Coronary Calcium Is Elevated in Patients with Myocardial Infarction without Standard Modifiable Risk Factors.

Objectives: Recent reports have highlighted myocardial infarction (MI) patients without standard modifiable risk factors (SMRF), noting them to be surprisingly common and to have a substantial risk of adverse outcomes. The objective of this study was to address the challenge of identifying at-risk patients without SMRF and providing preventive therapy. Methods: Patients presenting between 2001 and 2021 to Intermountain Health catheterization laboratories with a diagnosis of MI were included if they also had a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan by computed tomography within 2 years. SMRF were defined as a clinical diagnosis or treatment of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, or smoking. The co-primary endpoints in SMRF-less patients were: (1) proportion of patients with an elevated (>50%ile) CAC score, and (2) an indication for statin therapy (i.e., CAC ≥ 100 AU or ≥75%ile). The 60-day and long-term major adverse cardiovascular events were determined. A comparison set included MI patients with SMRF. Results: We identified 429 MI patients with a concurrent CAC scan, of which 60 had no SMRF. SMRF status did not distinguish most risk factors or interventions. No-SMRF patients had a high CAC prevalence and percentile (82% ≥ 50%ile; median, 80%ile), and 77% met criteria for preventive therapy. As expected, patients with SMRF had high CAC scores and percentiles. Outcomes were more favorable for No-SMRF status and for lower CAC scores. Conclusions: Patients without SMRF presenting with an MI have a high prevalence and percentile of CAC. Wider application of CAC scans, including in those without SMRF, is promising as a method to identify an additional at-risk population for MI and to provide primary preventive therapy.

Association of Short-Term Increases in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter With Hospitalization for Asthma or COPD During Wildfire Season and Other Time Periods.

BACKGROUND: Short-term increases in air pollution are associated with poor asthma and COPD outcomes. Short-term elevations in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) due to wildfire smoke are becoming more common. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are short-term increases in PM2.5 and ozone in wildfire season and in winter inversion season associated with a composite of emergency or inpatient hospitalization for asthma and COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Case-crossover analyses evaluated 63,976 and 18,514 patients hospitalized for primary discharge diagnoses of asthma and COPD, respectively, between January 1999 and March 2022. Patients resided on Utah's Wasatch Front where PM2.5 and ozone were measured by Environmental Protection Agency-based monitors. ORs were calculated using Poisson regression adjusted for weather variables. RESULTS: Asthma risk increased on the same day that PM2.5 increased during wildfire season (OR, 1.057 per + 10 µg/m3; 95% CI, 1.019-1.097; P = .003) and winter inversions (OR, 1.023 per +10 µg/m3; 95% CI, 1.010-1.037; P = .0004). Risk decreased after 1 week, but during wildfire season risk rebounded at a 4-week lag (OR, 1.098 per +10 µg/m3; 95% CI, 1.033-1.167). Asthma risk for adults during wildfire season was highest in the first 3 days after PM2.5 increases, but for children, the highest risk was delayed by 3 to 4 weeks. PM2.5 exposure was weakly associated with COPD hospitalization. Ozone exposure was not associated with elevated risks. INTERPRETATION: In a large urban population, short-term increases in PM2.5 during wildfire season were associated with asthma hospitalization, and the effect sizes were greater than for PM2.5 during inversion season.

Periodic Fasting and Acute Cardiac Events in Patients Evaluated for COVID-19: An Observational Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Periodic fasting was previously associated with greater longevity and a lower incidence of heart failure (HF) in a pre-pandemic population. In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), periodic fasting was associated with a lower risk of death or hospitalization. This study evaluated the association between periodic fasting and HF hospitalization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the INSPIRE registry from February 2013 to March 2020 provided periodic fasting information and were followed into the pandemic (n = 5227). Between March 2020 and February 2023, N = 2373 patients were studied, with n = 601 COVID-positive patients being the primary study population (2836 had no COVID-19 test; 18 were excluded due to fasting <5 years). A Cox regression was used to evaluate HF admissions, MACEs, and other endpoints through March 2023, adjusting for covariables, including time-varying COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: In patients positive for COVID-19, periodic fasting was reported by 180 (30.0% of 601), who periodically fasted over 43.1 ± 19.2 years (min: 7, max: 83). HF hospitalization (n = 117, 19.5%) occurred in 13.3% of fasters and 22.1% of non-fasters [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.63, CI = 0.40, 0.99; p = 0.044]. Most HF admissions were exacerbations, with a prior HF diagnosis in 111 (94.9%) patients hospitalized for HF. Fasting was also associated with a lower MACE risk (aHR = 0.64, CI = 0.43, 0.96; p = 0.030). In n = 1772 COVID-negative patients (29.7% fasters), fasting was not associated with HF hospitalization (aHR = 0.82, CI = 0.64, 1.05; p = 0.12). In COVID-positive and negative patients combined, periodic fasting was associated with lower mortality (aHR = 0.60, CI = 0.39, 0.93; p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Routine periodic fasting was associated with less HF hospitalization in patients positive for COVID-19.

Impact of Statin Therapy in Heart Failure Patients: Results of a Large Real-World Experience.

Background: The use of statins in patients with heart failure (HF) is controversial. In patients without HF, statins reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, including HF-related events. However, in some large studies, no benefit was seen in statin-treated HF patients. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of statin therapy in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: Intermountain Healthcare medical records identified patients with a HF diagnosis and an ejection fraction of ≤40%. Patients prescribed and not prescribed a statin were compared for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, stroke) (median of 4.5 years follow-up). Statin use was defined as use at or after a HF diagnosis but at least 60 days before MACE or end of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the relationship between statin use and outcomes. Results: A total of 15,010 patients (n = 9,641 [64%] on statins) were studied. Statin use was associated with more frequent ASCVD risk factors yet a lower risk of MACE risk (adjusted HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.51-0.56; P < 0.0001). Benefit was similar for primary and secondary prevention patients and for prior and new statin prescriptions. Using time-varying hazard ratio analysis, the longer the patient was on a statin, the greater the reduction in risk of MACE (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: These results suggest a potential benefit of selective statin use in the real-world management of HFrEF patients with ASCVD or at high ASCVD risk.

Impact of Active vs Passive Statin Selection for Primary Prevention: The CorCal Vanguard Trial.

Background: Statins can improve outcomes in high-risk primary prevention populations. However, application in clinical practice has lagged. Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare an active vs a passive strategy (ie, usual care) to statin prescription for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods: A total of 3,770 patients ≥50 years of age without a history of ASCVD or statin use were invited to enroll in CorCal, with 601 consenting to participate. These patients were randomized 1:1 to statin initiation guided by the pooled cohort equation or by coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS). Outcomes (2.8-year follow-up) compared patients managed actively vs passively (randomly invited but declined or did not respond). Results: Patient demographics were well matched. Statin recommendation was common among enrolled patients (41.7%). During follow-up, 25.3% of active patients were taking a statin vs 9.8% managed passively (P < 0.0001). Active patients had more lipid panels (median 2.0 vs 1.0), lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (109 vs 117 mg/dL) (both P < 0.0001), and a low rate of major adverse cardiovascular events during follow-up (0.6% vs 1.0%, P = 0.47). Statistical comparisons included t-tests, chi-squared tests, nonparametric tests, and time-to-event tests as appropriate. Conclusions: An active approach to statin selection for primary ASCVD prevention identified a large treatment opportunity and led to over twice as many patients on statins compared to passive (usual care) management. A large CorCal Outcomes Trial is underway to more definitively assess the impact on outcomes of active management of statins for primary prevention.