Impact of empagliflozin on right ventricular parameters and function among patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition reduces cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and is associated with a reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass index. However, the impact on right ventricular (RV) remodeling is unknown. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to assess the impact of SGLT2 inhibition on RV parameters and function in T2DM and coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In EMPA-HEART CardioLink-6, 97 patients with T2DM and CAD were randomly assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 49) once daily or placebo (n = 48). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline and after 6 months. RV mass index (RVMi), RV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume index (RVEDVi, RVESVi) and RV ejection fraction (RVEF) were assessed in blinded fashion. RESULTS: At baseline, mean RVMi (± SD) (11.8 ± 2.4 g/m2), RVEF (53.5 ± 4.8%), RVEDVi (64.3 ± 13.2 mL/m2) and RVESVi (29.9 ± 6.9 mL/m2) were within normal limits and were similar between the empagliflozin and placebo groups. Over 6 months, there were no significant differences in RVMi (- 0.11 g/m2, [95% CI - 0.81 to 0.60], p = 0.76), RVEF (0.54%, [95% CI - 1.4 to 2.4], p = 0.58), RVEDVi (- 1.2 mL/m2, [95% CI - 4.1 to 1.7], p = 0.41) and RVESVi (- 0.81 mL/m2, [95% CI - 2.5 to 0.90], p = 0.35) in the empaglifozin group as compared with the placebo group. In both groups, there was no significant correlation between RVMi and LVMi changes from baseline to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, SGLT2 inhibition with empagliflozin had no impact on RVMi and RV volumes in patients with T2DM and CAD. The potentially differential effect of empagliflozin on the LV and RV warrants further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL:  https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02998970?cond=NCT02998970&draw=2&rank=1 . Unique identifier: NCT02998970.

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

Importance: Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. Objective: To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. Results: Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Comparative Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable S3 Versus Self-Expanding Evolut Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

To date, comparisons between the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien S3 (S3) versus the self-expanding Evolut R or PRO (Evolut) valves have been limited with respect to procedural outcomes. We aim to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural efficiency of the S3 versus the Medtronic Evolut bioprostheses in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. Retrospective analysis was performed of all consecutive transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures performed through the transfemoral approach with either S3 or Evolut at our hospital between September 2015 and January 2019. A total of 581 patients were included. There were no significant differences between S3 (n = 452) and Evolut (n = 129) concerning in-hospital or 30-day safety outcomes. S3 was associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy times, lower fluoroscopy Air Kerma, and higher contrast use. S3 had lower postprocedure aortic valve area (1.71 ± 0.45 vs 1.84 ± 0.50 cm2, p = 0.004), larger peak gradient at 30 days (10.7 ± 3.8 vs 7.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg, p <0.001), and lower aortic regurgitation (AR) rates postprocedure (47% vs 33%, p = 0.024) and at 30 days (50% vs 33%, p = 0.008), driven by mild AR. Device type was an independent predictor of AR postprocedure and at 30 days. Patients with ≥mild AR were more likely to have had Evolut valves (odds ratio = 2.94, p <0.001), especially in larger valves (>26 mm). Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was higher in S3 (14.8% vs 7.9%, p <0.001). In conclusion, S3 is associated with less radiation exposure, higher contrast use, and lower incidence of AR at 30 days. Alternately, S3 has a higher transaortic gradient at 30 days, and higher levels of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Effect of Mobile Health Interventions on the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the strong uptake of mobile health (mhealth) technology targeted at cardiovascular care, it is still unclear if this improves adherence to therapy and patient-related outcomes in those with established cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A systematic search of English and Chinese language studies was conducted to investigate the benefit of mhealth technology for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies with 5165 patients were included in the systematic review. Patients in the mhealth group showed increased adherence to medical therapy (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P < 0.00001), as well as increased adherence to pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy (OR, 3.86; P < 0.00001). Patients in the mhealth group showed the ability to meet recommended blood pressure targets (OR, 2.80; P < 0.001) with a trend toward the ability to meet exercise goals (OR, 2.55; P = 0.07), however, no significant difference in smoking cessation (OR, 1.42; P = 0.45) and the ability to meet lipid target levels (OR, 1.16; P = 0.29) was found. Patients in the mhealth group did not show a reduction in hospital readmission (OR, 0.93; P = 0.96), with a small number of studies showing a reduction in angina (OR, 0.23; P = 0.005), and a decrease in transient ischemic attack/stroke recurrence in those with cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.18; P < 0.0001) and a trend toward lower observed mortality rate (OR, 0.19; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The mhealth group compared with the usual care group had increased adherence to medical therapy, ability to reach blood pressure targets, exercise goals, and showed less anxiety and increased awareness of diet and exercise. There was no difference in smoking cessation, ability to meet low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets, and hospital readmission.

Comparison of Drug-Eluting Stents With Bare-Metal Stents for PCI of Saphenous Vein Graft Lesions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation over bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions is controversial, with significant heterogeneity demonstrated in the literature. METHODS: A study search was conducted from January 2003 to October 2015, and identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 35 observational studies comparing DES vs BMS in SVG interventions. Clinical endpoint data were abstracted and analyzed by combining the odds ratios (ORs) of individual studies into a pooled OR using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 39,213 patients in the DES group and 26,461 patients in the BMS group. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with DES had lower major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate (OR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.74; P<.001), lower all-cause mortality rate (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84; P<.001), lower target-vessel revascularization (TVR) rate (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86; P<.001), and lower target-lesion revascularization (TLR) rate (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.84; P<.01), with no difference in stent thrombosis (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.32; P=.58). There was no significant reduction in myocardial infarction (MI) in the DES group compared with the BMS group (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.04; P=.13). Benefits were sustained at long-term follow-up of 36 months without an increased risk of early and/or late stent thrombosis. The observed benefit for MACE was only seen in observational studies (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P<.001) with no benefit in RCTs (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.20-1.40; P=.20). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that patients with DES in comparison with BMS implantation for PCI to SVG lesions had lower MACE, all-cause mortality, and TVR rates, without a significant reduction in MI and TLR.

Increased uptake of guideline-recommended oral antiplatelet therapy: insights from the Canadian acute coronary syndrome reflective.

Current guideline-based recommendations for oral dual-antiplatelet therapy in an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) include the use of newer adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor (ADPri) regimens and agents. The Canadian ACS Reflective Program is a multicenter observational quality-enhancement project that compared the use of ADPri therapy in 2 phases (November 2011-March 2013 and April 2013-November 2013) and also compared ADPri use with previous national data from the Canadian Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (2000-2008). Of 3099 patients with ACS, 30.6% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 52.3% had non-STEMI, and 17% had unstable angina. There was high use of dual-antiplatelet therapy for ≤ 24 hours, with important increases noted when compared with previous national experience (P for trend, < 0.0001). Clopidogrel was the most commonly used ADPri (82.2%), with lower use of the newer agents ticagrelor (9.0%) and prasugrel (3.1%). Ticagrelor and prasugrel use was most frequent in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention PCI (34.3%). There was relatively lower use of ADPri therapy at discharge; it was given mainly to patients who did not undergo PCI (68.2%) and to those with non-ST-elevation ACS (82%). When comparing the 2 consecutive phases of data collection in the ACS Reflective, there was an approximate 3- and 2-fold increase in the early and discharge use of the newer ADPri agents, respectively. In conclusion, there has been a temporal increase in ADPri use compared with previous national experience and an increased uptake of newer ADPri agents. Additional work is needed to identify and address barriers limiting optimal implementation of these newer guideline-recommended agents into routine Canadian practice.

Statins and contrast-induced acute kidney injury with coronary angiography.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is an adverse outcome resulting from radiocontrast medium exposure during coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies that investigated the impact of statin exposure before coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention on the development of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The primary outcome was the development of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. We separately analyzed statin/placebo comparisons and high-/low-dose statin comparisons. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria: 11 studies with statin-naïve subjects, 2 studies with chronic statin users, and 2 studies with unspecified prior statin exposure. Statin exposure reduced the risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury relative to placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.63, P = .01) with a nonsignificant reduction in the need for hemodialysis (RR 0.25, P = .08). This benefit was also observed in high-dose versus low-dose statin trials (RR 0.46, P = .004), in statin-naïve patients (RR 0.53, P <.0001), and with all studied statins. Higher statin exposure reduced contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with acute coronary syndromes compared with placebo or low-dose statins (RR 0.49, P <.00001), with no significant benefit among patients undergoing elective procedures (RR 0.86, P = .50). Subgroup analyses confirmed the benefit of statins in patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and those receiving >140 mL of contrast dye. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy is effective at reducing the risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. It should thus be considered, at least on a short-term basis, for patients at increased risk of this complication.

Incidental finding and management of intralobar sequestration of the lung in a 24-year-old man.

Pulmonary sequestration is described as a dysplastic mass of lung tissue that lacks communication with the tracheobronchial tree and receives systemic rather than pulmonary arterial blood supply. Two distinct classifications, intralobar and extralobar, have been described. The present article discusses the etiology, clinical and radiographic features of pulmonary sequestration as well as the management of this condition when it is discovered incidentally.

Does acetylsalicylic acid or warfarin affect the accuracy of fecal occult blood tests?

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for screening of colorectal cancer do not offer specific recommendations for cessation of antithrombotic agents prior to fecal occult blood test (FOBT). AIM: To asess the accuracy of FOBT in patients taking acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or warfarin. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for studies that investigated the accuracy of FOBT in patients taking ASA and warfarin. The primary outcome was the pooled relative risk (RR) for true positive FOBT for detecting significant colonic neoplasia in patients taking ASA or warfarin compared with controls. The secondary outcome was a pooled RR for true positive in guaiac FOBT (g-FOBT) compared with immunochemical FOBT (i-FOBT). RESULTS: Five observational studies included 759 patients taking ASA and 1652 control subjects. In patients taking ASA, pooled RR for true positive FOBT was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.93, P=0.0009), pooled RR for true positive g-FOBT was 0.69 (95% CI 0.60-0.79, P<0.0001), whereas pooled RR for true positive i-FOBT was 1.013 (95% CI 0.81-1.30, P=0.8182). Five observational studies included 806 patients taking warfarin and 10 338 control subjects. In patients taking warfarin, pooled RR for true positive FOBT was 1.559 (95% CI 1.349-1.801, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate that in patients taking ASA, there is a decrease in the positive predictive value (PPV) of g-FOBT but no significant difference in the PPV of i-FOBT compared with control subjects for detecting significant neoplasia. In patients taking warfarin, the PPV of FOBT was increased for detection of colorectal cancer compared with control subjects.

Degradation of TCE, Cr(VI), sulfate, and nitrate mixtures by granular iron in flow-through columns under different microbial conditions.

Flow-through aquifer columns packed with a middle layer of granular iron (Fe0) were used to study the applicability and limitations of bio-enhanced Fe0 barriers for the treatment of contaminant mixtures in groundwater. Concentration profiles along the columns showed extensive degradation of hexavalent chromium Cr(VI), nitrate, sulfate, and trichloroethene (TCE), mainly in the Fe0 layer. One column was bioaugmented with Shevanella algae BRY, an iron-reducing bacterium that could enhance Fe0 reactivity by reductive dissolution of passivating iron oxides. This strain did not enhance Cr(VI), which was rapidly reduced by iron, leaving little room for improvement by microbial participation. Nevertheless, BRY-enhanced nitrate removal (from 15% to 80%), partly because this strain has a wide range of electron acceptors, including nitrate. Sulfate was removed (55%) only in a column that was bioaugmented with a mixed culture containing sulfate-reducing bacteria. Apparently, these bacteria used H2 (produced by Fe0 corrosion) as electron donor to respire sulfate. Most of the TCE was degraded in the zone containing Fe0 (50-70%), and bioaugmentation with BRY slightly increased the removal efficiency to about 80%. Microbial colonization of the Fe0 surface was confirmed by scanning electron microscopy.