Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remain uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data from COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation), which pooled patient-level data from the 4 pivotal randomized trials of NOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolic events (stroke/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke/SEE, intracranial hemorrhage, death, and the net clinical outcome (stroke/SEE, major bleeding, or death). Each outcome was examined across BMI and BW. Because few patients had a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (n=598), the primary analyses were restricted to those with a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2. RESULTS: Among 58 464 patients, the median BMI was 28.3 (interquartile range, 25.2-32.2) kg/m2, and the median BW was 81.0 (interquartile range, 70.0-94.3) kg. The event probability of stroke/SEE was lower at a higher BMI irrespective of treatment, whereas the probability of major bleeding was lower at a higher BMI with warfarin but relatively unchanged across BMI with NOACs. NOACs reduced stroke/SEE overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]; P<0.001), with a generally consistent effect across BMI (Ptrend across HRs, 0.48). NOACs also reduced major bleeding overall (HRadj, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; P<0.001), but with attenuation of the benefit at a higher BMI (trend test across BMI [Ptrend], 0.003). The overall treatment effects of NOACs versus warfarin for secondary outcomes were consistent across BMI, with the exception of the net clinical outcome and death. While these outcomes were overall reduced with NOACs (net clinical outcome, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.95]; P<0.001; death, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]; P=0.003), these benefits were attenuated at higher BMI (Ptrend, 0.001 and 0.08, respectively). All findings were qualitatively similar when analyzed across BW. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation is generally consistent for stroke/SEE across the spectrum of BMI and BW, whereas the reduction in major bleeding is attenuated in those with higher BMI or BW. Death and the net clinical outcome are overall reduced with NOACs over warfarin, although there remain uncertainties for these outcomes at a very high BMI and BW.

Rationale and design of the effect of evolocumab in patients at high cardiovascular risk without prior myocardial infarction or stroke (VESALIUS-CV) trial.

BACKGROUND: The reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody inhibitor of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9i), reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with a prior MI, prior stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease, with no offsetting safety concerns. The effect of evolocumab on CV outcomes in lower risk patients without a history of MI or stroke has not been explored. STUDY DESIGN: VESALIUS-CV is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, global clinical trial designed to evaluate the effect of evolocumab on the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk but without a prior ischemic event. The study population consists of 12,301 patients with atherosclerosis or high-risk diabetes mellitus without a prior MI or stroke; an LDL-C ≥ 90 mg/dL, or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) ≥ 120 mg/dL, or apolipoprotein B ≥ 80 mg/dL; and treated with optimized lipid-lowering therapy. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to evolocumab 140 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks or matching placebo. The primary efficacy objective is to assess whether evolocumab reduces the risk of the dual primary composite endpoints of coronary heart disease (CHD) death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemic stroke (triple primary endpoint) and of CHD death, MI, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven arterial revascularization (quadruple primary endpoint). Recruitment began in June 2019 and completed in November 2021. The trial is planned to continue until at least 751 patients experience an adjudicated triple endpoint, at least 1254 experience an adjudicated quadruple endpoint, and the median follow-up is ≥4.5 years. CONCLUSION: VESALIUS-CV will determine whether the addition of evolocumab to optimized lipid-lowering therapy reduces cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk without a prior MI or stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03872401.

Pulmonary Artery Diastolic Pressure as a Surrogate for Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure in Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: It is common for clinicians to use the pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) as a surrogate for the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). Here, we determine the validity of this relationship in patients with various phenotypes of cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this analysis of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry, we identified 1225 people admitted with CS who received pulmonary artery catheters. Linear regression, Bland-Altman and receiver operator characteristic analyses were performed to determine the strength of the association between PADP and PCWP in patients with left-, right-, biventricular, and other non-myocardia phenotypes of CS (eg, arrhythmia, valvular stenosis, tamponade). There was a moderately strong correlation between PADP and PCWP in the total population (r = 0.64, n = 1225) and in each CS phenotype, except for right ventricular CS, for which the correlation was weak (r = 0.43, n = 71). Additionally, we found that a PADP ≥ 24 mmHg can be used to infer a PCWP ≥ 18 mmHg with ≥ 90% confidence in all but the right ventricular CS phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis validates the practice of using PADP as a surrogate for PCWP in most patients with CS; however, it should generally be avoided in cases of right ventricular-predominant CS.

Modes of Death in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: A Report from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on how patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) die. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a research network of cardiac intensive care units coordinated by the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group (Boston, MA). Using standardized definitions, site investigators classified direct modes of in-hospital death for CS admissions (October 2021 to September 2022). Mutually exclusive categories included 4 modes of cardiovascular death and 4 modes of noncardiovascular death. Subgroups defined by CS type, preceding cardiac arrest (CA), use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), and transition to comfort measures were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1068 CS cases, 337 (31.6%) died during the index hospitalization. Overall, the mode of death was cardiovascular in 82.2%. Persistent CS was the dominant specific mode of death (66.5%), followed by arrhythmia (12.8%), anoxic brain injury (6.2%), and respiratory failure (4.5%). Patients with preceding CA were more likely to die from anoxic brain injury (17.1% vs 0.9%; P < .001) or arrhythmia (21.6% vs 8.4%; P < .001). Patients managed with tMCS were more likely to die from persistent shock (P < .01), both cardiogenic (73.5% vs 62.0%) and noncardiogenic (6.1% vs 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Most deaths in CS are related to direct cardiovascular causes, particularly persistent CS. However, there is important heterogeneity across subgroups defined by preceding CA and the use of tMCS.

Growth differentiation factor 15 and cardiovascular risk: individual patient meta-analysis.

AIMS: Levels of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), a cytokine secreted in response to cellular stress and inflammation, have been associated with multiple types of cardiovascular (CV) events. However, its comparative prognostic performance across different presentations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: An individual patient meta-analysis was performed using data pooled from eight trials including 53 486 patients. Baseline GDF-15 concentration was analyzed as a continuous variable and using established cutpoints (<1200 ng/L, 1200-1800 ng/L, > 1800 ng/L) to evaluate its prognostic performance for CV death/hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and their components using Cox models adjusted for clinical variables and established CV biomarkers. Analyses were further stratified on ASCVD status: acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stabilized after recent ACS, and stable ASCVD. Overall, higher GDF-15 concentration was significantly and independently associated with an increased rate of CV death/HHF and MACE (P < 0.001 for each). However, while GDF-15 showed a robust and consistent independent association with CV death and HHF across all presentations of ASCVD, its prognostic association with future myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke only remained significant in patients stabilized after recent ACS or with stable ASCVD [hazard ratio (HR): 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-1.31 and HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05-1.28 for MI and stroke, respectively] and not in ACS (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.06 and HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.39-1.92, respectively). CONCLUSION: Growth differentiation factor 15 consistently adds prognostic information for CV death and HHF across the spectrum of ASCVD. GDF-15 also adds prognostic information for MI and stroke beyond clinical risk factors and cardiac biomarkers but not in the setting of ACS.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials With Interaction Testing by Age and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Meta-analyses using individual patient data offer substantial advantages over study-level data. METHODS: We used individual patient data from the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database, which includes all patients randomized in the 4 pivotal trials of DOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), to perform network meta-analyses using a stratified Cox model with random effects comparing standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin. Hazard ratios (HRs [95% CIs]) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes. Covariate-by-treatment interaction was estimated for categorical covariates and for age as a continuous covariate, stratified by sex. RESULTS: A total of 71 683 patients were included (29 362 on standard-dose DOAC, 13 049 on lower-dose DOAC, and 29 272 on warfarin). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOACs were associated with a significantly lower hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (883/29 312 [3.01%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.89]), death (2276/29 312 [7.76%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87-0.97]), and intracranial bleeding (184/29 270 [0.63%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.37-0.56]), but no statistically different hazard of major bleeding (1479/29 270 [5.05%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-1.01]), whereas lower-dose DOACs were associated with no statistically different hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (531/13 049 [3.96%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.95-1.19]) but a lower hazard of intracranial bleeding (55/12 985 [0.42%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21-0.37]), death (1082/13 049 [8.29%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and major bleeding (564/12 985 [4.34%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]). Treatment effects for standard- and lower-dose DOACs versus warfarin were consistent across age and sex for stroke or systemic embolism and death, whereas standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with no history of vitamin K antagonist use (P=0.01) and lower creatinine clearance (P=0.09). For major bleeding, standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with lower body weight (P=0.02). In the continuous covariate analysis, younger patients derived greater benefits from standard-dose (interaction P=0.02) and lower-dose DOACs (interaction P=0.01) versus warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with warfarin, DOACs have more favorable efficacy and safety profiles among patients with atrial fibrillation.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Multi-marker risk assessment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Results from the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

BACKGROUND: The pathobiology of inflammation, thrombosis, and myocardial injury associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) may be assessed by circulating biomarkers. However, their relative prognostic importance has been incompletely described. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from January 2020, to April 2021, at 122 US hospitals in the American Heart Association (AHA) COVID-19 cardiovascular (CV) disease registry. Patients with data for D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, natriuretic peptides [NP], or cardiac troponin (cTn) at admission were included. cTn quintiles were indexed to the assay-specific 99th percentile reference limits. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed the association between each biomarker by quintile [Q] and odds of in-hospital death and a cardiovascular and thrombotic composite outcome. RESULTS: Of 32,636 registry patients, 26,424 (81%) had admission values for ≥1 of the key biomarkers, of which 4,527 (17%) had admission values for all 5 biomarkers. Each biomarker revealed a significant gradient for in-hospital mortality from Q1 to Q5: D-dimer 14% to 35%, CRP 11%-32%, ferritin 11% to 30%, cTn 13% to 43%, and NPs 7% to 35% (Ptrend for each <.001). After adjustment for other biomarkers and clinical variables, Q5 for NPs (OR:4.67, 95% CI: 3.05-7.14) retained the greatest relative odds for death; cTn (OR:2.68, 95% CI: 2.00-3.59) and NPs (OR:7.14, 95% CI: 4.92-10.37) were associated with the greatest odds of the CV composite. Q5 for D-dimer was associated with the highest risk of thrombotic events (OR: 9.02, 95% CI: 5.36-15.18). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, cTn and NPs identified patients at high risk for an in-hospital adverse cardiovascular outcome, while elevations in D-dimer identified patients at risk for thrombotic complications.

Sex, Permanent Drug Discontinuation, and Study Retention in Clinical Trials: Insights From the TIMI trials.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented across cardiovascular clinical trials. Whether women are more likely than men to prematurely discontinue study drug or withdraw consent once enrolled in a clinical trial is unknown. METHODS: Eleven phase 3/4 TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) trials were included (135 879 men and 51 812 women [28%]). The association between sex and premature study drug discontinuation and withdrawal of consent were examined by multivariable logistic regression after adjusting for potential confounders in each individual trial and combining the individual point estimates in random effects models. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline differences, women had 22% higher odds of premature drug discontinuation (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 1.22 [95% CI, 1.16-1.28]; P<0.001) compared with men. Qualitatively consistent results were observed for women versus men in the placebo arms (ORadj, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.13-1.27]) and active therapy arms (ORadj, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.17-1.30)]; there was some evidence for regional heterogeneity (P interaction <0.001). Of those who stopped study drug prematurely, a similar proportion of men and women in the active arm stopped because of an adverse event (36% for both; P=0.60). Women were also more likely to withdraw consent compared with men (ORadj, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.17-1.36]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women were more likely than men to prematurely discontinue study drug and withdraw consent across cardiovascular outcome trials. Premature study drug discontinuation was not explained by baseline differences by sex or a higher proportion of adverse events. Future trials should better capture reasons for drug discontinuation and withdrawal of consent to understand barriers to continued study drug use and clinical trial participation, particularly among women.

The Intersection Between Heart Failure and Critical Care Cardiology: An International Perspective on Structure, Staffing, and Design Considerations.

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery.

Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: An Analysis From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (HF) is an important complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been hypothesized to relate to inflammatory activation. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for COVID-19 across 6 centers in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, identifying patients with vs without acute HF. Acute HF was subclassified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic, based on the absence or presence of prior HF. Clinical features, biomarker profiles and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 901 admissions to an ICU due to COVID-19, 80 (8.9%) had acute HF, including 18 (2.0%) with classic cardiogenic shock (CS) and 37 (4.1%) with vasodilatory CS. The majority (n = 45) were de novo HF presentations. Compared to patients without acute HF, those with acute HF had higher cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide levels and similar inflammatory biomarkers; patients with de novo HF had the highest cardiac troponin levels. Notably, among patients critically ill with COVID-19, illness severity (median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, 8 [IQR, 5-10] vs 6 [4-9]; P = 0.025) and mortality rates (43.8% vs 32.4%; P = 0.040) were modestly higher in patients with vs those without acute HF. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients critically ill with COVID-19, acute HF is distinguished more by biomarkers of myocardial injury and hemodynamic stress than by biomarkers of inflammation.

Prevention of Complications in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have an increasing prevalence of noncardiovascular comorbidities and multisystem organ dysfunction. However, little guidance exists to support the development of best-practice principles specific to the CICU. This scientific statement evaluates strategies to avoid the potentially preventable complications encountered within contemporary CICUs, focusing on those that are most applicable to the CICU environment. This scientific statement reviews evidence-based practices derived in non-CICU populations, assesses their relevance to CICU practice, and highlights key knowledge gaps warranting further investigation to attenuate patient risk.

Cardiovascular Safety of Lorcaserin in Overweight or Obese Patients.

BACKGROUND: Lorcaserin, a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist that modulates appetite, has proven efficacy for weight management in overweight or obese patients. The cardiovascular safety and efficacy of lorcaserin are undefined. METHODS: We randomly assigned 12,000 overweight or obese patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors to receive either lorcaserin (10 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary safety outcome of major cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) was assessed at an interim analysis to exclude a noninferiority boundary of 1.4. If noninferiority was met, the primary cardiovascular efficacy outcome (a composite of major cardiovascular events, heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization [extended major cardiovascular events]) was assessed for superiority at the end of the trial. RESULTS: At 1 year, weight loss of at least 5% had occurred in 1986 of 5135 patients (38.7%) in the lorcaserin group and in 883 of 5083 (17.4%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.74 to 3.30; P<0.001). Patients in the lorcaserin group had slightly better values with respect to cardiac risk factors (including blood pressure, heart rate, glycemic control, and lipids) than those in the placebo group. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the rate of the primary safety outcome was 2.0% per year in the lorcaserin group and 2.1% per year in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.14; P<0.001 for noninferiority); the rate of extended major cardiovascular events was 4.1% per year and 4.2% per year, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07; P=0.55). Adverse events of special interest were uncommon, and the rates were generally similar in the two groups, except for a higher number of patients with serious hypoglycemia in the lorcaserin group (13 vs. 4, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-risk population of overweight or obese patients, lorcaserin facilitated sustained weight loss without a higher rate of major cardiovascular events than that with placebo. (Funded by Eisai; CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02019264 .).

The Range of Cardiogenic Shock Survival by Clinical Stage: Data From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiogenic shock presents with variable severity. Categorizing cardiogenic shock into clinical stages may improve risk stratification and patient selection for therapies. We sought to determine whether a structured implementation of the 2019 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions clinical cardiogenic shock staging criteria that is ascertainable in clinical registries discriminates mortality in a contemporary population with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock. DESIGN: We developed a pragmatic application of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock staging criteria-A (at-risk), B (beginning), C (classic cardiogenic shock), D (deteriorating), or E (extremis)-and examined outcomes by stage. SETTING: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter research collaboration coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Consecutive admissions with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock during two annual 2-month collection periods (2017-2019) were analyzed. PATIENTS: Patients with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 8,240 CICU admissions reviewed, 1,991 (24%) had or were at-risk for cardiogenic shock. Distributions across the five stages were as follows: A: 33%; B: 7%; C: 16%; D: 23%; and E: 21%. Overall in-hospital mortality among patients with established cardiogenic shock was 39%; however, mortality varied from only 15.8% to 32.1% to 62.5% across stages C, D, and E (Cochran-Armitage ptrend < 0.0001). The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stages improved mortality prediction beyond the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumpin Cardiogenic Shock II scores. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall mortality in cardiogenic shock remains high, it varies considerably based on clinical stage, identifying stage C as relatively lower risk. We demonstrate a pragmatic adaptation of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock stages that effectively stratifies mortality risk and could be leveraged for future clinical research.

De Novo vs Acute-on-Chronic Presentations of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P < 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P < 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation.

Epidemiology and causes of cardiogenic shock.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiogenic shock is a complex clinical syndrome of end-organ hypoperfusion due to impaired cardiac performance. Although cardiogenic shock has traditionally been viewed as a monolithic disorder predominantly caused by severe left ventricular dysfunction complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), there is increasing recognition of the diverse causes of cardiogenic shock and wide spectrum of clinical severity. The purpose of this review is to describe the contemporary epidemiology of cardiogenic shock, including trends in clinical outcomes and recent efforts to refine risk assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: The incidence of cardiogenic shock among patients with AMI has remained remarkably stable at 3-10%; however, the proportion of cardiogenic shock cases related to AMI has decreased over time to ∼30%, while the proportion of cardiogenic shock cases due to acute decompensated heart failure has steadily increased. Estimated in-hospital mortality from cardiogenic shock in contemporary registries is approximately 30-40%, suggesting modest improvement in cardiogenic shock outcomes over the last decade. There is a wide spectrum of clinical severity among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock, which is described by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions clinical staging criteria. SUMMARY: Improved clinical characterization and risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock may facilitate more effective clinical investigations of this morbid clinical syndrome.

Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock: An Introduction for the Busy Clinician.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has evolved, from a therapy that was selectively applied in the pediatric population in tertiary centers, to more widespread use in diverse forms of cardiopulmonary failure in all ages. We provide a practical review for cardiovascular clinicians on the application of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult patients with cardiogenic shock, including epidemiology of cardiogenic shock, indications, contraindications, and the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit. We also summarize cannulation techniques, practical management and troubleshooting, prognosis, and weaning and exit strategies, with attention to end of life and ethical considerations.

Lorcaserin and Renal Outcomes in Obese and Overweight Patients in the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is thought to increase renal hyperfiltration, thereby increasing albuminuria and the progression of renal disease. The effect of pharmacologically mediated weight loss on renal outcomes is not well-described. Lorcaserin, a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist that promotes appetite suppression, led to sustained weight loss without any increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events in the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial (Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects of Lorcaserin in Overweight and Obese Patients-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 61). METHODS: CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 randomly assigned 12 000 overweight or obese patients with or at high risk for atherosclerotic CV disease to lorcaserin or placebo on a background of lifestyle modification. The primary renal outcome was a composite of new or worsening persistent micro- or macroalbuminuria, new or worsening chronic kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, renal transplant, or renal death. RESULTS: At baseline, 23.8% of patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 and 19.0% had albuminuria (urinary albumin:creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g). Lorcaserin reduced the risk of the primary renal composite outcome (4.2% per year versus 4.9% per year; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.96; P=0.0064). The benefit was consistent across subpopulations at increased baseline CV and renal risk. Lorcaserin improved both eGFR and urinary albumin:creatinune ratio within the first year after randomization. The effect of lorcaserin on weight, hemoglobin A1c, and systolic blood pressure was consistent regardless of baseline renal function. Likewise, there was no excess in cardiovascular events in patients assigned to lorcaserin in comparison with placebo, regardless of renal function. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, those with evidence of kidney disease were at increased risk of major CV events. Compared with patients with an eGFR ≥90 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2, those with an eGFR 60-90 and those <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 had HRs of 1.25 (95% CI, 1.01, 1.56) and 1.51 (95% CI, 1.17, 1.95), respectively ( P for trend 0.0015). Likewise, compared with patients with no albuminuria (<30 mg/g), those microalbuminuria and those with macroalbuminuria had HRs of 1.46 (95% CI, 1.22, 1.74) and 2.10 (95% CI, 1.58, 2.80), respectively ( P for trend <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Renal dysfunction was associated with increased CV risk in overweight and obese patients. When added to diet and lifestyle, lorcaserin reduced the rate of new-onset or progressive renal impairment in comparison with placebo. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02019264.

Stroke Prevention With the PCSK9 (Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin-Kexin Type 9) Inhibitor Evolocumab Added to Statin in High-Risk Patients With Stable Atherosclerosis.

Background and Purpose- The PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9) monoclonal antibody evolocumab lowered LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol by 59% to 0.8 (0.5-1.2) mmol/L and significantly reduced major vascular events in the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk). Herein, we report the results of a prespecified analysis of cerebrovascular events in the overall trial population and in patients stratified by prior stroke. Methods- FOURIER was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing evolocumab versus placebo in patients with established atherosclerosis, additional risk factors, and LDL cholesterol levels ≥1.8 (or non-HDL [high-density lipoprotein] ≥2.6 mmol/L) on statin therapy. The median follow-up was 2.2 years. We analyzed the efficacy of evolocumab to reduce overall stroke and stroke subtypes, as well as the primary cardiovascular composite end point by subgroups according to a history of stroke. Results- Among the 27 564 patients, 469 (1.7%) experienced a total of 503 strokes of which 421 (84%) were ischemic. Prior ischemic stroke, diabetes mellitus, elevated CRP (C-reactive protein), history of heart failure, older age, nonwhite race, peripheral arterial disease, and renal insufficiency were independent predictors of stroke. Evolocumab significantly reduced all stroke (1.5% versus 1.9%; hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.66-0.95]; P=0.01) and ischemic stroke (1.2% versus 1.6%; hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.62-0.92]; P=0.005), with no difference in hemorrhagic stroke (0.21% versus 0.18%; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.68-1.98]; P=0.59). These findings were consistent across subgroups, including among the 5337 patients (19%) with prior ischemic stroke in whom the hazard ratios (95% CIs) were 0.85 (0.72-1.00) for the cardiovascular composite, 0.90 (0.68-1.19) for all stroke, and 0.92 (0.68-1.25) for ischemic stroke (P interactions, 0.91, 0.22, and 0.09, respectively, compared with patients without a prior ischemic stroke). Conclusions- Inhibition of PCSK9 with evolocumab added to statin in patients with established atherosclerosis reduced ischemic stroke and cardiovascular events in the total population and in key subgroups, including those with prior ischemic stroke. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01764633.

A current review of COVID-19 for the cardiovascular specialist.

Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) predominantly disrupts the respiratory system, there is accumulating experience that the disease, particularly in its more severe manifestations, also affects the cardiovascular system. Cardiovascular risk factors and chronic cardiovascular conditions are prevalent among patients affected by COVID-19 and associated with adverse outcomes. However, whether pre-existing cardiovascular disease is an independent determinant of higher mortality risk with COVID-19 remains uncertain. Acute cardiac injury, manifest by increased blood levels of cardiac troponin, electrocardiographic abnormalities, or myocardial dysfunction, occurs in up to ~60% of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Potential contributors to acute cardiac injury in the setting of COVID-19 include (1) acute changes in myocardial demand and supply due to tachycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia resulting in type 2 myocardial infarction; (2) acute coronary syndrome due to acute atherothrombosis in a virally induced thrombotic and inflammatory milieu; (3) microvascular dysfunction due to diffuse microthrombi or vascular injury; (4) stress-related cardiomyopathy (Takotsubo syndrome); (5) nonischemic myocardial injury due to a hyperinflammatory cytokine storm; or (6) direct viral cardiomyocyte toxicity and myocarditis. Diffuse thrombosis is emerging as an important contributor to adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Practitioners should be vigilant for cardiovascular complications of COVID-19. Monitoring may include serial cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptides, along with fibrinogen, D-dimer, and inflammatory biomarkers. Management decisions should rely on the clinical assessment for the probability of ongoing myocardial ischemia, as well as alternative nonischemic causes of injury, integrating the level of suspicion for COVID-19.