Search

Purpose of Review: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges globally, with significant strain on the healthcare system in the United States and worldwide. In this article, we review the impact of COVID-19 on percutaneous coronary interventions and structural heart disease practices, as well as the impact of the pandemic on related clinical research and trials. We also discuss the consensus recommendations from the scientific societies and suggest potential solutions and strategies to overcome some of these challenges. Findings: With the limited resources and significant burden on the healthcare system during the pandemic, changes have evolved in practice to provide care to the highest risk patients while minimizing unnecessary exposure during elective surgical or transcatheter procedures. Summary: The COVID-19 crisis has significantly impacted the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes, chronic coronary syndromes, and structural heart disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies comparing the outcomes of DCBs vs. stenting in AMI patients. Four studies with 497 patients (534 lesions) were included (three randomized controlled trials and one observational study). During a mean follow-up of 9 months (range 6–12 months), DCBs were associated with similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (5% vs. 4.4%; OR 1.24, 95% CI: [0.34, 4.51], p = 0.74, I2 = 35%), all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; OR 077, 95% CI: [0.15, 3.91], p = 0.75, I2 = 25%), cardiac death (0.01% vs. 0.02%; OR 0.64, 95% CI: [0.16, 2.64], p = 0.54), myocardial infarction (0% vs. 1.4%; OR 0.18, 95% CI: [0.01, 3.56], p = 0.26), and target lesion revascularization (3.7% vs. 2%; OR 1.74, 95% CI: [0.42, 7.13], p = 0.44, I2 = 17%) compared with stenting. During a mean follow-up of 7 months (range 6–9 months), DCBs had similar late lumen loss compared with stenting (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI [– 0.21–0.28], p = 0.77, I2 = 92%). In patients with AMI, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of clinical and angiographic outcomes between AMI patients treated with DCB and DES. Larger studies with longer-term follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of DCBs in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) worsens cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of heart failure (HF) and vice versa. The impact of rate or rhythm control strategies on HF progression and survival remains unclear.Methods: We examined the risk of HF progression in AF patients (pts) with a prior HF event and minimal or no HF burden (NYHA class 0 or 1). They were stratified into HF with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40%, pEF) or reduced EF (< 40%, rEF). HF subgroups from the Rate and Rhythm arm were compared for the primary outcome of worsening HF or death (WHFD), total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular hospitalizations.Results: Four hundred ninety-two AF pts (HFpEF = 349, HFrEF = 143) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were generally comparable in the Rate and Rhythm arms of the two subgroups. Over a median follow-up of 4 years, HF recurred and worsened in 66.6% and 41.2% of pts by ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 NYHA classes, respectively. HF progression by even 1 NYHA class increased the mortality risk in HFpEF (hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.25-3.4; p = 0.004) and HFrEF (HR 1.9; 95% CI 0.99-3.66; p = 0.054). Cardiovascular hospitalization (CVH) increased in HFpEF (HR 3.67; 95% CI 2.56, 5.25; p < 0.0001) and HFrEF (HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.53-5.14; p = 0.0009). HF progression by 2 or more NYHA classes or death was significantly worse in pts with HFrEF with the Rate control strategy compared with the Rhythm control (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.03-2.53; p = 0.036) but similar in pts with HFpEF (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.64-1.21; p = 0.440).The time to first AF recurrence was longer in the Rhythm arms of both HF subgroups as compared with Rate (Figure, p < 0.05).Conclusions: (1) HF progression in AF pts with a prior HF event confers significant mortality and CVH risk in both HFrEF and HFpEF populations. (2) HF progression is more pronounced with a Rate control strategy in AF pts with HFrEF, but is comparable to Rhythm control in AF pts with HFpEF. (3) A Rhythm control strategy may be desirable to reduce HF progression in pts with HFrEF and AF. Prospective clinical trials appear warranted to examine HF progression by treatment strategy in HFpEF and HFrEF populations with AF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We examined the long-term (≥ 5 years) outcomes of dual-site atrial pacing (DAP) when added to background antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and/or ablation in patients with refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF).Methods: Seventy-three patients with HF (mean NYHA HF class of 2.5) and AF refractory to AADs and/or ablation were implanted with DAP systems to achieve biatrial electrical and mechanical resynchronization (ART) and rhythm control (RC).Results: Thirty-eight patients with refractory AF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and 35 with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were enrolled. HFpEF patients had higher left ventricular ejection fraction compared to HFrEF (53 ± 5 vs. 31 ± 10% p < 0.001). Median follow-up for survival was 9.3 years (mean 9.0 years, SE 0.63) and was similar across subgroups (p = 0.127). After DAP, 87% maintained RC with improvement in NYHA HF class (mean 1.8) at 3 years. RC was similar in HFpEF compared with HFrEF patients (89 vs. 85% respectively, p = NS) and in paroxysmal versus persistent AF (90 vs. 85% respectively, p = NS). Total survival was superior in HFpEF compared HFrEF patients (75% in HFpEF vs. 45% in HFrEF at 5 years, and 60% in HFpEF vs. 34% in HFrEF at 10 years, p = 0.036). Survival trended to be better in patients with RC than those without RC (75 vs. 54% respectively at 5 years, p = .13).Conclusions: ART using DAP as add on therapy improved HF and established long-term RC in many patients with HFrEF and HFpEF with refractory AF. Long-term survival rates were superior in HFpEF than HFrEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model. Results: A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups. Conclusion: In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: Aspirin use before coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been a puzzling question for years. Controversy existed regarding the overall benefits vs. risk of pre-operative aspirin use and was translated to conflicting guidelines from major societies. Recent Findings: Observational studies have suggested a reduced mortality with pre-operative aspirin use. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed increased risk of post-operative bleeding with aspirin, with no associated increased mortality risk. A recent large randomized controlled trial did not find a significant difference in bleeding risk or post-operative mortality with pre-CABG aspirin use. Summary: The results of available studies showed a beneficial effect with pre-CABG aspirin use by decreasing thrombotic complications and perioperative myocardial infarction, with an associated adverse risk of bleeding that did not affect mortality rates. Given overall benefit-risk assessment, we are in favor of pre-operative aspirin use in CABG patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: This review aims to summarize the evidence and challenges of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring as a screening tool for coronary artery disease (CAD) in young adults.Recent Findings: Several cohort studies have highlighted the value of CAC scoring in CAD risk assessment in young adults. The largest study to date is the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. The study examined patients at 18-30 years of age and demonstrated that the presence of any degree of CAC was associated with a higher risk of coronary events compared to zero CAC, with an incremental increase in the risk of events with higher scores. However, it is important to note that 70% of patients screened had CAC = 0 at the age of 56.Summary: Despite the evidence that higher CAC score cutoff used in guidelines for predicting cardiovascular risk may be “falsely reassuring,” however, mass screening of young adults using CAC score may be challenging. The development of prediction tools and scoring systems to identify patients at higher risk of developing CAC based on known CAD risk factors may help reduce the number needed to screen to detect patients with positive CAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]