
Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, Associate Professor at Duke University. In this video, he speaks about the Safety of the oral factor XIa inhibitor asundexian compared with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation (PACIFIC-AF): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-finding phase 2 study.
Summarization:
Backstory -
The use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is restricted due to bleeding concerns. Asundexian, a new oral small molecule activated coagulation factor XIa (FXIa) inhibitor, has the potential to minimize thrombosis while having no effect on haemostasis. In individuals with atrial fibrillation, we wanted to find the best dose of asundexian and compare the risk of bleeding to that of apixaban.
Techniques -
We compared asundexian 20 mg or 50 mg once daily with apixaban 5 mg twice daily in patients 45 years or older with atrial fibrillation, a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2 if male or at least 3 if female, and an increased bleeding risk in this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 dose-finding study. The research was carried out at 93 sites across 14 nations, including 12 in Europe, Canada, and Japan. Using an interactive web response system, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to a treatment group, with randomization stratified by whether patients were using a direct-acting oral anticoagulant prior to the study's start. A double-dummy design was used to achieve masking, with participants receiving both the assigned treatment and a placebo that mimicked the non-assigned therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding based on International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, which was examined in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04218266 and EudraCT as 2019-002365-35.
Results -
862 patients were registered between January 30, 2020, and June 21, 2021. 755 individuals were randomized to treatment at random. Because two participants (assigned to asundexian 20 mg) did not take any trial medicine, 753 patients were included in the analysis (249 received asundexian 20 mg, 254 received asundexian 50 g, and 250 received apixaban). The participants' mean age was 737 years (SD 83), 309 (41%) were women, 216 (29%) had chronic renal disease, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 39 (13%). Asundexian 20 mg inhibited FXIa activity by 81 percent at trough concentrations and 90 percent at peak concentrations; asundexian 50 mg inhibited FXIa activity by 92 percent at trough concentrations and 94 percent at peak concentrations. The incidence proportions for the primary endpoint were 050 (90 percent confidence interval 014–168) for asundexian 20 mg (three events), 016 (001–099) for asundexian 50 mg (one event), and 033 (009–097) for pooled asundexian (four occurrences) against apixaban (six events). Any adverse event occurred at the same rate in all three treatment groups: 118 (47%) with asundexian 20 mg, 120 (47%) with asundexian 50 mg, and 122 (49%) with apixaban.
Explanation -
In patients with atrial fibrillation, the FXIa inhibitor asundexian at dosages of 20 mg and 50 mg once daily led in decreased rates of bleeding compared to normal apixaban treatment, with near-complete in vivo FXIa suppression.
Anuradha Lala, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Cardiology, Associate Professor, Population Health Science and Policy at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Robert John Mentz, MD, Associate Professor of MedicineAssociate Professor in Population Health Sciences, Member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute at Duke University. In this video, she speaks about the article #WordsMatter Continued: Moving from “Candidacy” To “Benefit Derived”.
As professionals who care for patients suffering from heart failure, we are all too familiar with such phrases.
Consider yourself a patient who has been told that you are not a "candidate" for a particular therapy. Is this language likely to make you feel marginalized? Ill-fated? Denied? Such difficulties have recently come to light in relation to the need for COVID-19 vaccination prior to being listed for heart transplantation.
The definition of the candidate, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, covers the following:
a:
one who wants to, is nominated for, or qualifies for a position, membership, or honor
b:
one who is likely to go through or be chosen for something specific
Complex integrated decision-making, as is prevalent in clinical practice, contributes to our patients' "fate." However, this is another important proof of how much our #wordsmatter. Our goal is not to determine fate. It is not to favor one patient over another or to refuse anyone life-saving treatment. Rather, our aim and role are to serve as resource stewards while also assisting in determining the amount to which a patient will benefit from a certain therapy (based on aggregated experience and data).
So we've been debating... Why not phrase it that way if that is the intention?
Consider the following phrase in place of the preceding:
"Mr. X is unlikely to benefit from heart transplantation at this time due to active colon cancer (which would grow due to post-transplant immunosuppression)."
Or
"Ms. Y is unlikely to benefit appreciably from sustained LVAD installation at this time due to past stroke, severe peripheral vascular disease, and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding, all of which put her at high risk of post-surgical complications and mortality."
These rephrasing issues also apply to medical therapies:
"The patient is unlikely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan at this time due to significant symptomatic hypotension - which may worsen after medication administration."
Articulating why an individual may or may not benefit from therapy at a certain time allows us to communicate more effectively - not only with patients and their loved ones but also among physicians. Furthermore, rather than conveying judgmental feelings, this approach emphasizes nonmaleficence, in which decisions are balanced against all benefits, risks, and consequences. Circumstances change, and assessments based on the current level of expected benefit from a therapy might be evaluated at individualized intervals.
Heart failure is a disease with unacceptably high morbidity and fatality rates. Let us focus on how we relay and convey information as we attempt to enhance therapeutic outcomes. At JCF, we know that our #wordsmatter — to patients, their families, each other, and the communities we serve – whether it's changing "failure" to "function", replacing "non-compliance" with "barriers to adherence", or shifting from "candidacy" to "extent of benefit obtained."
Andrea Natale M.D., F.A.C.C., F.H.R.S., F.E.S.C., Executive Medical Director, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center at Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia. In this video, he speaks about Endocardial Scar-Homogenization With vs Without Epicardial Ablation in VT Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.
\n\n
Observation -
\n\n
Goals:
\n\n
The authors of this study compared the success of scar homogeneity with a mixed (epicarddial + endocardial) vs endocardial-only technique for ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) at 5 years of follow-up.
\n\n
Origins:
\n\n
The best ablation strategy for achieving long-term success in VT patients with ICM is unknown.
\n\n
Methodology:
\n\n
Patients with ICM who underwent VT ablation at our center were divided into two groups: endocardial + epicardial scar homogenization and endocardial scar homogenization. Patients who had already undergone open heart surgery were not eligible. Despite the fact that all group 1 patients were noninducible following endocardial ablation, epicardial ablation was done. All patients received bipolar substrate mapping with conventional scar settings of >1.5 mV for normal tissue and 0.5 mV for severe scar. The procedure\'s endpoint in both groups was noninducibility of monomorphic VT. Implantable device interrogations were performed on patients every 4 months for 5 years.
\n\n
Outcomes:
\n\n
The study included 361 participants (n = 70 in group 1 and n = 291 in group 2). At 5 years, 81.4 percent (n = 57/70) of group 1 patients and 66.3 percent (n = 193/291) of group 2 patients were arrhythmia-free (P = 0.01). Anti-arrhythmic medications (AAD) were used by 26 of 57 (45.6 percent) and 172 of 193 (89.1 percent) of the patients in groups 1 and 2 (log-rank P 0.001). Endo-epicarddial scar homogeneity was linked with a substantial reduction in arrhythmia recurrence after controlling for age, gender, and obstructive sleep apnea (HR: 0.48; 95 percent CI: 0.27-0.86; P = 0.02).
\n\n
Observations:
\n\n
Despite being noninducible following endocardial ablation, epicardial substrate was found in all group 1 patients in this series of patients with ICM and VT. Furthermore, when compared to endocardial ablation alone, combined endo-epicarddial scar homogeneity was linked with a much higher success rate at 5 years of follow-up and a significantly lower demand for antiarrhythmic medicines after the treatment.
Jean Marie Ruddy, MD, Vascular surgeon with clinical interests in lower extremity venous insufficiency and atherosclerotic disease of the abdominal aorta, carotid artery, and extremity vessels at Medical University of South Carolina. Anne Kroman DO, PhD, Cardiac Electrophysiologist at Medical University of South Carolina. Ryan Tedford, MD, Dr. Peter C. Gazes Endowed Chair in Heart Failure; Professor of Medicine at Medical University of South Carolina; Chief, Heart Failure; Medical Director, Cardiac Transplantation; Director, AHFTX Fellowship Program. In this video, she and her colleagues speak about the article MUSC doctors first at academic medical center to perform ‘game-changing’ new heart failure device procedure.
Two MUSC Health doctors are the first at an academic medical center and just the second in the world to employ a new, minimally invasive procedure to implant a heart failure therapy device – and, in an unusual turn of events, they're both women in traditionally male-dominated specialties.
Jean Marie Ruddy, M.D., a vascular surgeon, is the lead investigator at the MUSC site for the testing of this innovative implantation procedure for Barostim. Anne Kroman, D.O., Ph.D., a cardiac electrophysiologist, is the site co-principal investigator for the BATwire percutaneous implant research employing the Barostim Neo System.
Following successful trials headed by MUSC Health cardiologist Michael Zile, M.D., Barostim received breakthrough device approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019. The device stimulates the nerve that regulates blood pressure with electrical impulses, causing the blood arteries to relax.
Although the gadget cannot cure heart failure, it can significantly enhance patients' quality of life. According to cardiologist Ryan Tedford, M.D., section chief of heart failure, medical director of cardiac transplantation, and professor in the College of Medicine, it's intended for patients who aren't getting enough benefit from medication but aren't sick enough for a heart pump or heart transplant.
On Thursday, his patient became the first at MUSC Health to undergo the innovative type of implantation.
To insert the electrode, the first method of implantation required a vascular surgeon to create an incision in the patient's neck. However, in a "engineering achievement," the new approach being investigated would allow the device to be implanted through a wire, according to Ruddy. Kroman explained that it is comparable to how pacemaker wires are now implanted.
Instead, the surgeons used ultrasound to locate the region of the blood vessel where the proper nerve is located, then advanced a needle into place to guide the wire through. The whole thing took around an hour and a half. Although it is believed that this will become an outpatient treatment, participants must be hospitalized overnight for the duration of the experiment.
Patients who have already had the device implanted have reported an improvement in their quality of life, according to Ruddy and Kroman. Patients are typically short of breath before the treatment, even while walking about, and may have given up cherished activities – Ruddy noted one patient who was eager to return to fishing.
According to Tedford, there are a substantial number of people who could benefit from this type of treatment, either because they aren't sick enough for more serious procedures or because they don't match the criteria for those surgeries.
Ibrahim Sultan, MD, Associate Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Director, Center for Thoracic Aortic Disease, Surgical Director, Center for Heart Valve Disease, UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute at UPMC. In this video, he speaks about Transfusion of non–red blood cell blood products does not reduce survival following cardiac surgery.
Outline
Goals:
The evidence suggests that patients undergoing cardiac surgery who receive perioperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions have an increased risk of death. The current investigation is to determine whether there is a link between non–pRBC blood product transfusions and higher mortality.
Methodology:
Patients who underwent heart surgery between 2010 and 2018 were included in data from our center's Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients requiring pRBC infusions or experiencing circulatory arrest were excluded. Propensity matching (1:1; caliper = 0.2 times the standard deviation of logit of propensity score) was used. Cox regression and Kaplan–Meier estimates were utilized. This study excluded individuals with cardiac transplants, ventricular assist devices, transcatheter aortic valves, and circulatory arrest.
Outcomes:
A total of 8042 patients met the analytic requirements. 395 patients requiring perioperative non–pRBC blood products (platelets, fresh-frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate) were matched with 395 nontransfusion patients using propensity matching (1:1), resulting in equitable patient cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (3.0-6.4) years. Platelets (327 [82.8 percent]), fresh-frozen plasma (141 [35.7 percent]), and cryoprecipitate were given to patients (60 [15.2 percent ]). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative mortality (6 [1.5%] vs 4 [1.0%]; P =.52). The transfusion group had higher rates of reoperation (20 [5.0 percent] vs 8 [2.0 percent]; P.02) and prolonged ventilation (36 [9.1 percent] vs 19 [4.8 percent]; P.02). Blood product use was strongly linked with emergent surgery (odds ratio [OR] 2.86 [1.72-4.78]; P.001), intra-aortic balloon pump (OR 3.24 [1.64-6.39]; P.001), and multivalve surgery (OR 4.34 [2.83-6.67]; P.001). Blood product transfusion (hazard ratio: 1.15 [0.89-1.48]; P =.3) was not related with an increased risk of death. There was no significant difference in long-term survival between groups.
Findings:
Those undergoing cardiac surgery who require blood products alone, without pRBC transfusion, have comparable postoperative and long-term survival to patients who do not require blood products. These findings are based on a small number of patients, and further research will help to improve the generalizability of these findings.
Live
Upcoming Events
Suggested
Ibrahim Sultan, MD, Associate Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Director, Center for Thoracic Aortic Disease, Surgical Director, Center for Heart Valve Disease, UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute at UPMC. In this video, he speaks about Transfusion of non–red blood cell blood products does not reduce survival following cardiac surgery.
Outline
Goals:
The evidence suggests that patients undergoing cardiac surgery who receive perioperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions have an increased risk of death. The current investigation is to determine whether there is a link between non–pRBC blood product transfusions and higher mortality.
Methodology:
Patients who underwent heart surgery between 2010 and 2018 were included in data from our center's Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients requiring pRBC infusions or experiencing circulatory arrest were excluded. Propensity matching (1:1; caliper = 0.2 times the standard deviation of logit of propensity score) was used. Cox regression and Kaplan–Meier estimates were utilized. This study excluded individuals with cardiac transplants, ventricular assist devices, transcatheter aortic valves, and circulatory arrest.
Outcomes:
A total of 8042 patients met the analytic requirements. 395 patients requiring perioperative non–pRBC blood products (platelets, fresh-frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate) were matched with 395 nontransfusion patients using propensity matching (1:1), resulting in equitable patient cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (3.0-6.4) years. Platelets (327 [82.8 percent]), fresh-frozen plasma (141 [35.7 percent]), and cryoprecipitate were given to patients (60 [15.2 percent ]). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative mortality (6 [1.5%] vs 4 [1.0%]; P =.52). The transfusion group had higher rates of reoperation (20 [5.0 percent] vs 8 [2.0 percent]; P.02) and prolonged ventilation (36 [9.1 percent] vs 19 [4.8 percent]; P.02). Blood product use was strongly linked with emergent surgery (odds ratio [OR] 2.86 [1.72-4.78]; P.001), intra-aortic balloon pump (OR 3.24 [1.64-6.39]; P.001), and multivalve surgery (OR 4.34 [2.83-6.67]; P.001). Blood product transfusion (hazard ratio: 1.15 [0.89-1.48]; P =.3) was not related with an increased risk of death. There was no significant difference in long-term survival between groups.
Findings:
Those undergoing cardiac surgery who require blood products alone, without pRBC transfusion, have comparable postoperative and long-term survival to patients who do not require blood products. These findings are based on a small number of patients, and further research will help to improve the generalizability of these findings.
Prakriti Gaba, MD, Cardiology Fellow at Harvard Medical School. In this video, she speaks about the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality With Icosapent Ethyl in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction.
Outline
Origins:
REDUCE-IT was a double-blind experiment in which 8,179 statin-treated individuals with reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and moderately increased triglycerides were randomly assigned to icosapent ethyl (IPE) or placebo. The primary objective, including death from cardiovascular (CV) causes, was significantly reduced. It was uncertain what effect IPE has on people who had previously had a myocardial infarction (MI).
Goals:
In REDUCE-IT, we wanted to look at the effect of IPE on ischemic events in patients who had previously had a MI.
Methodology:
We conducted post-hoc analysis on patients who had previously experienced MI. CV mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina were the primary endpoints. The most important secondary outcome was CV death, MI, or stroke.
Outcomes:
A total of 3,693 patients had a previous MI. With IPE vs placebo, the primary endpoint was lowered from 26.1 percent to 20.2 percent; HR: 0.74 (95 percent CI: 0.65-0.85; P = 0.00001). The main secondary endpoint was lowered from 18.0% to 13.3%; HR: 0.71 (95 percent CI: 0.61-0.84; P = 0.00006). There was also a substantial 35% relative risk reduction in total ischemia events (P = 0.0000001), 34% reduction in MI (P = 0.00009), 30% reduction in CV death (P = 0.01), and a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality (P = 0.054), despite a modest rise in atrial fibrillation. Sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrest were also drastically reduced by 40% and 56%, respectively.
Inferences:
Patients in REDUCE-IT with a history of recent MI who were treated with IPE had large and significant relative and absolute risk reductions in ischemic events, including CV mortality. (AMR101 Study to Assess Its Ability to Reduce Cardiovascular Events in High-Risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia and Statin Use. The primary goal is to assess the effect of 4 g/day AMR101 on the occurrence of a first major cardiovascular event. NCT01492361; [REDUCE-IT])
Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Director, Heart Failure Research, Director, Post Graduate Medical Education in Heart Failure and Transplantation, Professor of Medicine at Cedars-Sinai. In this video, she speaks about A Clinician's Guide to the 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.
The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) 2022 Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure provides clinicians with patient-centered recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing heart failure patients (HF). 1 The document, the result of nearly two years of work by the writing committee's 26 members, includes 159 pages of text (including 40 pages of references), 14 sections, 33 tables, 15 figures, and 192 recommendations—a daunting task for any clinician interested in optimizing the care of patients with HF. What is the best strategy to approach a new policy?
Andrea Natale M.D., F.A.C.C., F.H.R.S., F.E.S.C., Executive Medical Director, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center at Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia. In this video, he speaks about Endocardial Scar-Homogenization With vs Without Epicardial Ablation in VT Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.
\n\n
Observation -
\n\n
Goals:
\n\n
The authors of this study compared the success of scar homogeneity with a mixed (epicarddial + endocardial) vs endocardial-only technique for ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) at 5 years of follow-up.
\n\n
Origins:
\n\n
The best ablation strategy for achieving long-term success in VT patients with ICM is unknown.
\n\n
Methodology:
\n\n
Patients with ICM who underwent VT ablation at our center were divided into two groups: endocardial + epicardial scar homogenization and endocardial scar homogenization. Patients who had already undergone open heart surgery were not eligible. Despite the fact that all group 1 patients were noninducible following endocardial ablation, epicardial ablation was done. All patients received bipolar substrate mapping with conventional scar settings of >1.5 mV for normal tissue and 0.5 mV for severe scar. The procedure\'s endpoint in both groups was noninducibility of monomorphic VT. Implantable device interrogations were performed on patients every 4 months for 5 years.
\n\n
Outcomes:
\n\n
The study included 361 participants (n = 70 in group 1 and n = 291 in group 2). At 5 years, 81.4 percent (n = 57/70) of group 1 patients and 66.3 percent (n = 193/291) of group 2 patients were arrhythmia-free (P = 0.01). Anti-arrhythmic medications (AAD) were used by 26 of 57 (45.6 percent) and 172 of 193 (89.1 percent) of the patients in groups 1 and 2 (log-rank P 0.001). Endo-epicarddial scar homogeneity was linked with a substantial reduction in arrhythmia recurrence after controlling for age, gender, and obstructive sleep apnea (HR: 0.48; 95 percent CI: 0.27-0.86; P = 0.02).
\n\n
Observations:
\n\n
Despite being noninducible following endocardial ablation, epicardial substrate was found in all group 1 patients in this series of patients with ICM and VT. Furthermore, when compared to endocardial ablation alone, combined endo-epicarddial scar homogeneity was linked with a much higher success rate at 5 years of follow-up and a significantly lower demand for antiarrhythmic medicines after the treatment.
Jean Marie Ruddy, MD, Vascular surgeon with clinical interests in lower extremity venous insufficiency and atherosclerotic disease of the abdominal aorta, carotid artery, and extremity vessels at Medical University of South Carolina. Anne Kroman DO, PhD, Cardiac Electrophysiologist at Medical University of South Carolina. Ryan Tedford, MD, Dr. Peter C. Gazes Endowed Chair in Heart Failure; Professor of Medicine at Medical University of South Carolina; Chief, Heart Failure; Medical Director, Cardiac Transplantation; Director, AHFTX Fellowship Program. In this video, she and her colleagues speak about the article MUSC doctors first at academic medical center to perform ‘game-changing’ new heart failure device procedure.
Two MUSC Health doctors are the first at an academic medical center and just the second in the world to employ a new, minimally invasive procedure to implant a heart failure therapy device – and, in an unusual turn of events, they're both women in traditionally male-dominated specialties.
Jean Marie Ruddy, M.D., a vascular surgeon, is the lead investigator at the MUSC site for the testing of this innovative implantation procedure for Barostim. Anne Kroman, D.O., Ph.D., a cardiac electrophysiologist, is the site co-principal investigator for the BATwire percutaneous implant research employing the Barostim Neo System.
Following successful trials headed by MUSC Health cardiologist Michael Zile, M.D., Barostim received breakthrough device approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019. The device stimulates the nerve that regulates blood pressure with electrical impulses, causing the blood arteries to relax.
Although the gadget cannot cure heart failure, it can significantly enhance patients' quality of life. According to cardiologist Ryan Tedford, M.D., section chief of heart failure, medical director of cardiac transplantation, and professor in the College of Medicine, it's intended for patients who aren't getting enough benefit from medication but aren't sick enough for a heart pump or heart transplant.
On Thursday, his patient became the first at MUSC Health to undergo the innovative type of implantation.
To insert the electrode, the first method of implantation required a vascular surgeon to create an incision in the patient's neck. However, in a "engineering achievement," the new approach being investigated would allow the device to be implanted through a wire, according to Ruddy. Kroman explained that it is comparable to how pacemaker wires are now implanted.
Instead, the surgeons used ultrasound to locate the region of the blood vessel where the proper nerve is located, then advanced a needle into place to guide the wire through. The whole thing took around an hour and a half. Although it is believed that this will become an outpatient treatment, participants must be hospitalized overnight for the duration of the experiment.
Patients who have already had the device implanted have reported an improvement in their quality of life, according to Ruddy and Kroman. Patients are typically short of breath before the treatment, even while walking about, and may have given up cherished activities – Ruddy noted one patient who was eager to return to fishing.
According to Tedford, there are a substantial number of people who could benefit from this type of treatment, either because they aren't sick enough for more serious procedures or because they don't match the criteria for those surgeries.
Anuradha Lala, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Cardiology, Associate Professor, Population Health Science and Policy at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Robert John Mentz, MD, Associate Professor of MedicineAssociate Professor in Population Health Sciences, Member in the Duke Clinical Research Institute at Duke University. In this video, she speaks about the article #WordsMatter Continued: Moving from “Candidacy” To “Benefit Derived”.
As professionals who care for patients suffering from heart failure, we are all too familiar with such phrases.
Consider yourself a patient who has been told that you are not a "candidate" for a particular therapy. Is this language likely to make you feel marginalized? Ill-fated? Denied? Such difficulties have recently come to light in relation to the need for COVID-19 vaccination prior to being listed for heart transplantation.
The definition of the candidate, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, covers the following:
a:
one who wants to, is nominated for, or qualifies for a position, membership, or honor
b:
one who is likely to go through or be chosen for something specific
Complex integrated decision-making, as is prevalent in clinical practice, contributes to our patients' "fate." However, this is another important proof of how much our #wordsmatter. Our goal is not to determine fate. It is not to favor one patient over another or to refuse anyone life-saving treatment. Rather, our aim and role are to serve as resource stewards while also assisting in determining the amount to which a patient will benefit from a certain therapy (based on aggregated experience and data).
So we've been debating... Why not phrase it that way if that is the intention?
Consider the following phrase in place of the preceding:
"Mr. X is unlikely to benefit from heart transplantation at this time due to active colon cancer (which would grow due to post-transplant immunosuppression)."
Or
"Ms. Y is unlikely to benefit appreciably from sustained LVAD installation at this time due to past stroke, severe peripheral vascular disease, and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding, all of which put her at high risk of post-surgical complications and mortality."
These rephrasing issues also apply to medical therapies:
"The patient is unlikely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan at this time due to significant symptomatic hypotension - which may worsen after medication administration."
Articulating why an individual may or may not benefit from therapy at a certain time allows us to communicate more effectively - not only with patients and their loved ones but also among physicians. Furthermore, rather than conveying judgmental feelings, this approach emphasizes nonmaleficence, in which decisions are balanced against all benefits, risks, and consequences. Circumstances change, and assessments based on the current level of expected benefit from a therapy might be evaluated at individualized intervals.
Heart failure is a disease with unacceptably high morbidity and fatality rates. Let us focus on how we relay and convey information as we attempt to enhance therapeutic outcomes. At JCF, we know that our #wordsmatter — to patients, their families, each other, and the communities we serve – whether it's changing "failure" to "function", replacing "non-compliance" with "barriers to adherence", or shifting from "candidacy" to "extent of benefit obtained."
Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, Associate Professor at Duke University. In this video, he speaks about the Safety of the oral factor XIa inhibitor asundexian compared with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation (PACIFIC-AF): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-finding phase 2 study.
Summarization:
Backstory -
The use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is restricted due to bleeding concerns. Asundexian, a new oral small molecule activated coagulation factor XIa (FXIa) inhibitor, has the potential to minimize thrombosis while having no effect on haemostasis. In individuals with atrial fibrillation, we wanted to find the best dose of asundexian and compare the risk of bleeding to that of apixaban.
Techniques -
We compared asundexian 20 mg or 50 mg once daily with apixaban 5 mg twice daily in patients 45 years or older with atrial fibrillation, a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2 if male or at least 3 if female, and an increased bleeding risk in this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 dose-finding study. The research was carried out at 93 sites across 14 nations, including 12 in Europe, Canada, and Japan. Using an interactive web response system, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to a treatment group, with randomization stratified by whether patients were using a direct-acting oral anticoagulant prior to the study's start. A double-dummy design was used to achieve masking, with participants receiving both the assigned treatment and a placebo that mimicked the non-assigned therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding based on International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, which was examined in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04218266 and EudraCT as 2019-002365-35.
Results -
862 patients were registered between January 30, 2020, and June 21, 2021. 755 individuals were randomized to treatment at random. Because two participants (assigned to asundexian 20 mg) did not take any trial medicine, 753 patients were included in the analysis (249 received asundexian 20 mg, 254 received asundexian 50 g, and 250 received apixaban). The participants' mean age was 737 years (SD 83), 309 (41%) were women, 216 (29%) had chronic renal disease, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 39 (13%). Asundexian 20 mg inhibited FXIa activity by 81 percent at trough concentrations and 90 percent at peak concentrations; asundexian 50 mg inhibited FXIa activity by 92 percent at trough concentrations and 94 percent at peak concentrations. The incidence proportions for the primary endpoint were 050 (90 percent confidence interval 014–168) for asundexian 20 mg (three events), 016 (001–099) for asundexian 50 mg (one event), and 033 (009–097) for pooled asundexian (four occurrences) against apixaban (six events). Any adverse event occurred at the same rate in all three treatment groups: 118 (47%) with asundexian 20 mg, 120 (47%) with asundexian 50 mg, and 122 (49%) with apixaban.
Explanation -
In patients with atrial fibrillation, the FXIa inhibitor asundexian at dosages of 20 mg and 50 mg once daily led in decreased rates of bleeding compared to normal apixaban treatment, with near-complete in vivo FXIa suppression.
Scott Wright, MD, Professor of Medicine, Chair of the IRB at the Mayo Clinic. In this video, he speaks about the Phase III ORION-9,10, and 11 Studies.
In summary:
This is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized Phase III research in patients with ASCVD with increased LDL-C despite the maximum tolerated dose of LDL-C lowering treatments to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of subcutaneous (SC) inclisiran injection (s). The study will be conducted in multiple locations across the United States.
Trending
Dr. Artur Fedorowski earned his MD and PhD in internal medicine and cardiology from the Wroclaw Medical University in Poland. Since 2013, he has worked as an Associate Professor at Lund University, and since 2016, he has been a Fellow of the European Society of Cardiology. Dr. Fedorowski has vast experience in cardiology and cardiovascular medicine. In this video Dr. Fedorowski speaks about Thrombosis and fibrinolysis in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
Link to Article:
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab710/6408927
Walter Bradford Cannon (1871–1945) developed the term "homeostasis," which refers to "any self-regulating process by which biological systems strive to preserve stability while responding to conditions that are optimal for survival." If homeostasis is achieved, life continues; if it is not, disaster or death follows' (Encyclopaedia Britannica; www.britannica.com). Haemostatic capacity, which prevents bleeding while preserving unobstructed blood flow, is one of the most important aspects of human homeostasis. Platelets and the coagulation system are two key components of haemostasis, working together to form a haemostatic plug when vascular continuity is interrupted. Coagulation and platelet activity are turned off by circulating inhibitors and proteolytic feedback loops to reduce the danger of arterial occlusion. 2 Otherwise, uncontrolled haemostatic activity will cause thrombo-embolic problems, leading to 'disaster or death' in the worst-case scenario. Prothrombotic and fibrinolytic forces are thus intertwined, resulting in a homeostatic steady state that responds to vascular emergencies.
DeFilippis et al.3 present a prospective study based on a multi-ethnic cohort of 5800 adults (mean age 63 years) without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) from six communities in the United States in this issue of the European Heart Journal. The participants were recruited between 2000 and 2002 and monitored for 15 years, during which time 15% of them had a cardiovascular event. Blood samples were taken at the start of the study to look for circulating prothrombotic and fibrinolytic factors to see if there was a biomarker pattern that could predict incident ASCVD. The authors' technique is unique in that it uses two composite variables called thrombotic and fibrinolytic factors. Five biomarkers contributed to the thrombotic factor [fibrinogen, plasmin–antiplasmin complex, factor VIII, D-dimer, and lipoprotein(a)], and two contributed to the fibrinolytic factor [plasminogen and oxidized phospholipids on plasminogen (OxPL-PLG)]. The authors discovered that a higher thrombotic factor score and a lower fibrinolytic factor score suggested the highest risk of incident atherothrombotic events (Graphical Abstract).
Higher levels of fibrinogen, D-dimer, plasmin–antiplasmin, factor VIII, and Lp(a) have previously been linked to an increased risk of CV events, therefore the findings of this significant study3 were not entirely unexpected.
4–7 Importantly, circulating levels of both plasminogen and OxPLs, which indicate reduced fibrinolytic activity, were significantly lower in patients with incident myocardial infarction at baseline compared to stable coronary artery disease patients and unaffected subjects, but increased immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention. 8 What's new is that assessing the balance between the competing processes of thrombosis and fibrinolysis should help forecast CV events more precisely. The authors underline that when the two biomarker sets are evaluated combined, they provide additional information. It was proved in a statistical model where the relative risks were increased once both factors were input at the same time. Notably, there was a moderately positive association between these two variables, implying that increased thrombotic propensity is frequently counterbalanced by increased fibrinolytic propensity. When thrombotic propensity and fibrinolytic propensity were uneven, i.e. when an elevated thrombotic factor was associated with a low fibrinolytic factor, the risk of CV events was highest. As a result, patients with high fibrinolytic factor and low thrombotic factor values had the lowest risk of CV events. It's worth noting that the two factors had no effect on coronary artery calcification.
Adding thrombotic and fibrinolytic components to a multivariable Cox model using variables from the American Heart Association (AHA)–American College of Cardiology (ACC) CV disease risk prediction calculators resulted in a minor (albeit statistically significant) improvement in model fit (C-index increase from 0.718 to 0.721). As a result, the proposed model based on integrated coagulation biomarkers has the potential to provide extra information on CV risk prediction beyond what can be determined only from traditional risk variables. However, the question arises as to whether measuring the balance between thrombosis and fibrinolysis has therapeutic value when applied to well-established clinical risk models in a broad and perhaps arbitrary manner. Indeed, a recent study of community-dwelling middle-aged people found that a high CHA2DS2-VASc score, which was designed for patients with atrial fibrillation, was also a sensitive measure for predicting bad CV outcomes in people who did not have atrial fibrillation. 9
DeFilippis et al.3 claim that the new thrombotic and fibrinolytic factors allow for a more complete assessment of the balance between thrombosis and fibrinolysis, which determines the risk of atherothrombosis, and that the new factors have promise for predicting an individual's propensity to form thrombus, based on their findings. As a result, the model should integrate into precision medicine and has the ability to select individuals for antithrombotic therapy by weighing the risk of iatrogenic bleeding against the advantages of reducing atherothrombotic events. For primary CV prevention, such a tailored medicine strategy appears to be quite appealing. Despite this, the path from epidemiological observation to clinical application is typically protracted, with just a few biomarkers making it into current clinical practice. The primary difficulty here will be to show that the suggested composite biomarker prediction model is capable of selecting candidates for more or less aggressive CV disease prevention, beyond what can be clinically determined in conjunction with traditional risk assessment scores.
However, it should be highlighted that other major atherothrombotic risk factors, such as platelet indices and platelet reactivity, as well as atherosclerotic indicators, were not considered in DeFilippis et al.3's investigation (Graphical Abstract). Individuals with an increased platelet count at baseline had a significantly greater risk of death and severe CV events throughout a 16-year follow-up in the prospective Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort, regardless of the presence of CV disease. 10 Higher platelet aggregability, as well as pathways connected to atherosclerosis onset, progression, and complications in people with high platelet counts, could explain these findings. Furthermore, a study of the same cohort found that clustering of blood cell count abnormalities (e.g., anemia, leucocytosis, and thrombocytosis), a condition commonly seen in people with a high inflammatory milieu, poor health, or frailty, was linked to increased mortality and the risk of future CV events. 11 These findings, together with the findings of DeFilippis et al.3, raise the question of whether anticoagulants such as low-dose rivaroxaban12, rather than aspirin13, should be explored in primary CV prevention in those with a high prothrombotic profile.
DeFilippis et al.3's study has several clear strengths: robustness of data gathered prospectively from a large, representative population; independent and meticulous event adjudication; long follow-up duration; and long-term stability of healthcare and reporting systems. However, there are some significant restrictions. First, because the investigators only looked at baseline blood samples, the dynamic nature of atherothrombotic biomarkers was not investigated. Second, data on platelet reactivity, which is important for assessing atherothrombotic risk, were not available, and aetiological subtyping of CV events (for example, atherothrombotic vs. non-atherothrombotic myocardial infarction) was not done. The danger of residual confounding and a lack of detailed information on concomitant disorders or undiscovered diseases that could cause changes in coagulation patterns at baseline are two other drawbacks. Importantly, the relationships found by DeFilippis et al.3 do not prove causation and must be confirmed in separate cohorts. Furthermore, due to the demand for seven laboratory measurements, the model's relevance in the real world should be acknowledged. Finally, it will be interesting to see how thrombotic and fibrinolytic variables vary over time and how these changes relate to cardiovascular events.
Taken together, our findings support the notion that the use of multi-biomarker technologies can help to improve CV risk prevention even more. Different mechanisms (e.g. thrombosis, inflammation, and lipid plaque development) may coexist in the pathophysiology of atherothrombosis, with varied roles for each of these mechanisms in different individuals (Graphical Abstract). As a result, the best prediction model would combine data from the coagulation system, lipid metabolism, and inflammation. As a result, a two-step approach may be beneficial: first, individual clinical risk stratification to identify people at moderate to high risk of CV events, then multi-biomarker examination to determine which pathogenetic process (thrombosis vs. inflammation vs. lipid problems) is dominant. The latter may help the practitioner choose whether preventive strategies should be used on an individual basis. A machine learning approach may also be effective for developing multi-parametric models due to its accuracy in analyzing competitive hazards. 14 Another major concern is whether prothrombotic vs. fibrinolytic activity should be assessed separately.
Dr. Borge Gronne Nordestgaard is a clinical biochemist, genetic epidemiologist, educator, and Danish National Board of Health certified clinical biochemistry specialist. He received the Boserup Foundation's prize in 1994, the Quentin's Foundation's prize in 2001, and the Carlsen's Foundation's prize in 2005. In this video Dr. Nordestgaard speaks on how Elevated remnant cholesterol increases the risk of peripheral artery disease, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke.
Link to Abstract:
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab705/6399975?login=true
Aims
Cholesterol in triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, also known as residue cholesterol, is increasingly recognized for its atherogenic potential. Remaining cholesterol levels are linked to a higher risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke. We investigated whether high residual cholesterol is linked to an increased risk of peripheral arterial disease (PAD).
Methods and outcomes
We looked at 106 937 people from the Copenhagen General Population Study who were recruited between 2003 and 2015. 1586 people were diagnosed with PAD, 2570 with myocardial infarction, and 2762 with ischemic stroke over the course of the study, which lasted up to 15 years. We also looked at 13 974 people who were part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study in 1976–78. During the study's 43-year follow-up, 1033 people were diagnosed with PAD, 2236 with MI, and 1976 with ischemic stroke. A conventional lipid profile was used to quantify residual cholesterol. The diagnoses came from national health registries in Denmark. In the Copenhagen General Population Study, people with residual cholesterol levels of 1.5 mmol/L (58 mg/dL) vs. 0.5 mmol/L (19 mg/dL) had a multivariable adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.8 (95 percent confidence interval 3.1–7.5) had a greater risk of PAD. Myocardial infarction had a score of 4.2 (2.9–6.1) and ischemic stroke had a score of 1.8 (1.4–2.5). In the Copenhagen City Heart Study, the associated HRs for PAD, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke were 4.9 (2.9–8.5), 2.6 (1.8–3.8), and 2.1 (1.5–3.1).
Conclusion
In the general population, elevated residual cholesterol is linked to a five-fold greater risk of PAD, which is higher than the risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.
Dr. Borge Gronne Nordestgaard is a clinical biochemist, genetic epidemiologist, educator, and Danish National Board of Health certified clinical biochemistry specialist. He received the Boserup Foundation's prize in 1994, the Quentin's Foundation's prize in 2001, and the Carlsen's Foundation's prize in 2005. In this video Dr. Nordestgaard speaks on how Elevated remnant cholesterol increases the risk of peripheral artery disease, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke.
Link to Abstract:
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab705/6399975?login=true
Aims
Cholesterol in triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, also known as residue cholesterol, is increasingly recognized for its atherogenic potential. Remaining cholesterol levels are linked to a higher risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke. We investigated whether high residual cholesterol is linked to an increased risk of peripheral arterial disease (PAD).
Methods and outcomes
We looked at 106 937 people from the Copenhagen General Population Study who were recruited between 2003 and 2015. 1586 people were diagnosed with PAD, 2570 with myocardial infarction, and 2762 with ischemic stroke over the course of the study, which lasted up to 15 years. We also looked at 13 974 people who were part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study in 1976–78. During the study's 43-year follow-up, 1033 people were diagnosed with PAD, 2236 with MI, and 1976 with ischemic stroke. A conventional lipid profile was used to quantify residual cholesterol. The diagnoses came from national health registries in Denmark. In the Copenhagen General Population Study, people with residual cholesterol levels of 1.5 mmol/L (58 mg/dL) vs. 0.5 mmol/L (19 mg/dL) had a multivariable adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.8 (95 percent confidence interval 3.1–7.5) had a greater risk of PAD. Myocardial infarction had a score of 4.2 (2.9–6.1) and ischemic stroke had a score of 1.8 (1.4–2.5). In the Copenhagen City Heart Study, the associated HRs for PAD, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke were 4.9 (2.9–8.5), 2.6 (1.8–3.8), and 2.1 (1.5–3.1).
Conclusion
In the general population, elevated residual cholesterol is linked to a five-fold greater risk of PAD, which is higher than the risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.
Professor David A. Kass, MD, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine speaks about Review: Cellular and molecular pathobiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Link to Review Article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-020-00480-6
Synopsis:
Heart failure with retained ejection fraction (HFpEF) affects half of all heart failure patients worldwide, is becoming more common, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and has few successful therapies. The largest unmet medical need in cardiovascular disease is probably HFpEF. While HFpEF was once thought to be a haemodynamic disorder characterized by hypertension, cardiac hypertrophy, and diastolic dysfunction, the pandemics of obesity and diabetes mellitus have changed the HFpEF syndrome, which is now recognized as a multisystem disorder involving the heart, lungs, kidneys, skeletal muscle, adipose tissue, vascular system, immune and inflammatory systems. Since the disorder is more than just cardiac hypertrophy and hypertension with abnormal myocardial relaxation, HFpEF is difficult to model in laboratory animals. New animal models of haemodynamic and metabolic disease, as well as increased efforts to investigate human pathophysiology, are revealing new signaling mechanisms and possible therapeutic targets. We address the cellular and molecular pathobiology of HFpEF in this Study, with a specific emphasis on mechanisms related to the heart, as most research has been done on this organ. Other critical organ systems, such as the lungs, kidneys, and skeletal muscle, are also involved, as are attempts to characterize patients using systemic biomarkers and ongoing therapeutic efforts. Our aim is to build a map of the signaling pathways and mechanisms of HFpEF that are currently being studied, with the intention of creating more patient-specific therapies and enhancing clinical outcomes.
Points to remember:
* Historically, diastolic dysfunction, cardiac hypertrophy, and myocardial fibrosis have been the subject of research into the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
* Moreover, HFpEF is made up of a variety of factors that affect both systolic and diastolic heart function, as well as other organs and systems such as the lungs, kidneys, vasculature, adipose tissue, and skeletal muscle.
* Preclinical studies, especially those that combine obesity and metabolic defects with haemodynamic and cardiac disease, as most patients with HFpEF do, are revealing novel molecular mechanisms and therapeutic targets.
* Metabolic defects in fuel utilization and performance, inflammatory responses, lipotoxicity, pathological growth of myocytes, and lack of cytoprotective signaling are all proposed molecular and cellular abnormalities in HFpEF and those seen in diabetes mellitus and obesity.
*New therapies are targeting pleiotropic signaling cascades to reverse improvements in metabolic, inflammatory, and pathological stress pathways, in addition to developing innovative haemodynamic treatments with drugs and devices.
Latest Videos
Edward T.A. Fry, MD, FACC shares his perspective on MedAxiom joining the ACC family.
Link -
Cathleen Biga, MSN, RN shares her perspective on MedAxiom joining the ACC family.
Link To -
ACC President C. Michael Valentine, MD, FACC, shares his perspective on MedAxiom joining the ACC family.
Link -
