Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Older Adult Population: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Diagnostic and therapeutic advances during the past decades have substantially improved health outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndrome. Both age-related physiological changes and accumulated cardiovascular risk factors increase the susceptibility to acute coronary syndrome over a lifetime. Compared with younger patients, outcomes for acute coronary syndrome in the large and growing demographic of older adults are relatively worse. Increased atherosclerotic plaque burden and complexity of anatomic disease, compounded by age-related cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbid conditions, contribute to the worse prognosis observed in older individuals. Geriatric syndromes, including frailty, multimorbidity, impaired cognitive and physical function, polypharmacy, and other complexities of care, can undermine the therapeutic efficacy of guidelines-based treatments and the resiliency of older adults to survive and recover, as well. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we (1) review age-related physiological changes that predispose to acute coronary syndrome and management complexity; (2) describe the influence of commonly encountered geriatric syndromes on cardiovascular disease outcomes; and (3) recommend age-appropriate and guideline-concordant revascularization and acute coronary syndrome management strategies, including transitions of care, the use of cardiac rehabilitation, palliative care services, and holistic approaches. The primacy of individualized risk assessment and patient-centered care decision-making is highlighted throughout.

Sarcopenia and Cardiovascular Diseases.

Sarcopenia is the loss of muscle strength, mass, and function, which is often exacerbated by chronic comorbidities including cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and cancer. Sarcopenia is associated with faster progression of cardiovascular diseases and higher risk of mortality, falls, and reduced quality of life, particularly among older adults. Although the pathophysiologic mechanisms are complex, the broad underlying cause of sarcopenia includes an imbalance between anabolic and catabolic muscle homeostasis with or without neuronal degeneration. The intrinsic molecular mechanisms of aging, chronic illness, malnutrition, and immobility are associated with the development of sarcopenia. Screening and testing for sarcopenia may be particularly important among those with chronic disease states. Early recognition of sarcopenia is important because it can provide an opportunity for interventions to reverse or delay the progression of muscle disorder, which may ultimately impact cardiovascular outcomes. Relying on body mass index is not useful for screening because many patients will have sarcopenic obesity, a particularly important phenotype among older cardiac patients. In this review, we aimed to: (1) provide a definition of sarcopenia within the context of muscle wasting disorders; (2) summarize the associations between sarcopenia and different cardiovascular diseases; (3) highlight an approach for a diagnostic evaluation; (4) discuss management strategies for sarcopenia; and (5) outline key gaps in knowledge with implications for the future of the field.

Predictors of outcomes after PCI with incomplete revascularization: Impact of CTO and LAD vessel.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete revascularization (ICR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with mortality and morbidity. AIM: We sought to investigate whether ICR in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) is worse than ICR of the right coronary artery (RCA) or left circumflex artery (LCX); and whether ICR in patients with a chronic total occlusion (CTO) is worse than in those without. METHODS: In the RIVER-PCI trial, 2651 patients with ICR after PCI were randomly assigned to ranolazine or placebo. Angiograms were assessed at an independent core laboratory in 2501 patients (94.3%). The primary endpoint was the composite of ischemia-driven revascularization or hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 1664 patients (66.5%) had ICR involving the LAD, whereas 837 (33.5%) had ICR limited to the RCA or LCX. At median follow-up of 643 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 26.9% versus 26.5% of patients (adjusted HR [aHR]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.21). A nonrecanalized CTO was present in 854 patients (34.1%) with ICR after PCI. The primary endpoint occurred in 28.6% versus 25.9% of ICR patients with versus without a CTO (aHR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.94-1.29). However, patients with a CTO had higher rates of ischemia-driven hospitalization without revascularization (aHR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.04-1.56), heart failure hospitalization (aHR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.61-4.59) and myocardial infarction (aHR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.11-1.92) compared with those without. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year prognosis was similar in post-PCI patients with ICR whether the LAD was versus was not involved. ICR patients with a CTO had more frequent hospitalizations for ischemia and myocardial infarctions compared with those without.

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA.

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS: We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS: At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS: In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P = 0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P = 0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Effects of initial invasive vs. initial conservative treatment strategies on recurrent and total cardiovascular events in the ISCHEMIA trial.

AIMS: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial prespecified an analysis to determine whether accounting for recurrent cardiovascular events in addition to first events modified understanding of the treatment effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischaemia on stress testing were randomized to either initial invasive (INV) or initial conservative (CON) management. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or cardiac arrest. The Ghosh-Lin method was used to estimate mean cumulative incidence of total events with death as a competing risk. The 5179 ISCHEMIA patients experienced 670 index events (318 INV, 352 CON) and 203 recurrent events (102 INV, 101 CON). A single primary event was observed in 9.8% of INV and 10.8% of CON patients while ≥2 primary events were observed in 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively. Patients with recurrent events were older; had more frequent hypertension, diabetes, prior MI, or cerebrovascular disease; and had more multivessel CAD. The average number of primary endpoint events per 100 patients over 4 years was 18.2 in INV [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-20.9] and 19.7 in CON (95% CI 17.5-22.2), difference -1.5 (95% CI -5.0 to 2.0, P = 0.398). Comparable results were obtained when all-cause death was substituted for cardiovascular death and when stroke was added as an event. CONCLUSIONS: In stable CAD patients with moderate or severe myocardial ischaemia enrolled in ISCHEMIA, an initial INV treatment strategy did not prevent either net recurrent events or net total events more effectively than an initial CON strategy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01471522.

Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA Trial: Impact of Different Definitions on Incidence, Prognosis, and Treatment Comparisons.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions. RESULTS: Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Clinical events classification (CEC) in clinical trials: Report on the current landscape and future directions - proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation. OBSERVATIONS: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: (1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; (2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; (3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and (4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.

Preexisting frailty and outcomes in older patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence and prognostic impact of preexisting frailty on acute care and in-hospital outcomes in older adults in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: Preexisting frailty was assessed at baseline in consecutive AMI patients ≥65 years of age treated at 778 hospitals participating in the NCDR ACTION Registry between January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Three domains of preexisting frailty (cognition, ambulation, and functional independence) were abstracted from chart review and summed in 2 ways: an ACTION Frailty Scale based on responses to 6 groups adapted from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale and an ACTION Frailty Score derived by summing a rank score of 0-2 assigned for each grade (total ranged between 0 to 6). Multivariable logistic regression examined the association between assigned frailty by score or scale and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 143,722 older AMI patients, 108,059 (75.2%) were fit and/or well and 6,484 (4.5%) were vulnerable to frailty, while 7,527 (5.2%) had mild, 3,913 (2.7%) had moderate, 2,715 had (1.9%) severe, and 632 (0.4%) had very severe frailty according to the ACTION Frailty Scale, while 14,392 (10.0%) could not be categorized due to incomplete ascertainment. Frail patients were older, more frequently female, of non-white race and/or ethnicity, and less likely to be treated with guideline-recommended therapies. Increasing severity of frailty by this scale was associated with a step-wise higher risk for in-hospital mortality (P-trend < .001). Patient categories of the ACTION Frailty Score provided similar results. After adjustment, each 1-unit increase in Frailty Score was associated with a 12% higher mortality risk (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with acute myocardial infarction, frailty is common and independently associated with in-hospital mortality. These findings show the importance of pragmatic evaluation of frailty in hospital-level quality scores, guideline recommendations, and incorporation into other registry data collection efforts.

Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS: We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS: Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

Older Adults in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: Factoring Geriatric Syndromes in the Management, Prognosis, and Process of Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Longevity is increasing, and more adults are living to the stage of life when age-related biological factors determine a higher likelihood of cardiovascular disease in a distinctive context of concurrent geriatric conditions. Older adults with cardiovascular disease are frequently admitted to cardiac intensive care units (CICUs), where care is commensurate with high age-related cardiovascular disease risks but where the associated geriatric conditions (including multimorbidity, polypharmacy, cognitive decline and delirium, and frailty) may be inadvertently exacerbated and destabilized. The CICU environment of procedures, new medications, sensory overload, sleep deprivation, prolonged bed rest, malnourishment, and sleep is usually inherently disruptive to older patients regardless of the excellence of cardiovascular disease care. Given these fundamental and broad challenges of patient aging, CICU management priorities and associated decision-making are particularly complex and in need of enhancements. In this American Heart Association statement, we examine age-related risks and describe some of the distinctive dynamics pertinent to older adults and emerging opportunities to enhance CICU care. Relevant assessment tools are discussed, as well as the need for additional clinical research to best advance CICU care for the already dominating and still expanding population of older adults.

Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown. METHODS: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. RESULTS: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Frequency, Regional Variation, and Predictors of Undetermined Cause of Death in Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials: A Pooled Analysis of 9259 Deaths in 9 Trials.

BACKGROUND: Modern cardiometabolic clinical trials often include cardiovascular death as a component of a composite primary outcome, requiring central adjudication by a clinical events committee to classify cause of death. However, sometimes the cause of death cannot be determined from available data. The US Food and Drug Administration has indicated that this circumstance should occur only rarely, but its prevalence has not been formally assessed. METHODS: Data from 9 global clinical trials (2009-2017) with long-term follow-up and blinded, centrally adjudicated cause of death were used to calculate the proportion of deaths attributed to cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, or undetermined causes by therapeutic area (diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus, stable atherosclerosis, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome), region of patient enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. Patient- and trial-level variables associated with undetermined cause of death were identified using a logistic model. RESULTS: Across 127 049 enrolled participants from 9 trials, there were 9259 centrally adjudicated deaths: 5012 (54.1%) attributable to cardiovascular causes, 2800 (30.2%) attributable to noncardiovascular causes, and 1447 (15.6%) attributable to undetermined causes. There was variability in the proportion of deaths ascribed to undetermined causes by trial therapeutic area, region of enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. On multivariable analysis, acute coronary syndrome or atrial fibrillation trial (versus atherosclerotic vascular disease or diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus), longer time from enrollment to death, more recent trial manuscript publication year, enrollment in North America (versus Western Europe), female sex, and older age were associated with greater likelihood of death of undetermined cause. CONCLUSIONS: In 9 cardiometabolic clinical trials with long-term follow-up, approximately 16% of deaths had undetermined causes. This provides a baseline for quality assessment of clinical trials and informs operational efforts to potentially reduce the frequency of undetermined deaths in future clinical research.

Age, knowledge, preferences, and risk tolerance for invasive cardiac care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The extent to which individual knowledge, preferences, and priorities explain lower use of invasive cardiac care among older vs. younger adults presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is unknown. We directly surveyed a group of patients to ascertain their preferences and priorities for invasive cardiovascular care. DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort study of adults hospitalized with ACS. We surveyed participants regarding their knowledge, preferences, goals, and concerns for cardiac care, as well as their risk tolerance for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). SETTING: Single academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred twenty-eight participants (373 <75 years old; 255 ≥75 years old). MEASUREMENTS: We compared baseline characteristics, knowledge, priorities, and risk tolerance for care across age strata. We also assessed pairwise differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) between age groups for key variables of interest. RESULTS: Compared with younger patients, older participants had less knowledge of invasive care; were less willing to consider cardiac catheterization (difference between 75-84 and< 65 years old: -7.8%, 95% CI: -14.4%,-1.3%; for ≥85 vs. <65: -15.7%, 95% CI: -29.8%,-1.6%), percutaneous coronary intervention (difference between 75-84 and< 65 years old: -12.8%, 95% CI: -20.8%,-4.8%; for ≥85 vs. <65: -24.8%, 95% CI: -41.2%,-8.5%), and CABG (difference between 75-84 and< 65 years old: -19.0%, 95% CI: -28.2%,-9.9%; for ≥85 vs. <65: -39.1%, 95% CI: -56.0%,-22.2%); and were more risk averse for CABG surgery (p < .001), albeit with substantial inter-individual variability and individual outliers. Many patients who stated they were not initially willing to undergo an invasive cardiovascular procedure actually ended up undergoing the procedure (49% for cardiac catheterization and 22% for PCI or CABG). CONCLUSION: Age influences treatment goals and willingness to consider invasive cardiac care, as well as risk tolerance for CABG. Individuals' willingness to undergo invasive cardiovascular procedures loosely corresponds with whether that procedure is performed after discussion with the care team.

Outcomes of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and multi-morbidity: Insights from the ARISTOTLE trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often have multi-morbidity, defined as ≥3 comorbid conditions. Multi-morbidity is associated with polypharmacy, adverse events, and frailty potentially altering response to anticoagulation. We sought to describe the prevalence of multi-morbidity among older patients with AF and determine the association between multi-morbidity, clinical outcomes, and the efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin. METHODS: In this post-hoc subgroup analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial, we studied enrolled patients age ≥ 55 years (n = 16,800). Patients were categorized by the number of comorbid conditions at baseline: no multi-morbidity (0-2 comorbid conditions), moderate multi-morbidity (3-5 comorbid conditions), and high multi-morbidity (≥6 comorbid conditions). Association between multi-morbidity and clinical outcomes were analyzed by treatment with a median follow-up of 1.8 (1.3-2.3) years. RESULTS: Multi-morbidity was present in 64% (n = 10,713) of patients; 51% (n = 8491) had moderate multi-morbidity, 13% (n = 2222) had high multi-morbidity, and 36% (n = 6087) had no multi-morbidity. Compared with the no multi-morbidity group, the high multi-morbidity group was older (74 vs 69 years), took twice as many medications (10 vs 5), and had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (4.9 vs 2.7) (all P < .001). Adjusted rates per 100 patient-years for stroke/systemic embolism, death, and major bleeding increased with multi-morbidity (Reference no multi-morbidity; moderate multi-morbidity 1.42 [1.24-1.64] and high multi-morbidity 1.92 [1.59-2.31]), with no interaction in relation to efficacy or safety of apixaban. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-morbidity is prevalent among the population with AF; efficacy and safety of apixaban is preserved in this subgroup supporting extension of trial results to the most complex AF patients.

International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease (ISCHEMIA-CKD): Rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and stable ischemic heart disease are at markedly increased risk of cardiovascular events. Prior trials comparing a strategy of optimal medical therapy (OMT) with or without revascularization have largely excluded patients with advanced CKD. Whether a routine invasive approach when compared with a conservative strategy is beneficial in such patients is unknown. METHODS: ISCHEMIA-CKD is a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded randomized trial designed to determine the comparative effectiveness of an initial invasive strategy (cardiac catheterization and optimal revascularization [percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery, if suitable] plus OMT) versus a conservative strategy (OMT alone, with cardiac catheterization and revascularization [percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery, if suitable] reserved for failure of OMT) on long-term clinical outcomes in 777 patients with advanced CKD (defined as those with estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73m2 or on dialysis) and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the invasive or a conservative strategy. The primary end point is a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Major secondary endpoints are a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest; angina control; and disease-specific quality of life. Safety outcomes such as initiation of maintenance dialysis and a composite of initiation of maintenance dialysis or death will be reported. The trial is projected to have 80% power to detect a 22% to 24% reduction in the primary composite end point with the invasive strategy when compared with the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA-CKD will determine whether an initial invasive management strategy improves clinical outcomes when added to OMT in patients with advanced CKD and stable ischemic heart disease.

International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial: Rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Prior trials comparing a strategy of optimal medical therapy with or without revascularization have not shown that revascularization reduces cardiovascular events in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, those trials only included participants in whom coronary anatomy was known prior to randomization and did not include sufficient numbers of participants with significant ischemia. It remains unknown whether a routine invasive approach offers incremental value over a conservative approach with catheterization reserved for failure of medical therapy in patients with moderate or severe ischemia. METHODS: The ISCHEMIA trial is a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute supported trial, designed to compare an initial invasive or conservative treatment strategy for managing SIHD patients with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Five thousand one-hundred seventy-nine participants have been randomized. Key exclusion criteria included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min, recent myocardial infarction (MI), left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, left main stenosis >50%, or unacceptable angina at baseline. Most enrolled participants with normal renal function first underwent blinded coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to exclude those with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) and without obstructive CAD. All randomized participants receive secondary prevention that includes lifestyle advice and pharmacologic interventions referred to as optimal medical therapy (OMT). Participants randomized to the invasive strategy underwent routine cardiac catheterization followed by revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, when feasible, as selected by the local Heart Team to achieve optimal revascularization. Participants randomized to the conservative strategy undergo cardiac catheterization only for failure of OMT. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Assuming the primary endpoint will occur in 16% of the conservative group within 4 years, estimated power exceeds 80% to detect an 18.5% reduction in the primary endpoint. Major secondary endpoints include the composite of CV death and nonfatal MI, net clinical benefit (primary and secondary endpoints combined with stroke), angina-related symptoms and disease-specific quality of life, as well as a cost-effectiveness assessment in North American participants. Ancillary studies of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and those with documented ischemia and non-obstructive coronary artery disease are being conducted concurrently. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA will provide new scientific evidence regarding whether an invasive management strategy improves clinical outcomes when added to optimal medical therapy in patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia.

Clinical features and outcomes of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction: Insights from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is characterized by an imbalance between myocardial blood supply and demand, leading to myocardial ischemia without coronary plaque rupture, but its diagnosis is challenging. METHODS: In the TRACER trial, patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes were included. We aimed to describe provoking factors, cardiac biomarker profiles, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with type 2 MIs. MI events during trial follow-up were adjudicated by an independent clinical events classification committee (CEC) and were classified according to the Third Universal Definition of MI. Using available source documents retrieved as part of the CEC process, we performed a retrospective chart abstraction to collect details on the type 2 MIs. Cox regression models were used to explore the association between MI type (type 1 or type 2) and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Overall, 10.3% (n=1327) of TRACER participants had a total of 1579 adjudicated MIs during a median follow-up of 502 days (25th and 75th percentiles [IQR] 349-667). Of all MIs, 5.2% (n=82) were CEC-adjudicated type 2 MIs, occurring in 76 patients. The incidence of type 2 MI was higher in the first month following randomization, after which the distribution became more scattered. The most frequent potential provoking factors for type 2 MIs were tachyarrhythmias (38.2%), anemia/bleeding (21.1%), hypotension/shock (14.5%), and hypertensive emergencies (11.8%). Overall, 36.3% had a troponin increase >10× the upper limit of normal. Coronary angiography was performed in 22.4% (n=17) of patients during hospitalizations due to type 2 MIs. The hazard of cardiovascular death was numerically higher following type 2 MI (vs. no MI, adj. HR 11.82, 95% CI 5.71-24.46; P<.0001) than that of type 1 MI (vs. no MI, adj. HR 8.90, 95% CI 6.93-11.43; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 MIs were more prevalent in the first month after ACS, were characterized by the presence of triggers and infrequent use of an invasive strategy, and were associated with a high risk of death. Further efforts are needed to better define the role and implications of type 2 MI in both clinical practice and research.