Search

BACKGROUND Whether a conservative strategy of medical therapy alone or a strategy of medical therapy plus invasive treatment is more beneficial in older adults with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unclear. METHODS We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients 75 years of age or older with NSTEMI at 48 sites in the United Kingdom. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a conservative strategy of the best available medical therapy or an invasive strategy of coronary angiography and revascularization plus the best available medical therapy. Patients who were frail or had a high burden of coexisting conditions were eligible. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes (cardiovascular death) or nonfatal myocardial infarction assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS A total of 1518 patients underwent randomization; 753 patients were assigned to the invasive-strategy group and 765 to the conservative-strategy group. The mean age of the patients was 82 years, 45% were women, and 32% were frail. A primary-outcome event occurred in 193 patients (25.6%) in the invasive-strategy group and 201 patients (26.3%) in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.14; P = 0.53) over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. Cardiovascular death occurred in 15.8% of the patients in the invasive-strategy group and 14.2% of the patients in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.44). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 11.7% in the invasive-strategy group and 15.0% in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99). Procedural complications occurred in less than 1% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS In older adults with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (the composite primary outcome) than a conservative strategy over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation; BHF SENIOR-RITA ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11343602.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older adults with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome are less likely to undergo an invasive strategy compared with younger patients. Randomized controlled trials traditionally exclude older adults because of their high burden of geriatric conditions., Methods and Results: We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus medical management or a selective invasive (conservative) strategy for older patients (age≥75 years) with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Fixed effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) and individual secondary end points of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, MI, revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding. Nine studies with 2429 patients (invasive: 1228 versus control: 1201) with a mean follow-up of 21 months were included. An invasive strategy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of a composite of death and MI (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54-0.83], P <0.001), MI (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.45-0.70], P <0.001) and subsequent revascularization (OR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.16-0.48], P <0.001). There was no difference in all-cause death (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.10], P =0.21), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63-1.15], P =0.30), stroke (OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.38-1.47], P =0.39), or major bleeding (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.42-3.66], P =0.70)., Conclusions: In older patients ≥75 years old with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome, an invasive strategy reduced the risk of a composite of death and MI, MI, and subsequent revascularization compared with a conservative strategy alone. Older adults with higher burden of geriatric conditions should be included in future trials to improve generalizability to this growing population.

Aims: We conducted a prespecified subanalysis of the POEM trial to assess the association between sex and clinical outcomes following a short 1-month dual-antiplatelet-therapy (DAPT) period after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bioresorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (BP-EES) among patients at high bleeding risk (HBR)., Background: Shortening the DAPT period after PCI is an effective bleeding avoidance strategy with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Whether sex affects the risk of adverse events following PCI is still debated., Methods: Patients at HBR undergoing PCI with BP-EES were enrolled and treated with 1-month DAPT. If anticoagulation was needed, study participants received an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in addition to a P2Y 12 inhibitor for 1 month, followed by OAC only thereafter. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite/probable stent thrombosis at 12 months. We report sex-based outcomes of patients included in the POEM study., Results: We enrolled 129 (29.1%) women and 314 (70.9%) men. Women were older, with lower hemoglobin levels, and worse renal function. Accordingly, they had a trend for a greater number of HBR criteria fulfilled and a higher PARIS bleeding score. However, they were not at a significantly higher risk for the primary endpoint (men vs. women: 5.17% vs. 3.94%; HR 1.30; 95% CI: 0.48-3.54, p = 0.61), or any of the hemorrhagic and ischemic secondary endpoints., Conclusions: This prespecified subanalysis of the POEM trial suggests that 1-month DAPT following PCI with BP-EES may be a safe and effective therapeutic strategy for women at HBR., (© 2024 The Author(s). Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Importance: Development of myocardial fibrosis in patients with aortic stenosis precedes left ventricular decompensation and is associated with an adverse long-term prognosis., Objective: To investigate whether early valve intervention reduced the incidence of all-cause death or unplanned aortic stenosis-related hospitalization in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and myocardial fibrosis., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, randomized, open-label, masked end point trial was conducted between August 2017 and October 2022 at 24 cardiac centers across the UK and Australia. Asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and myocardial fibrosis were included. The final date of follow-up was July 26, 2024., Intervention: Early valve intervention with transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement or guideline-directed conservative management., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or unplanned aortic stenosis-related hospitalization in a time-to-first-event intention-to-treat analysis. There were 9 secondary outcomes, including the components of the primary outcome and symptom status at 12 months., Results: The trial enrolled 224 eligible patients (mean [SD] age, 73 [9] years; 63 women [28%]; mean [SD] aortic valve peak velocity of 4.3 [0.5] m/s) of the originally planned sample size of 356 patients. The primary end point occurred in 20 of 113 patients (18%) in the early intervention group and 25 of 111 patients (23%) in the guideline-directed conservative management group (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.44-1.43]; P = .44; between-group difference, -4.82% [95% CI, -15.31% to 5.66%]). Of 9 prespecified secondary end points, 7 showed no significant difference. All-cause death occurred in 16 of 113 patients (14%) in the early intervention group and 14 of 111 (13%) in the guideline-directed group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59-2.51]) and unplanned aortic stenosis hospitalization occurred in 7 of 113 patients (6%) and 19 of 111 patients (17%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.16-0.88]). Early intervention was associated with a lower 12-month rate of New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms than guideline-directed conservative management (21 [19.7%] vs 39 [37.9%]; odds ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.20-0.70])., Conclusions and Relevance: In asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and myocardial fibrosis, early aortic valve intervention had no demonstrable effect on all-cause death or unplanned aortic stenosis-related hospitalization. The trial had a wide 95% CI around the primary end point, with further research needed to confirm these findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03094143.

Despite significant progress in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy and interventional strategies, cardiovascular disease (CVD), in particular ischaemic heart disease, remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among women in the UK and worldwide. Women are underdiagnosed, undertreated and under-represented in clinical trials directed at management strategies for CVD, making their results less applicable to this subset. Women have additional sex-specific risk factors that put them at higher risk of future cardiovascular events. Psychosocial risk factors, socioeconomic deprivation and environmental factors have an augmented impact on women's cardiovascular health, highlighting the need for a holistic approach to care that considers risk factors specifically related to female biology alongside the traditional risk factors. Importantly, in the UK, even in the context of a National Health Service, there exist significant regional variations in age-standardised mortality rates among patients with CVD. Given most CVDs are preventable, concerted efforts are necessary to address the unmet needs and ensure parity of care for women with CVD. The present consensus document, put together by the British Cardiovascular Society (BCS)'s affiliated societies, specifically portrays the current status on the sex-related differences in the diagnosis and treatment of each of the major CVD areas and proposes strategies to overcome the barriers in accessing diagnoses and treatments among women. This document aims at raising awareness of the scale of the current problem and hopes to stimulate a multifaceted approach to address sex disparities and enable future comprehensive sex- and gender-based research through collaboration across different affiliated societies within the BCS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VK is an associate editor for Heart BMJ and is NIHR National Cardiovascular Research Lead, Research Delivery Network., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: In standard time-to-first event analysis, early aspirin discontinuation followed by ticagrelor monotherapy has been shown to reduce bleeding without increasing ischemic complications compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated whether these treatment effects are preserved when recurrent events are considered., Methods and Results: In this TWILIGHT trial post hoc analysis, we assessed the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy on the total number of events that occurred over the 12-month follow-up among 7 119 high-risk patients randomized to aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor at 3 months post-PCI if event-free and adherent to treatment. There were 391 patients with at least one Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (primary endpoint). Of those, 28 (7.2%) had a recurrent event. The total number of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events were 148 in the ticagrelor monotherapy arm compared with 278 with ticagrelor plus aspirin arm (p < 0.001). Among 272 patients with at least one key secondary ischemic endpoint (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), 37 (13.6%) sustained a recurrent event. Total ischemic events were similar (155 vs 159) in the two groups., Conclusions: Among selected high-risk patients who underwent PCI and completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy followed by ticagrelor with or without aspirin, recurrent bleeding was less common than recurrent ischemic events over 12 months. Analysis of total events indicates that ticagrelor monotherapy continues to be more effective than ticagrelor plus aspirin in reducing bleeding without a signal of ischemic harm., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death among women, and the incidence among younger women has shown the greatest increase over the last decades, in particular for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Moreover, the prognosis of women post-AMI is poor when compared with men of similar ages. Since the 1990s, an abundant literature has highlighted the existing differences between sexes with regard to presentation, burden, and impact of traditional risk factors and of risk factors pertaining predominantly to women, the perception of risk by women and men, and the pathophysiological causations, their treatment, and prognosis. These data that have been accumulated over recent years highlight several targets for improvement. The objective of this collaborative work is to define the actions required to reverse the growing incidence of AMI in women and improve the patient pathway and care, as well as the prognosis. We aim to provide practical toolkits for different health professionals involved in the care of women, so that each step, from cardiovascular risk assessment to symptom recognition, to the AMI pathway and rehabilitation, thus facilitating that from prevention to intervention of AMI, can be optimized., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest S.M.S. has received consulting fees from Bayer, Organon, and Exeltis; has received lecture fees from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Exeltis, and Organon; has served in the adjudication board for a study for Biotronik. M.H. has received consulting fees from Abbott, Shockwave, Boston Scientific, Acist, and Medtronic. S.B. has received fees for Advisory Board participation with Shockwave and SMT and lecture fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. M.K.-O. has received consulting fees from Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Beohringer Ingelheim, Shockwave, and Boston Scientific. V.P. declares a research grant from Abbott via the institution; speaker fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Lithix; and an educational grant from Terumo via the institution. P.S. declares consulting or lecture fees from Axis TV, BMS, Les Laboratoires Servier, Novartis, Novonordisk, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. R.M. reports institutional research payments from Abbott, Affluent Medical, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, Chiesi, Concept Medical, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke, Faraday, Idorsia, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medscape, Mediasphere, Medtelligence, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Pi-Cardia, Protembis, RM Global Bioaccess Fund Management, and Sanofi; personal fees from Affluent Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi USA, Cordis, IQVIA, Medscape/WebMD Global, NovoNordisk, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Radcliffe. A.C. has received Speaker Consultant fees from Abiomed, Abbott Vasc, Boehringer, Boston Scientifioc, Medtronic, Menarini, and Penumbra. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), defined as ≥50% stenosis in 2 or more epicardial arteries, is associated with a high burden of morbidity and mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. A salient challenge for managing this cohort is selecting the optimal revascularisation strategy, for which the use of coronary physiology has been increasingly recognised. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an invasive, pressure wire-based, physiological index measuring the functional significance of coronary lesions. Understanding this can help practitioners evaluate which lesions could induce myocardial ischaemia and, thus, decide which vessels require urgent revascularisation. Non-hyperaemic physiology-based indices, such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), provide valid alternatives to FFR. While FFR and iFR are recommended by international guidelines in stable CAD, there is ongoing discussion regarding the role of physiology in patients with ACS and multivessel disease (MVD); growing evidence supports FFR use in the latter. Compelling findings show FFR-guided complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can reduce adverse cardiovascular events, mortality, and repeat revascularisations in ACS and MVD patients compared to angiography-based PCI. However, FFR is limited in identifying non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques, which can disadvantage high-risk patients. Here, integrating coronary physiology assessment with intracoronary imaging in decision-making can improve outcomes and quality of life. Further research into novel physiology-based tools in ACS and MVD is needed. This review aims to highlight the key evidence surrounding the role of FFR and other functional indices in guiding PCI strategy in ACS and MVD patients., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The percutaneous treatment of structural, valvular, and non-valvular heart disease (SHD) is rapidly evolving. The Core Curriculum (CC) proposed by the EAPCI describes the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that define competency levels required by newly trained SHD interventional cardiologists (IC) and provides guidance for training centres. SHD ICs are cardiologists who have received complete interventional cardiology training. They are multidisciplinary team specialists who manage adult SHD patients from diagnosis to follow-up and perform percutaneous procedures in this area. They are competent in interpreting advanced imaging techniques and master planning software. The SHD ICs are expected to be proficient in the aortic, mitral, and tricuspid areas. They may have selective skills in either the aortic area or mitral/tricuspid areas. In this case, they must still have common transversal competencies in the aortic, mitral, and tricuspid areas. Additional SHD domain competencies are optional. Completing dedicated SHD training, aiming for full aortic, mitral, and tricuspid competencies, requires at least 18 months. For full training in the aortic area, with basic competencies in mitral/tricuspid areas, the training can be reduced to 1 year. The same is true for training in the mitral/tricuspid area, with competencies in the aortic area. The SHD IC CC promotes excellence and homogeneous training across Europe and is the cornerstone of future certifications and patient protection. It may be a reference for future CC for national associations and other SHD specialities, including imaging and cardiac surgery.

The mean age of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is steadily increasing. In older patients, there is a tendency to underutilize invasive approach, coronary revascularization, up-to-date pharmacological therapies, and secondary prevention strategies, including cardiac rehabilitation. Older adults with CAD commonly exhibit atypical symptoms, multi-vessel disease involvement, complex coronary anatomy, and a higher presence of risk factors and comorbidities. Although both invasive procedures and medical treatments are characterized by a higher risk of complications, avoidance may result in a suboptimal outcome. Often, overlooked factors, such as coronary microvascular disease, malnutrition, and poor physical performance, play a key role in determining prognosis, yet they are not routinely assessed or addressed in older patients. Historically, clinicians have relied on sub-analyses or observational findings to make clinical decisions, as older adults were frequently excluded or under-represented in clinical studies. Recently, dedicated evidence through randomized clinical trials has become available for older CAD patients. Nevertheless, the management of older CAD patients still raises several important questions. This review aims to comprehensively summarize and critically evaluate this emerging evidence, focusing on invasive management and coronary revascularization. Furthermore, it seeks to contextualize these interventions within the framework of improved risk stratification tools for older CAD patients, through user-friendly scales along with emphasizing the importance of promoting physical activity and exercise training to enhance the outcomes of invasive and medical treatments. This comprehensive approach may represent the key to improving prognosis in the complex and growing patient population of older CAD patients., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Shortening the duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was shown to be effective and safe in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). We aimed to investigate the effect of 1 versus 3-month DAPT on outcomes after drug-eluting stent in HBR patients with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). Data from 3 prospective single-arm studies (XIENCE Short DAPT Program) enrolling HBR patients after successful coronary implantation of cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (XIENCE, Abbott) were analyzed. Subjects were eligible for DAPT discontinuation at 1 or 3 months if free from ischemic events. The primary end point was all-cause death or any myocardial infarction. The key secondary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Type 2 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed from 1 to 12 months after PCI. CKD was defined as baseline creatinine clearance <60 ml/min. Of 3,286 patients, 1,432 (43.6%) had CKD. One-month versus 3-month DAPT was associated with a similar 12-month risk of the primary outcome irrespective of CKD status (CKD: 9.5% vs 10.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.22; no-CKD: 6.6% vs 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.73; p interaction 0.299). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 to 5 bleeding rates were numerically but not significantly lower with 1-month versus 3-month DAPT in both CKD (9.9% vs 12%) and no-CKD (6.4% vs 9.0%) patients. In conclusion, in HBR patients, 1-month versus 3-month DAPT was associated with a similar risk of ischemic complications and a trend toward fewer bleeding events at 12 months after PCI, irrespective of CKD status., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Roxana Mehran reports financial support was provided by Abbott. Dr. Richardt received an institutional research grant from Boston Scientific. Dr. Vranckx has received grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Terumo, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer AG, and CLS Behring. Dr. Valgimigli reports grants and personal fees from Terumo, and has received personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, IDORSIA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, Universität Basel | Dept. Klinische Forschung, Vifor, personal Bristol Myers Squib SA, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, PhaseBio, outside the submitted work. Dr. Angiolillo reports receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi and Vectura, outside the submitted work; Dr. Angiolillo also declares that his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Bhatt discloses the following relationships - Advisory Board: Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Stasys; Board of Directors: American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave (stock options), Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock); Consultant: Broadview Ventures, Hims, SFJ, Youngene; Data Monitoring Committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIHfunded MINT Trial); Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol-Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor); Patent: Sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; neither I nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); Research Funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, 89Bio; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald's Heart Disease); Site Co-Investigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, Vascular Solutions; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; Unfunded Research: FlowCo. Dr. Toelg reports speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Biotronik. Dr. Maksoud is member of Abbott Vascular, Pfizer and Bristol Myer Squib speaker Bureau. Dr. Chehab has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott, speaker honoraria and/or personal fees from Edwards and Abbott and Biotronics. Dr. de la Torre Hernandez has received grants/research support from Abbott, Amgen, and Biotronik; he has received honoraria or consultation fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Biotronik, Abbott, Philips, IHT, and iVascular. Dr. Krucoff reports grants and/or personal fees from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Nipro, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, Terumo. Dr. Kunadian has received personal fees/honoraria from Bayer, Astra Zeneca, Abbott, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo. Dr. Varenne has received personal fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biosensors, and Astra Zeneca. Dr. Windecker reports research, travel or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Braun, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Cordis Medical, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Farapulse Inc. Fumedica, Guerbet, Idorsia, Inari Medical, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medalliance, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, MonarQ, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pharming Tech. Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, V-Wave. Dr. Windecker served as advisory board member and/or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave with payments to the institution but no personal payments. He is also member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr. Mehran reports institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Insel Gruppe AG, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, Zoll; personal fees from ACC, Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, SCAI; consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, DSI, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips; Equity <1, if there are any other author, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper,., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prognostic significance of inflammatory markers on the long-term risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in older NSTEACS patients remains unclear., Methods: NSTEACS patients aged 75 and older were recruited to the multicentre cohort study Improve Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk PatieNts with Acute Coronary Syndrome (ICON1). Inflammatory markers including interleukin-6 (IL-6), myeloperoxidase (MPO), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), fibrinogen and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) were collected at baseline. Primary outcome was MACCE consisting of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, urgent revascularization, and significant bleeding at 5-year follow-up., Results: There were 230 patients with baseline IL-6 (median age 80.9 [interquartile range (IQR):78.2-83.9] years). High IL-6 was not associated with MACCE, but it was independently associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.26 [95% Confidence Interval (CI):1.34-3.82]; P = 0.002). For patients with hsCRP (n = 260, median age 80.9 [IQR:77.9-84.1] years), higher levels were significantly associated with increased risk of MACCE (aHR:1.77 [95% CI:1.26-2.49], P = 0.001). In the cohort with MPO (230 patients, median age 80.9 [IQR:78.2-83.9] years), lower MPO was independently associated with the risk of MACCE (aHR: 0.67 [95%CI:0.46-0.96]; P = 0.029). There was no prognostic significance with fibrinogen and TNF-α., Conclusion: Among older NSTEACS patients, elevated IL-6 and hsCRP were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and MACCE, respectively. Low MPO levels were associated with higher MACCE. Further studies are required to determine how these biomarkers should influence treatment strategy in this understudied subset., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01933581., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Older people less frequently receive invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for NSTEMI than younger patients. We describe care, ICA data, and in-hospital and 30-day outcomes of NSTEMI by age in a contemporary and geographically diverse cohort., Methods: Prospective cohort study including 2947 patients with NSTEMI from 287 centres in 59 countries, stratified by age (≥75 years, n = 761). Quality of care was evaluated based on 12 guideline-recommended care interventions, and data collected on ICA. Outcomes included in hospital acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, repeat myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, BARC Type ≥3 bleeding and death, as well as 30-day mortality., Results: Patients aged ≥75 years, compared with younger patients, at presentation had a higher prevalence of comorbidities and oral anticoagulation prescription (22.4% vs 7.6%, p < 0.001). Older patients less frequently received ICA than younger patients (78.6% vs 90.6%, p < 0.001) with the recorded reason more often being advanced age, comorbidities or frailty. Of those who underwent ICA, older patients more frequently demonstrated 3-vessel, 4-vessel and/or left main stem coronary artery disease compared to younger patients (49.7% vs 34.1%, p < 0.001) but less frequently received revascularisation (63.6% vs 76.9%, p < 0.001). Older patients experienced higher rates of in-hospital acute heart failure (15.0% vs 8.4%, p < 0.001) and bleeding (2.8% vs 1.3%, p = 0.006), as well as in-hospital and 30-day mortality (3.4% vs 1.3%, p < 0.001; 4.8% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001; respectively), than younger patients., Conclusions: Patients aged ≥75 years with NSTEMI, compared with younger patients, less frequently received ICA and guideline-recommended care, and had worse short-term outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: While the exact pathogenesis of peripartum cardiomyopathy, a potentially life-threatening condition, is still unknown, its incidence is rising globally. We sought to understand the differences in outcomes and complications based on age., Methods: Records from the 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample were used for our study. The sample consisted of females diagnosed with peripartum cardiomyopathy that required hospitalization care. They were divided into two age-based cohorts: 15-29 years and 30-40 years. We evaluated differences in in-hospital complications between the two groups using multivariable regression., Results: The analysis consisted of 20520 females diagnosed with peripartum cardiomyopathy, of whom 57.3 % were in the 30-40 years cohort and 42.7 % in the 15-29 years group. The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking, obesity, hypertension, diabetes and lipid disorder was higher among women aged 30-40 years (p < 0.01). These patients also demonstrated higher odds of reporting acute ischemic stroke (aOR 1.354, 95 % CI 1.038-1.767, p = 0.026) while having a reduced risk of cardiogenic shock (aOR 0.787, 95 % CI 0.688-0.901, p < 0.01) as compared to those aged 15-29 years during their hospitalisation with PPCM. No statistically significant differences were noted for events of acute kidney injury (aOR 1.074, 95 % CI 0.976-1.182, p = 0.143), acute pulmonary oedema (aOR 1.147, 95 % CI 0.988-1.332, p = 0.071) or in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.978, 95 % CI 0.742-1.290, p = 0.877)., Conclusion: Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a serious condition that requires appropriate care and management. Our study linked cases of ages 30-40 years with increased odds of acute ischemic stroke but lower odds of cardiogenic shock., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adverse cardiac events are common in older patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), yet prognostic predictors are still lacking. This study investigated the long-term prognostic significance of non-invasive measures including endothelial function, carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), and vascular stiffness in older NSTEACS patients referred for invasive treatment., Methods: NSTEACS patients aged 75 years and older recruited to a multicentre cohort study (NCT01933581) were assessed for baseline endothelial function using endoPAT logarithm of reactive hyperemia index (LnRHI), CIMT using B-mode ultrasound, and vascular stiffness using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV). Long-term outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of death, reinfarction, urgent revascularization, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and significant bleeding., Results: Recruitment resulted in 214 patients assessed for LnRHI, 190 patients assessed for CIMT and 245 patients assessed for cfPWV. For LnRHI group (median follow-up 4.73 years [IQR: 1.41-5.00]), Cox regression analysis revealed a trend towards increased risk of MACE (HR: 1.24 [95% CI: 0.80-1.93]; P  = 0.328) and mortality (HR: 1.49 [95% CI: 0.86-2.59]; P  = 0.157), but no significance was reached. No difference for other components of MACE was found. For CIMT group (median follow up 4.74 years [IQR: 1.55-5.00]), no statistically significant difference in MACE was found (HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.53-1.59]; P  = 0.754). Similarly, for cfPWV group (median follow-up 4.96 years [IQR: 1.55-5.00]), results did not support prognostic significance (for MACE, HR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.65-1.39]; P  = 0.794)., Conclusion: Endothelial function, CIMT and vascular stiffness were proven unsuitable as strong prognostic predictors in older patients with NSTEACS., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01933581., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The mechanism underlying ischaemic heart disease (IHD) has been primarily attributed to obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). However, non-obstructive coronary arteries are identified in >50% of patients undergoing elective coronary angiography, recently leading to growing interest in the investigation and management of angina/ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA/INOCA). INOCA is an umbrella term encompassing a multiple spectrum of possible pathogenetic entities, including coronary vasomotor disorders which consist of two major endotypes: coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and vasospastic angina. Both conditions can coexist and be associated with concomitant obstructive CAD. Particularly, CMD refers to myocardial ischaemia due to reduced vasodilatory capacity of coronary microcirculation secondary to structural remodelling or impaired resting microvascular tone (functional) or a combination of both. CMD is not a benign condition and is more prevalent in women presenting with chronic coronary syndrome compared to men. In this setting, an impaired coronary flow reserve has been associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. ANOCA/INOCA patients also experience impaired quality of life and associated increased healthcare costs. Therefore, research in this scenario has led to better definition, classification, and prognostic stratification based on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The development and validation of non-invasive imaging modalities, invasive coronary vasomotor function testing and angiography-derived indices provide a comprehensive characterisation of CMD. The present narrative review aims to summarise current data relating to the diagnostic approach to CMD and provides details on the sequence that therapeutic management should follow., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background and Aims: A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated., Results: Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5-10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78-1.40)., Conclusions: This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background and Aims: Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients., Methods: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819)., Results: Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63-1.22; P = .43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). There was no significant difference in mortality., Conclusions: No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)