Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2019 Case of the Week series.

The Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) is an international society focused on the research, education, and clinical application of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). The SCMR web site ( https://www.scmr.org ) hosts a case series designed to present case reports demonstrating the unique attributes of CMR in the diagnosis or management of cardiovascular disease. Each clinical presentation is followed by a brief discussion of the disease and unique role of CMR in disease diagnosis or management guidance. By nature, some of these are somewhat esoteric, but all are instructive. In this publication, we provide a digital archive of the 2019 Case of the Week series as a means of further enhancing the education of those interested in CMR and as a means of more readily identifying these cases using a PubMed or similar search engine.

Revascularization or Optimal Medical Therapy for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Contemporary Trials.

BACKGROUND: The role of revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) has been controversial, more so in the present era of drug-eluting stents. AIMS: To examine the absolute risk difference (ARD) between revascularization plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone among patients with SIHD using Bayesian approach. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane citation indices were utilized to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through March 31, 2020. Among trials comparing initial revascularization plus OMT with initial OMT alone, revascularization arm must have comprised >50% of patients receiving either percutaneous or surgical revascularization, and >50% of patients must have received aspirin and statin as OMT in both arms. RESULTS: Seven RCTs (12,494) were included in the final analysis. The ARD of all-cause mortality for revascularization with respect to OMT was centred at -0.002 (95% CrI: -0.01; 0.01, Tau: 0.01, 67% probability of ARD of revascularization vs. OMT < 0). The ARD for cardiac mortality was centred at -0.0025 (95%CrI: -0.01; 0.01, Tau: 0.01, 77% probability of ARD of revascularization vs. OMT < 0). The ARD for MI was -0.02 (95% CrI: -0.06; 0.00, Tau: 0.02, 97% probability of ARD for revascularization vs. OMT < 0). There was 96% probability of ARD for unstable angina with revascularization vs. OMT < 0, 4.5% probability of ARD for freedom from angina with revascularization vs. OMT < 0, and 6% probability of ARD for stroke with revascularization vs. OMT < 0. CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian analysis demonstrated minimal probability of difference in all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality in patients with SIHD who underwent revascularization compared with OMT alone. However, revascularization was associated with lower probability of MI, unstable angina, and increased freedom from angina, but a higher risk of stroke compared with OMT alone. PROSPERO: The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO [CRD42020160540].

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) following the United States Food and Drug Administration approval of ViV TAVI in 2015. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month outcomes of ViV TAVI versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients who underwent ViV TAVI or repeat SAVR utilising the Nationwide Readmission Database from 2016 to 2018. Primary outcomes were all-cause readmission (at 30 days and 6 months) and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, pacemaker implantation, 30-day/6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and mortality during readmission. Propensity score-matching (inverse probability of treatment weighting) analyses were implemented. RESULTS: Out of 6,769 procedures performed, 3,724 (55%) patients underwent ViV TAVI, and 3,045 (45%) underwent repeat SAVR. ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.90, p=0.026) and a higher rate of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% CI: 1.13-1.90, p=0.004) and 6-month all-cause readmission (HR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.14-2.10, p=0.006) compared with repeat SAVR. All secondary outcomes were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but higher 30-day and 6-month all-cause readmission. However, there was no difference in risk of in-hospital stroke, post-procedure pacemaker implantation, MACE, and mortality during 30-day and 6-month readmission compared with repeat SAVR, suggesting that ViV TAVI can be performed safely in carefully selected patients.

Impella in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: History and Current Controversies.

In this review, the authors discuss a brief history of the Impella mechanical circulatory support device, a mechanistic role for the device in the context of the underlying pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), the current body of literature evaluating its role in AMI-CS, and upcoming efforts to identify a role more clearly for the device in AMI-CS.

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with cognitive dysfunction.

IMPORTANCE: The impact of pre-existing cognitive dysfunction on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between dementia and post-TAVR outcomes. DESIGN: Cohort study with propensity-score matching was conducted using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. EXPOSURES: History of dementia at the time of undergoing TAVR. MAIN OUTCOMES: All-cause in-hospital mortality, stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, post-procedural vascular complications, post-procedural pacemaker implantation, length of stay, in-hospital delirium, and discharge disposition in patients with and without dementia undergoing TAVR. RESULTS: Of 57,805 patients undergoing TAVR, 2910 (5.0%) had a diagnosis of dementia. Propensity-score matching yielded 2895 matched pairs of patients. TAVR was associated with an increased risk of bleeding requiring transfusion (14.7% vs 8.6%, odd ratio (OR) 1.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-2.63]; p < 0.01), discharge to a rehabilitation facility (45.8% vs 31.6%, OR 2.27 [95% CI 1.67-3.08]; p < 0.001), in-hospital delirium (7.4% vs 3.6%, OR 2.13 [95% CI 1.26-3.61]; p < 0.01), increased length of stay (6.75 ± 0.07 days vs 6.11 ± 0.06 days, slope = 1.11 [95% CI 1.03-1.19]; p < 0.01), but comparable in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 2.6%, OR 1.26 [95% CI 0.57-2.79]; p = 0.57] in patients with dementia compared with patients without dementia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that patients with dementia undergoing TAVR had a longer hospital stay as well as higher rates of discharge to a rehabilitation facility and in-hospital delirium, which may indicate debility and functional decline during hospitalization; however, in-hospital mortality and other outcomes were comparable between the two groups. TAVR candidates should be subjected to a comprehensive geriatric and cognitive assessment to help risk-stratify them for potential post-procedural functional decline. Prospective studies aimed at standardizing cognitive scoring and evaluating the post-procedural quality of life are needed.

Recurrent Drug-Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis: A State-of-the-Art Review of Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management.

Recurrent in-stent restenosis (R-ISR) refers to the re-occlusion of a successfully treated in-stent restenosis. Much of the present understanding of this condition stems from studies on in-stent restenosis, as literature on R-ISR is sparse. Compounded by multiple previous struts, narrower luminal diameters and worse patient profiles, R-ISR is a clinical challenge that demands urgent attention. Recent studies have explored various diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to identify and suitably manage R-ISR. In this review, we discuss our understanding of the risk factors, invasive and non-invasive imaging techniques, therapeutic options and gaps in present knowledge for the management of R-ISR.

Weekend Operation and Outcomes of Patients Admitted for Nonelective Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The "weekend effect" is a purported phenomenon whereby patients admitted for time-sensitive medical and surgical conditions on a weekend suffer worse outcomes than those admitted on a weekday. There are limited data on the weekend effect for nonelective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: We studied outcomes for weekend vs weekday operations for all adult patients in the 2013 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) undergoing nonelective CABG. RESULTS: Of 101,510 patients undergoing nonelective CABG, 12,795 patients (12.6%) underwent CABG on the day of admission (n = 1230 for weekend and 11,565 for weekday admission, respectively). Patients undergoing surgical procedures on a weekend were more likely to have a diagnosis of ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (47.2% vs 20.2%, P < .001), require intraaortic balloon pump support (46.3% vs 23.1%, P < .001), and undergo same-day coronary angiography (66.7% vs 41.8%; P < .001) or same-day percutaneous coronary intervention (11.8% vs 7.1%; P = .01). Weekend admission was associated with increased mortality in unadjusted analysis (6.1% vs 3.2%; odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.52; P = .02), but this effect was attenuated in the adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-2.33; P = .47). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing CABG on a weekend had higher crude mortality but similar risk-adjusted mortality compared with their weekday counterparts. Some of the excess mortality observed for weekend operations is likely attributable to a sicker cohort of patients undergoing CABG on the weekend.

Incidence of Stress Cardiomyopathy During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe psychological, social, and economic stress in people's lives. It is not known whether the stress of the pandemic is associated with an increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy. Objective: To determine the incidence and outcomes of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study at cardiac catheterization laboratories with primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability at 2 hospitals in the Cleveland Clinic health system in Northeast Ohio examined the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy (also known as Takotsubo syndrome) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome who underwent coronary arteriography. Patients presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 1 and April 30, 2020, were compared with 4 control groups of patients with acute coronary syndrome presenting prior to the pandemic across 4 distinct timelines: March to April 2018, January to February 2019, March to April 2019, and January to February 2020. Data were analyzed in May 2020. Exposures: Patients were divided into 5 groups based on the date of their clinical presentation in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of stress cardiomyopathy. Results: Among 1914 patient presenting with acute coronary syndrome, 1656 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [59-74]; 1094 [66.1%] men) presented during the pre-COVID-19 period (390 patients in March-April 2018, 309 patients in January-February 2019, 679 patients in March-April 2019, and 278 patients in January-February 2020), and 258 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [57-75]; 175 [67.8%] men) presented during the COVID-19 pandemic period (ie, March-April 2020). There was a significant increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 period, with a total of 20 patients with stress cardiomyopathy (incidence proportion, 7.8%), compared with prepandemic timelines, which ranged from 5 to 12 patients with stress cardiomyopathy (incidence proportion range, 1.5%-1.8%). The rate ratio comparing the COVID-19 pandemic period to the combined prepandemic period was 4.58 (95% CI, 4.11-5.11; P < .001). All patients during the COVID-19 pandemic had negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test results for COVID-19. Patients with stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic had a longer median (interquartile range) hospital length of stay compared with those hospitalized in the prepandemic period (COVID-19 period: 8 [6-9] days; March-April 2018: 4 [3-4] days; January-February 2019: 5 [3-6] days; March-April 2019: 4 [4-8] days; January-February: 5 [4-5] days; P = .006). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 period and the overall pre-COVID-19 period in mortality (1 patient [5.0%] vs 1 patient [3.6%], respectively; P = .81) or 30-day rehospitalization (4 patients [22.2%] vs 6 patients [21.4%], respectively; P = .90). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that there was a significant increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with prepandemic periods.