Medical Therapy for Peripheral Artery Disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE). This manuscript will review the current evidence for medical therapy in patients with PAD according to different clinical features and the overall cardiovascular (CV) risk. RECENT FINDINGS: The management of PAD encompasses non-pharmacologic strategies, including lifestyle modification such as smoking cessation, supervised exercise, Mediterranean diet and weight loss as well as pharmacologic interventions, particularly for high risk patients. Benefits for reduction of CV and limb outcomes have been demonstrated for new therapies, including antithrombotic therapy (i.e., low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin), lipid lowering therapy (i.e., proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors), and glucose lowering therapy (i.e., sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists). However, the adoption of these therapies in PAD remains suboptimal in practice. Implementation science studies have recently shown promising results in PAD patients. Comprehensive medical and non-medical management of PAD patients is crucial to improving patient outcomes, mitigating symptoms, and reducing the risk of MACE and MALE. A personalized approach, considering the patient's overall risk profile and preference, is essential for optimizing medical management of PAD.

Atherosclerosis evaluation and cardiovascular risk estimation using coronary computed tomography angiography.

Clinical risk scores based on traditional risk factors of atherosclerosis correlate imprecisely to an individual's complex pathophysiological predisposition to atherosclerosis and provide limited accuracy for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Over the past two decades, computed tomography scanners and techniques for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) analysis have substantially improved, enabling more precise atherosclerotic plaque quantification and characterization. The accuracy of CCTA for quantifying stenosis and atherosclerosis has been validated in numerous multicentre studies and has shown consistent incremental prognostic value for MACE over the clinical risk spectrum in different populations. Serial CCTA studies have advanced our understanding of vascular biology and atherosclerotic disease progression. The direct disease visualization of CCTA has the potential to be used synergistically with indirect markers of risk to significantly improve prevention of MACE, pending large-scale randomized evaluation.

Low absolute risk of thrombotic and cardiovascular events in outpatient pregnant women with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy may contribute to an excess risk of thrombotic or cardiovascular events. COVID-19 increases the risk of these events, although the risk is relatively limited among outpatients. We sought to determine whether outpatient pregnant women with COVID-19 are at a high risk for cardiovascular or thrombotic events. MATERIALS & METHODS: We analyzed pregnant outpatients with COVID-19 from the multicenter CORONA-VTE-Network registry. The main study outcomes were a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombotic events, and a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular events. Events were assessed 90 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis and reported for non-pregnant women ≤45 years, and for men ≤45 years, as points of reference. RESULTS: Among 6585 outpatients, 169 were pregnant at diagnosis. By 90-day follow-up, two pregnant women during the third trimester had lower extremity venous thrombosis, one deep and one superficial vein thrombosis. The cumulative incidence of thrombotic events was 1.20 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.0 to 2.84 %). Respective rates were 0.47 % (95 % CI: 0.14 % to 0.79 %) among non-pregnant women, and 0.49 % (95 % CI: 0.06 % to 0.91 %) among men ≤45 years. No non-thrombotic cardiovascular events occurred in pregnant women. The rates of cardiovascular events were 0.53 % (95 % CI: 0.18 to 0.87) among non-pregnant women, and 0.68 % (95 % CI: 0.18 to 1.18) in men aged ≤45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombotic and cardiovascular events are rare among outpatients with COVID-19. Although a higher event rate among outpatient pregnant women cannot be excluded, the absolute event rates are low and do not warrant population-wide cardiovascular interventions to optimize outcomes.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Evaluation of Rivaroxaban in Patients After Peripheral Arterial Revascularization: The VOYAGER PAD Trial.

BACKGROUND: The VOYAGER PAD (Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Major Thrombotic Vascular Events in Subjects With Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization Procedures of the Lower Extremities) trial compared rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin with aspirin alone in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease requiring endovascular or surgical limb revascularization, with 50% receiving clopidogrel background therapy. The New Drug Indication application includes benefit-risk assessments using clinical judgment to balance benefits against risks. During its review, the US Food and Drug Administration requested additional quantitative benefit-risk analyses with formal weighting approaches. METHODS AND RESULTS: Benefits and risks were assessed using rate differences between treatment groups (unweighted analysis). To account for clinical importance of the end points, a multi-criteria decision analysis was conducted using health state utility values as weights. Monte Carlo simulations incorporated statistical uncertainties of the event rates and utility weights. Intent-to-treat and on-treatment analyses were conducted. For unweighted intent-to-treat analyses, rivaroxaban plus aspirin would result in 120 (95% CI, -208 to -32) fewer events of the primary composite end point (per 10 000 patient-years) compared with aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban caused an excess of 40 (95% CI, 8-72) Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding events, which was largely driven by nonfatal, nonintracranial hemorrhage Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding events. For weighted analyses, rivaroxaban resulted in the utility equivalent of 13.7 (95% CI, -85.3 to 52.6) and 68.1 (95% CI, 7.9-135.7) fewer deaths per 10 000 patient-years (intent-to-treat and on-treatment, respectively), corresponding to probabilities of 64.4% and 98.7%, respectively, that benefits outweigh risks favoring rivaroxaban per Monte Carlo simulation. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses show a favorable benefit-risk profile of rivaroxaban therapy in the VOYAGER PAD trial, with findings generally consistent between the unweighted and weighted approaches.

Limb Outcomes With Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and increased bleeding in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary artery disease. Limb events including revascularization, acute limb ischemia (ALI), and amputation are major morbidities in patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the effect of ticagrelor on limb events. METHODS: Patients were randomized to ticagrelor or placebo on top of aspirin and followed for a median of 3 years. MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), limb events (ALI, amputation, revascularization), and bleeding were adjudicated by an independent and blinded clinical events committee. The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) was reported at baseline. RESULTS: Of 19,220 patients randomized, 1,687 (8.8%) had PAD at baseline. In patients receiving placebo, PAD was associated with higher MACE (10.7% vs 7.3%; HR: 1.48; P < 0.001) and limb (9.5% vs 0.8%; HR: 10.67; P < 0.001) risk. Ticagrelor reduced limb events (1.6% vs 1.3%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.96; P = 0.022) with significant reductions for revascularization (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; P = 0.044) and ALI (HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; P = 0.009). The benefit was consistent with or without PAD (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.58-1.11; and HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.55-1.05, respectively; Pinteraction = 0.81). There was no effect modification of ticagrelor vs placebo based on PAD for MACE (Pinteraction = 0.40) or TIMI major bleeding (Pinteraction = 0.3239). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis are at high risk of limb events. Ticagrelor decreased this risk, but increased bleeding. Future trials evaluating the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin would further elucidate the benefit/risk of such therapy in patients with PAD, including those without coronary artery disease. (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Placebo in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [THEMIS]: NCT01991795).

Methods, design, and initial results of an angiographic core lab from VOYAGER-PAD.

Background: Anatomy is critical in risk stratification and therapeutic decision making in coronary disease. The relationship between anatomy and outcomes is not well described in PAD. We sought to develop an angiographic core lab within the VOYAGER-PAD trial. The current report describes the methods of creating this core lab, its study population, and baseline anatomic variables. Methods: Patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization for symptomatic PAD were randomized in VOYAGER-PAD. The median follow up was 2.25 years. Events were adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Endpoint Committee. Angiograms were collected from study participants; those with available angiograms formed this core lab cohort. Angiograms were scored for anatomic and flow characteristics by trained reviewers blinded to treatment. Ten percent of angiograms were evaluated independently by two reviewers; inter-rater agreement was assessed. Clinical characteristics and the treatment effect of rivaroxaban were compared between the core lab cohort and noncore lab participants. Anatomic data by segment were analyzed. Results: Of 6564 participants randomized in VOYAGER-PAD, catheter-based angiograms from 1666 patients were obtained for this core lab. Anatomic and flow characteristics were collected across 16 anatomic segments by 15 reviewers. Concordance between reviewers for anatomic and flow variables across segments was 90.5% (24,417/26,968). Clinical characteristics were similar between patients in the core lab and those not included. The effect of rivaroxaban on the primary efficacy and safety outcomes was also similar. Conclusions: The VOYAGER-PAD angiographic core lab provides an opportunity to correlate PAD anatomy with independently adjudicated outcomes and provide insights into therapy for PAD. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02504216).

Novel Polygenic Risk Score and Established Clinical Risk Factors for Risk Estimation of Aortic Stenosis.

Importance: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have proven to be as strong as or stronger than established clinical risk factors for many cardiovascular phenotypes. Whether this is true for aortic stenosis remains unknown. Objective: To develop a novel aortic stenosis PRS and compare its aortic stenosis risk estimation to established clinical risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from the Million Veteran Program (MVP; 2011-2020), UK Biobank (2006-2010), and 6 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trials, including DECLARE-TIMI 58 (2013-2018), FOURIER (TIMI 59; 2013-2017), PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (2010-2014), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (2010-2013), SOLID-TIMI 52 (2009-2014), and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (2008-2013), which were a mix of population-based and randomized clinical trials. Individuals from UK Biobank and the MVP meeting a previously validated case/control definition for aortic stenosis were included. All individuals from TIMI trials were included unless they had a documented preexisting aortic valve replacement. Analysis took place from January 2022 to December 2023. Exposures: PRS for aortic stenosis (developed using data from MVP and validated in UK Biobank) and other previously validated cardiovascular PRSs, defined either as a continuous variable or as low (bottom 20%), intermediate, and high (top 20%), and clinical risk factors. Main Outcomes: Aortic stenosis (defined using International Classification of Diseases or Current Procedural Terminology codes in UK Biobank and MVP or safety event data in the TIMI trials). Results: The median (IQR) age in MVP was 67 (57-73) years, and 135 140 of 147 104 participants (92%) were male. The median (IQR) age in the TIMI trials was 66 (54-78) years, and 45 524 of 59 866 participants (71%) were male. The best aortic stenosis PRS incorporated 5 170 041 single-nucleotide variants and was associated with aortic stenosis in both the MVP testing sample (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.37-1.45 per 1 SD PRS; P = 4.6 × 10-116) and TIMI trials (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.62 per 1 SD PRS; P = 3.2 × 10-9). Among genetic and clinical risk factors, the aortic stenosis PRS performed comparably to most risk factors besides age, and within a given age range, the combination of clinical and genetic risk factors was additive, providing a 3- to 4-fold increased gradient of risk of aortic stenosis. However, the addition of the aortic stenosis PRS to a model including clinical risk factors only improved risk discrimination of aortic stenosis by 0.01 to 0.02 (C index in MVP: 0.78 with clinical risk factors, 0.79 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS; C index in TIMI: 0.71 with clinical risk factors, 0.73 with risk factors and aortic stenosis PRS). Conclusions: This study developed and validated 1 of the first aortic stenosis PRSs. While aortic stenosis genetic risk was independent from clinical risk factors and performed comparably to all other risk factors besides age, genetic risk resulted in only a small improvement in overall aortic stenosis risk discrimination beyond age and clinical risk factors. This work sets the stage for further development of an aortic stenosis PRS.

Bleeding Outcomes in Patients Treated With Asundexian in Phase II Trials.

BACKGROUND: Phase II trials of asundexian were underpowered to detect important differences in bleeding. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to obtain best estimates of effects of asundexian vs active control/placebo on major and clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) and all bleeding, describe most common sites of bleeding, and explore association between asundexian exposure and bleeding. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of 3 phase II trials of asundexian in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), recent acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or stroke. Bleeding was defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) criteria. RESULTS: In patients with AF (n = 755), both asundexian 20 mg and 50 mg once daily vs apixaban had fewer major/CRNM events (3 of 249; incidence rate [IR] per 100 patient-years 5.47 vs 1 of 254 [IR: not calculable] vs 6 of 250 [IR: 11.10]) and all bleeding (12 of 249 [IR: 22.26] vs 10 of 254 [IR: 18.21] vs 26 of 250 [IR: 50.56]). In patients with recent AMI or stroke (n = 3,409), asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, and 50 mg once daily compared with placebo had similar rates of major/CRNM events (44 of 840 [IR: 7.55] vs 42 of 843 [IR: 7.04] vs 56 of 845 [IR: 9.63] vs 41 of 851 [IR: 6.99]) and all bleeding (107 of 840 [IR: 19.57] vs 123 of 843 [IR: 22.45] vs 130 of 845 [IR: 24.19] vs 129 of 851 [IR: 23.84]). Most common sites of major/CRNM bleeding with asundexian were gastrointestinal, respiratory, urogenital, and skin. There was no significant association between asundexian exposure and major/CRNM bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of phase II trials involving >500 bleeds highlight the potential for improved safety of asundexian compared with apixaban and similar safety compared with placebo. Further evidence on the efficacy of asundexian awaits the results of ongoing phase III trials.

Current Gaps in the Provision of Safe and Effective Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation and the Potential for Factor XI-Directed Therapeutics.

The global prevalence of atrial fibrillation is rapidly increasing, in large part due to the aging of the population. Atrial fibrillation is known to increase the risk of thromboembolic stroke by five times, but it has been evident for decades that well-managed anticoagulation therapy can greatly attenuate this risk. Despite advances in pharmacology (such as the shift from vitamin K antagonists to direct oral anticoagulants) that have increased the safety and convenience of chronic oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation, a preponderance of recent observational data indicates that protection from stroke is poorly achieved on a population basis. This outcomes deficit is multifactorial in origin, stemming from a combination of underprescribing of anticoagulants (often as a result of bleeding concerns by prescribers), limitations of the drugs themselves (drug-drug interactions, bioaccumulation in renal insufficiency, short half-lives that result in lapses in therapeutic effect, etc.), and suboptimal patient adherence that results from lack of understanding/education, polypharmacy, fear of bleeding, forgetfulness, and socioeconomic barriers, among other obstacles. Often this adherence is not reported to treating clinicians, further subverting efforts to optimize care. A multidisciplinary, interprofessional panel of clinicians met during the 2023 International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress to discuss these gaps in therapy, how they can be more readily recognized, and the potential for Factor XI-directed anticoagulants to improve the safety and efficacy of stroke prevention. A full appreciation of this potential requires a re-evaluation of traditional teaching about the "coagulation cascade" and decoupling the processes that result in (physiologic) hemostasis and (pathologic) thrombosis. The panel discussion is summarized and presented here.

Drug-Eluting Resorbable Scaffold versus Angioplasty for Infrapopliteal Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and infrapopliteal artery disease, angioplasty has been associated with frequent reintervention and adverse limb outcomes from restenosis. The effect of the use of drug-eluting resorbable scaffolds on these outcomes remains unknown. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 261 patients with CLTI and infrapopliteal artery disease were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting resorbable scaffold or angioplasty. The primary efficacy end point was freedom from the following events at 1 year: amputation above the ankle of the target limb, occlusion of the target vessel, clinically driven revascularization of the target lesion, and binary restenosis of the target lesion. The primary safety end point was freedom from major adverse limb events at 6 months and from perioperative death. RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point was observed (i.e., no events occurred) in 135 of 173 patients in the scaffold group and 48 of 88 patients in the angioplasty group (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 74% vs. 44%; absolute difference, 30 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15 to 46; one-sided P<0.001 for superiority). The primary safety end point was observed in 165 of 170 patients in the scaffold group and 90 of 90 patients in the angioplasty group (absolute difference, -3 percentage points; 95% CI, -6 to 0; one-sided P<0.001 for noninferiority). Serious adverse events related to the index procedure occurred in 2% of the patients in the scaffold group and 3% of those in the angioplasty group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI due to infrapopliteal artery disease, the use of an everolimus-eluting resorbable scaffold was superior to angioplasty with respect to the primary efficacy end point. (Funded by Abbott; LIFE-BTK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04227899.).

Recapturing the Team Approach to Vascular Care.

BACKGROUND: The care of the vascular patient remains decentralized rather than coordinated. METHODS: We reviewed the current state of practice and published competency and care documents created by vascular professional societies. RESULTS: Vascular professional societies routinely and repeatedly endorse both a team approach and the competency of specialists from disparate training backgrounds. The care of the vascular patient does not always reflect these public endorsements. CONCLUSIONS: Centering the vascular patient as the mode of organization of care should improve care processes, expertise brought to bear, and outcomes.

Antithrombotic Prophylaxis with Rivaroxaban in Patients with Prehospital COVID-19: A Meta-analysis of Two Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a prespecified meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily in prehospital patients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Individually, the trials had limited power to detect a treatment effect due to recruitment stopping ahead of plan. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The statistical analysis plan for the meta-analysis was finalized before unblinding of PREVENT-HD, the larger of the two trials. Pooled risk ratios and pooled risk differences along with the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effect models. RESULTS: Rivaroxaban did not reduce the occurrence of either the primary prespecified endpoint, a composite of symptomatic arterial and venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality (risk difference: 0.0044; 95% confidence interval: -0.0263, 0.0175; p = 0.69 for pooled risk difference) or the secondary endpoint of all-cause hospitalization (p = 0.76). Although thrombotic events were infrequent, pooled analysis did reveal that rivaroxaban reduced arterial and venous thrombotic events (placebo 6 events, rivaroxaban 0 events; pooled risk difference: -0.0068; 95% confidence interval: -0.0132, -0.0006; p = 0.03). In the pooled studies, only one major bleeding event was observed in a rivaroxaban-allocated patient with no critical site or fatal bleeding events. CONCLUSION: Although this meta-analysis does not support antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban in a broad prehospital population with acute COVID-19, the prevention of arterial and venous thrombotic events among rivaroxaban-allocated patients is consistent with the known thromboprophylactic effect of the drug in medically ill patients.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin Alone After Endovascular Revascularization for Symptomatic PAD: Insights From VOYAGER PAD.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced major cardiac and ischemic limb events after lower extremity revascularization (LER) in the VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial. The effect has not been described in patients undergoing endovascular LER. METHODS: The VOYAGER PAD trial randomized 6564 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease to a double-blinded treatment with 2.5 mg of rivaroxaban BID or matching placebo and 100 mg of aspirin daily. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation of a vascular pathogenesis, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. The principal safety end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding. A prespecified subgroup of patients who underwent endovascular revascularization was included. RESULTS: Endovascular LER occurred in 4379 (66.7%) patients and surgical LER in 2185 (33.3%). Over a 3-year follow-up, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of the primary outcome by 15% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.96]) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.92% at 6 months and 1.04% at 3 years and a consistent benefit in those receiving endovascular (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.76-1.03]) or surgical LER (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]; P interaction=0.43). For endovascular-treated patients, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of acute limb ischemia or major amputation of a vascular pathogenesis by 30% (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]; P=0.005) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.0% at 6 months and 2.0% at 3 years compared with aspirin alone. Among endovascular-treated patients, the median duration of concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel treatment was 31 days (interquartile range, 30-58). There was a consistent benefit for rivaroxaban regardless of background clopidogrel. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding was significantly higher for the rivaroxaban and aspirin group for the endovascular cohort (HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.06-2.59]) with an absolute risk increase of 0.9% at 3 years with no increase in intracranial or fatal bleeding observed (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.40-1.87]; P=0.71). Mortality with rivaroxaban was higher in the endovascular-treated patients (HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.02-1.52]), although this finding was isolated to specific regions. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban added to aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy after LER for peripheral artery disease reduces ischemic risk and increases major bleeding without an increased risk of intracranial or fatal bleeding. These benefits are consistent in those treated with endovascular and surgical approaches with significant benefits for major adverse limb events. These data support the use of rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy after endovascular intervention for symptomatic peripheral artery disease.

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients With Ovarian Cancer Treated With Avelumab, Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin, or Both.

In the phase III JAVELIN Ovarian 200 trial, 566 patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer were randomized 1:1:1 to receive avelumab alone, avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), or PLD alone. Cardiac monitoring was included for all patients. We report left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data from the trial. Grade ≥3 cardiac adverse events (AEs) occurred in 4 (2.1%), 1 (0.5%), and 0 patients in the avelumab, combination, and PLD arms, respectively. LVEF decreases of ≥10% to below institutional lower limit of normal at any time during treatment were observed in 1 (0.8%), 3 (1.9%), and 2 (1.5%) patients, respectively; 4 had subsequent assessments, and these showed transient decreases. No patient had a cardiovascular AE related to LVEF decrease. This analysis is, to our knowledge, the first analysis of LVEF in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02580058.