Prevalence of lipoprotein(a) measurement in patients with or at risk of cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically determined independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve disease. Despite recommendations from professional societies in the cardiovascular field, the awareness of elevated Lp(a) as a risk factor and screening for Lp(a) are suspected to be low. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational case control study of patient charts from January 1, 2017 to June 19, 2022. The primary aims were 1) to describe the proportion of patients at the healthcare network's primary care and cardiology clinics that met Lp(a) screening criteria and were tested; and 2) to describe the proportion of patients throughout the entire healthcare network that had Lp(a) measured. RESULTS: Of the 2,412,020 patient charts in the health network, only 5,942 (0.25 %) had Lp(a) measured. Of the 84,581 patients in primary care or cardiology clinics who met screening criteria, only 1,311 (1.55 %) had Lp(a) measured. Patients with Lp(a) measured were more likely to be younger, non-Hispanic/Latinx, had a lipid panel measured, a cardiac computed tomography (CT) imaging study, and higher low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. Patients with ASCVD, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, aortic stenosis, peripheral vascular disease, or a stroke did not feature highly among patients who received Lp(a) testing. Having an abnormal or risk-enhancing Lp(a) level was associated with being female and/or being Black/African American. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased awareness of Lp(a) and its contribution to cardiovascular disease there exists a paucity of testing. Increased Lp(a) testing can identify patients who have an increased cardiovascular risk underestimated by other metrics.

Slowing the Progression of Diabetic Kidney Disease.

Diabetes is the most frequent cause of kidney disease that progresses to end-stage renal disease worldwide, and diabetic kidney disease is significantly related to unfavorable cardiovascular outcomes. Since the 1990s, specific therapies have emerged and been approved to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease, namely, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers (including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (NS-MRA), finerenone, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors). Mechanistically, these different classes of agents bring different anti-inflammatory, anti-fibrotic, and complementary hemodynamic effects to patients with diabetic kidney disease such that they have additive benefits on slowing disease progression. Within the coming year, there will be data on renal outcomes using the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, semaglutide. All the aforementioned medications have also been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, all three classes (maximally dosed ACEi or ARB, low-dose SGLT-2 inhibitors, and the NS-MRA, finerenone) form the "pillars of therapy" such that, when used together, they maximally slow diabetic kidney disease progression. Ongoing studies aim to expand these pillars with additional medications to potentially normalize the decline in kidney function and reduce associated cardiovascular mortality.

The safety of carotid stenosis during vasodilator pharmacologic stress testing.

BACKGROUND: While thousands of patients undergo stress testing annually, the risk of exercise and pharmacologic stress in patients with carotid artery disease has not been fully defined but is of concern as patients are at risk for cerebrovascular accidents and transient ischemic attacks. METHODS: All patients with either ultrasound or CTA evaluation of their carotid arteries from over a 10 year period who underwent stress testing within 180 days without intervening carotid intervention were reviewed for any adverse events within 24 hours of their stress test. The primary end point was any cerebrovascular event or syncope while the secondary endpoints included death, myocardial infarction, urgent angiography, urgent revascularization, or exaggerated hemodynamic response (systolic BP drop > 20 mmHg or systolic BP > 180 mmHg at peak stress). Patients were stratified into categories based on their level of carotid disease. Patients with severe carotid stenosis were propensity matched to those with mild or no stenosis. RESULTS: A total of 4457 patients underwent carotid ultrasound, 10,644 CTA, and 16,011 had stress testing during this time period with 514 having both a carotid evaluation and a stress test within 6 months. After propensity matching, 62 patients with severe carotid stenosis were matched to 170 patients with mild or no carotid stenosis. Incidentally, all patients with severe carotid stenosis underwent pharmacologic stress. There were no primary endpoints and only three secondary endpoints in two patients in the mild or no carotid stenosis group. The proportion of exaggerated hemodynamic response to stress was similar in both groups-21.0% in the carotid stenosis group vs 31.2% without (P = .17) having a significant drop in systolic BP, and 3.2% vs 4.7% (P = 1.0) having a significantly elevated systolic BP. CONCLUSION: In this study cohort there were few primary and secondary outcome events with no events occurring in patients with significant carotid stenosis. Additionally, there was no difference in exaggerated hemodynamic responses. While these results suggest that stress testing entails no demonstrable increased risk in patients with significant carotid stenosis, continued care should be taken given the limitations of the small size of this study.

Novel Therapies on the Horizon of Hypertension Management.

BACKGROUND: The rates of uncontrolled hypertension, along with downstream cardiovascular outcomes, has been worsening in this country. Despite the plethora of antihypertensive medications on the market, the prevalence of resistant hypertension (RH) is estimated to be 13.7%. Therefore in addition to increased clinical education and focus on lifestyle management of hypertension and medication compliance, new therapies are needed to address this rise in hypertension. METHODS: A systematic review of the available medical literature was performed to identify emerging treatment options for RH. RESULTS: Six different pharmacologic classes and 2 procedural interventions were identified as being appropriate for review in this paper. The pharmacologic classes to be explored are non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, aminopeptidase A inhibitors, dual endothelin antagonists, aldosterone synthetase inhibitors, atrial natriuretic peptide inhibitors, and attenuators of hepatic angiotensinogen. Discussion of procedural interventions to lower blood pressure will focus on renal denervation and devices that increase carotid baroreceptor activity. CONCLUSIONS: Promising medication and procedural interventions are being developed and studied to expand our treatment arsenal for patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension and RH.

The impact of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes among acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing early invasive treatment strategy.

BACKGROUND: The implications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection on outcomes after invasive therapeutic strategies among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not well studied. HYPOTHESIS: To assess the outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting with AMI undergoing an early invasive treatment strategy. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative database including all patients presenting with a recorded diagnosis of AMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and non-ST elevation MI). COVID-19 positive patients with AMI were stratified into one of four groups: (1a) patients who had a coronary angiogram with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 3 days of their AMI; (1b) PCI within 3 days of AMI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) within 30 days; (2a) coronary angiogram without PCI and without CABG within 30 days; and (2b) coronary angiogram with CABG within 30 days. The main outcomes were respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock, prolonged length of stay, rehospitalization, and death. RESULTS: There were 10 506 COVID-19 positive patients with a diagnosis of AMI. COVID-19 positive patients with PCI had 8.2 times higher odds of respiratory failure than COVID-19 negative patients (p = .001). The odds of prolonged length of stay were 1.7 times higher in COVID-19 patients who underwent PCI (p = .024) and 1.9 times higher in patients who underwent coronary angiogram followed by CABG (p = .001). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that COVID-19 positive patients with AMI undergoing early invasive coronary angiography had worse outcomes than COVID-19 negative patients.

Increased left and right atrial volume indices are associated with decreased survival times post-cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Left and right atrial volume indices (LAVI and RAVI) are markers of cardiac remodeling. LAVI and RAVI are associated with worse outcomes in other cardiac conditions. This study aimed to determine the associations of these atrial volume indices with survival time post-cardiac arrest. METHODS: This was a single center, retrospective study of patients with a sudden cardiac arrest event during index hospitalization from 2014-2018 based on pre-arrest parameters. The analysis was stratified based on whether a pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (pVT/VF) event or a pulseless electrical activity (PEA)/asystole event occurred. Cox proportional hazards regression and model selection with best subsets approach evaluated the association of atrial volume parameters with survival times in the context of other covariates. RESULTS: Of 305 patients studied (64 ± 14 years, 37% female), the mean LAVI was 34.0 ± 15.8 mL/m2 (based on 162 reliable measurements), and mean RAVI was 25.0 ± 15.6 mL/m2 (based on 163 measurements). Increased atrial volume indices were most strongly associated with survival in patients who had sustained pVT/VF (LAVI HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.90, p = 0.020; RAVI HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30-1.05, p = 0.074). In multivariable best subsets Cox regression with LAVI, RAVI, and 13 other scaled covariates, LAVI < 34 ml/m2 was by far the best single predictor of survival (p < 0.0001), and the next best predictor was the absence of pulmonary hypertension. CONCLUSION: Among patients with cardiac arrest from ventricular arrhythmias, those with no more than mild left atrial enlargement pre-arrest by LAVI measurement had the best prognosis. Additional studies are indicated to validate the importance of this finding for clinical management decisions. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: In patients with sudden cardiac arrest associated with ventricular arrhythmias, a left atrial volume index (LAVI) < 34 mL/m2 prior to the arrest had the strongest association with survival among fifteen candidate predictors. Pulmonary hypertension was more common in patients with an elevated right atrial volume index (RAVI), and the absence of pulmonary hypertension was the next best pre-arrest parameter predictive of survival. Larger studies are indicated to validate the use of LAVI for clinical management decisions in this condition.

The evolution of "pillars of therapy" to reduce heart failure risk and slow diabetic kidney disease progression.

The evolution of therapy to slow chronic kidney disease progression has changed dramatically over the last five years and is anticipated to change even more in the coming two to four years. What was traditionally noted as "renal sparing therapy" with blockers of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has now expanded to the use of inhibitors of sodium-glucose transport 2 (SGLT2) agents as well as the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor blocker, finerenone. These three "pillars of therapy" have slowed kidney disease progression by more than 50% compared to RAS blockers alone. Additionally, finerenone and SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduce heart failure hospitalizations and the development of heart failure. Moreover, they improve exercise tolerance and reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, even though they do not affect atherosclerotic heart disease development. These data, taken together, demonstrate a "three pillar" therapy approach for cardiorenal risk reduction in people with type 2 diabetes who have any level of kidney disease.