Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II Risk Score among cardiogenic shock subtypes in the critical care cardiology trials network registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification has potential to guide triage and decision-making in cardiogenic shock (CS). We assessed the prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II score, derived in Europe for acute myocardial infarct-related CS (AMI-CS), in a contemporary North American cohort, including different CS phenotypes. METHODS: The critical care cardiology trials network (CCCTN) coordinated by the TIMI study group is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICU). Participating centers annually contribute ≥2 months of consecutive medical CICU admissions. The IABP-SHOCK II risk score includes age > 73 years, prior stroke, admission glucose > 191 mg/dl, creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, lactate > 5 mmol/l, and post-PCI TIMI flow grade < 3. We assessed the risk score across various CS etiologies. RESULTS: Of 17,852 medical CICU admissions 5,340 patients across 35 sites were admitted with CS. In patients with AMI-CS (n = 912), the IABP-SHOCK II score predicted a >3-fold gradient in in-hospital mortality (low risk = 26.5%, intermediate risk = 52.2%, high risk = 77.5%, P < .0001; c-statistic = 0.67; Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .79). The score showed a similar gradient of in-hospital mortality in patients with non-AMI-related CS (n = 2,517, P < .0001) and mixed shock (n = 923, P < .001), as well as in left ventricular (<0.0001), right ventricular (P = .0163) or biventricular (<0.0001) CS. The correlation between the IABP-SHOCK II score and SOFA was moderate (r2 = 0.17) and the IABP-SHOCK II score revealed a significant risk gradient within each SCAI stage. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected international multicenter registry of patients admitted with CS, the IABP- SHOCK II score only moderately predicted in-hospital mortality in a broad population of CS regardless of etiology or irrespective of right, left, or bi-ventricular involvement.

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.

Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need to conduct efficient randomized clinical trials with interim monitoring guidelines for efficacy and futility. Several randomized coronavirus disease 2019 trials, including the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial (mpRCT), used Bayesian guidelines with the belief that they would lead to quicker efficacy or futility decisions than traditional "frequentist" guidelines, such as spending functions and conditional power. We explore this belief using an intuitive interpretation of Bayesian methods as translating prior opinion about the treatment effect into imaginary prior data. These imaginary observations are then combined with actual observations from the trial to make conclusions. Using this approach, we show that the Bayesian efficacy boundary used in mpRCT is actually quite similar to the frequentist Pocock boundary. METHODS: The mpRCT's efficacy monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 99% probability that the treatment was effective (odds ratio greater than 1). The mpRCT's futility monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 95% probability that the treatment was less than 20% effective (odds ratio less than 1.2). The mpRCT used a normal prior distribution that can be thought of as supplementing the actual patients' data with imaginary patients' data. We explore the effects of varying probability thresholds and the prior-to-actual patient ratio in the mpRCT and compare the resulting Bayesian efficacy monitoring guidelines to the well-known frequentist Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming efficacy guidelines. We also contrast Bayesian futility guidelines with a more traditional 20% conditional power futility guideline. RESULTS: A Bayesian efficacy and futility monitoring boundary using a neutral, weakly informative prior distribution and a fixed probability threshold at all interim analyses is more aggressive than the commonly used O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary coupled with a 20% conditional power threshold for futility. The trade-off is that more aggressive boundaries tend to stop trials earlier, but incur a loss of power. Interestingly, the Bayesian efficacy boundary with 99% probability threshold is very similar to the classic Pocock efficacy boundary. CONCLUSIONS: In a pandemic where quickly weeding out ineffective treatments and identifying effective treatments is paramount, aggressive monitoring may be preferred to conservative approaches, such as the O'Brien-Fleming boundary. This can be accomplished with either Bayesian or frequentist methods.

A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are increasingly using Bayesian methods for their design and analysis. Inference in Bayesian trials typically uses simulation-based approaches such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Markov Chain Monte Carlo has high computational cost and can be complex to implement. The Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm provides approximate Bayesian inference without the need for computationally complex simulations, making it more efficient than Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The practical properties of Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to Markov Chain Monte Carlo have not been considered for clinical trials. Using data from a published clinical trial, we aim to investigate whether Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations is a feasible and accurate alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo and provide practical guidance for trialists interested in Bayesian trial design. METHODS: Data from an international Bayesian multi-platform adaptive trial that compared therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin to usual care in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were used to fit Bayesian hierarchical generalized mixed models. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was compared to two Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, implemented in the software JAGS and stan, using packages available in the statistical software R. Seven outcomes were analysed: organ-support free days (an ordinal outcome), five binary outcomes related to survival and length of hospital stay, and a time-to-event outcome. The posterior distributions for the treatment and sex effects and the variances for the hierarchical effects of age, site and time period were obtained. We summarized these posteriors by calculating the mean, standard deviations and the 95% equitailed credible intervals and presenting the results graphically. The computation time for each algorithm was recorded. RESULTS: The average overlap of the 95% credible interval for the treatment and sex effects estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was 96% and 97.6% compared with stan, respectively. The graphical posterior densities for these effects overlapped for all three algorithms. The posterior mean for the variance of the hierarchical effects of age, site and time estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations are within the 95% credible interval estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo but the average overlap of the credible interval is lower, 77%, 85.6% and 91.3%, respectively, for Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to stan. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations and stan were easily implemented in clear, well-established packages in R, while JAGS required the direct specification of the model. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was between 85 and 269 times faster than stan and 26 and 1852 times faster than JAGS. CONCLUSION: Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations could reduce the computational complexity of Bayesian analysis in clinical trials as it is easy to implement in R, substantially faster than Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in JAGS and stan, and provides near identical approximations to the posterior distributions for the treatment effect. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was less accurate when estimating the posterior distribution for the variance of hierarchical effects, particularly for the proportional odds model, and future work should determine if the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm can be adjusted to improve this estimation.

Risk Factors for Major Cardiovascular Events in Adult Sepsis Survivors: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe risk factors for major cardiovascular events in adults following hospital discharge after sepsis. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada (2008-2017). PATIENTS: Adult patients (age 18 yr or older) who survived a first sepsis hospitalization without preexisting cardiovascular disease. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death up to 5 years following hospital discharge. We used cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models that accounted for the competing risk of noncardiovascular death to describe factors associated with major cardiovascular events. We identified 268,259 adult patients without cardiovascular disease (median age, 72 yr), of whom 10.4% experienced a major cardiovascular event during a median follow-up of 3 years. After multivariable adjustment, age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53 for every 10 yr; 95% CI, 1.51-1.54), male sex (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.20-1.26), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.21-1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.30-1.38), prevalent atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.40-1.52), and chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16) were associated with major cardiovascular events during long-term follow-up. Sepsis characteristics such as site of infection (pneumonia vs other: HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), septic shock (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), and renal replacement therapy (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.38-1.64) were also associated with subsequent cardiovascular events. In an analysis restricting to patients with troponin values measured during the hospitalization (26,400 patients), an elevated troponin was also associated with subsequent cardiovascular events (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Classic cardiovascular risk factors, comorbid conditions, and characteristics of the sepsis episode were associated with a higher hazard of major cardiovascular events in adult sepsis survivors. These findings may inform enrichment strategies for future studies.

Interplay of Atherogenic Particle Number and Particle Size and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: We examined the interplay of apolipoprotein B (apoB) and LDL particle size, approximated by the LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C)/apoB ratio, on the risk of new-onset coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Participants without cardiovascular disease from the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 308 182), the Women's Health Study (WHS; n = 26 204), and the Framingham Heart Study (FHS; n = 2839) were included. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess the relationship between apoB and LDL-C/apoB ratio and incidence of CHD (14 994 events). Our analyses were adjusted for age, sex (except WHS), HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C), systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive treatment, diabetes, and smoking. RESULTS: In all 3 studies, there was a strong positive correlation between apoB and LDL-C (correlation coefficients r = 0.80 or higher) and a weak inverse correlation of apoB with LDL-C/apoB ratio (-0.28 ≤ r ≤ -0.14). For all 3 cohorts, CHD risk was higher for higher levels of apoB. Upon multivariable adjustment, the association between apoB and new-onset CHD remained robust and statistically significant in all 3 cohorts with hazard ratios per 1 SD (95% CI): 1.24 (1.22-1.27), 1.33 (1.20-1.47), and 1.24 (1.09-1.42) for UKB, WHS, and FHS, respectively. However, the association between LDL-C/apoB and CHD was statistically significant only in the FHS cohort: 0.78 (0.64-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms that apoB is a strong risk factor for CHD. However, given the null association in 2 of the 3 studies, we cannot confirm that cholesterol-depleted LDL particles are substantially more atherogenic than cholesterol-replete particles. These results lend further support to routine measurement of apoB in clinical care.

Extending the 'host response' paradigm from sepsis to cardiogenic shock: evidence, limitations and opportunities.

Recent clinical and research efforts in cardiogenic shock (CS) have largely focussed on the restoration of the low cardiac output state that is the conditio sine qua non of the clinical syndrome. This approach has failed to translate into improved outcomes, and mortality has remained static at 30-50%. There is an unmet need to better delineate the pathobiology of CS to understand the observed heterogeneity of presentation and treatment effect and to identify novel therapeutic targets. Despite data in other critical illness syndromes, specifically sepsis, the role of dysregulated inflammation and immunity is hitherto poorly described in CS. High-dimensional molecular profiling, particularly through leukocyte transcriptomics, may afford opportunity to better characterise subgroups of patients with shared mechanisms of immune dysregulation. In this state-of-the-art review, we outline the rationale for considering molecular subtypes of CS. We describe how high-dimensional molecular technologies can be used to identify these subtypes, and whether they share biological features with sepsis and other critical illness states. Finally, we propose how the identification of molecular subtypes of patients may enrich future clinical trial design and identification of novel therapies for CS.

Prevalent diabetes and long-term cardiovascular outcomes in adult sepsis survivors: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis survivors are at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease during long-term follow-up. Whether diabetes influences cardiovascular risk after sepsis survival remains unknown. We sought to describe the association of diabetes with long-term cardiovascular outcomes in adult sepsis survivors. METHODS: Population-based cohort study in the province of Ontario, Canada (2008-2017). Adult survivors of a first sepsis-associated hospitalization, without pre-existing cardiovascular disease, were included. Main exposure was pre-existing diabetes (any type). The primary outcome was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Patients were followed up to 5 years from discharge date until outcome occurrence or end of study period (March 2018). We used propensity score matching (i.e., 1:1 to patients with sepsis but no pre-existing diabetes) to adjust for measured confounding at baseline. Cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models with robust standard errors were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) alongside 95% confidence intervals (CI). A main secondary analysis evaluated the modification of the association between sepsis and cardiovascular disease by pre-existing diabetes. RESULTS: 78,638 patients with pre-existing diabetes who had a sepsis-associated hospitalization were matched to patients hospitalized for sepsis but without diabetes. Mean age of patients was 71 years, and 55% were female. Median duration from diabetes diagnosis was 9.8 years; mean HbA1c was 7.1%. Adult sepsis survivors with pre-existing diabetes experienced a higher hazard of major cardiovascular disease (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.22-1.29)-including myocardial infarction (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.34-1.47) and stroke (HR 1.24; 95% CI 1.18-1.29)-during long-term follow-up compared to sepsis survivors without diabetes. Pre-existing diabetes modified the association between sepsis and cardiovascular disease (risk difference: 2.3%; 95% CI 2.0-2.6 and risk difference: 1.8%; 95% CI 1.6-2.0 for the effect of sepsis-compared to no sepsis-among patients with and without diabetes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis survivors with pre-existing diabetes experience a higher long-term hazard of major cardiovascular events when compared to sepsis survivors without diabetes. Compared to patients without sepsis, the absolute risk increase of cardiovascular events after sepsis is higher in patients with diabetes (i.e., diabetes intensified the higher cardiovascular risk induced by sepsis).

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective: To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures: Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Organ support-free days, assigning a value of -1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results: Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support-free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support-free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI <30) vs higher BMI groups (BMI ≥30; posterior probability of difference in ORs >90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Fontan Heart: Insight Into the Physiological Role of the Right Heart.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac output (CO) is almost normal in children born without a functional right ventricle (RV), and a Fontan repair, so why is RV dysfunction such a clinical problem? We tested the hypotheses that increased pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is the dominant factor and volume expansion by any means is of limited benefit. METHODS: We removed the RV from a previously used MATLAB model and altered vascular volume, venous compliance (Cv), PVR, and measures of left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function. CO and regional vascular pressures were the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: RV removal decreased CO by 25%, and raised mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP). A 10 mL/kg increase in stressed volume only moderately increased CO with or without the RV. Decreasing systemic Cv increased CO but also markedly increased pulmonary venous pressure. With no RV, increasing PVR had the greatest effect on CO. Increasing LV function had little benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Model data indicate that increasing PVR dominates the decrease in CO in Fontan physiology. Increasing stressed volume by any means only moderately increased CO and increasing LV function had little effect. Decreasing systemic Cv unexpectedly markedly increased pulmonary venous pressures even with the RV intact.

Clonal hematopoiesis confers an increased mortality risk in orthotopic heart transplant recipients.

Novel risk stratification and non-invasive surveillance methods are needed in orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) to reduce morbidity and mortality post-transplant. Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) refers to the acquisition of specific gene mutations in hematopoietic stem cells linked to enhanced inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between CH and OHT. Blood samples were collected from 127 OHT recipients. Error-corrected sequencing was used to detect CH-associated mutations. We evaluated the association between CH and acute cellular rejection, CMV infection, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), malignancies, and survival. CH mutations were detected in 26 (20.5%) patients, mostly in DNMT3A, ASXL1, and TET2. Patients with CH showed a higher frequency of CAV grade 2 or 3 (0% vs. 18%, p < .001). Moreover, a higher mortality rate was observed in patients with CH (11 [42%] vs. 15 [15%], p = .008) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.9 (95% CI, 1.4-6.3; p = .003). CH was not associated with acute cellular rejection, CMV infection or malignancies. The prevalence of CH in OHT recipients is higher than previously reported for the general population of the same age group, with an associated higher prevalence of CAV and mortality.

Association of Modifiable Lifestyle Factors with Plasma Branched-Chain Amino Acid Metabolites in Women.

BACKGROUND: Circulating branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs-isoleucine, leucine, and valine) are strongly associated with higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, determinants of elevated fasting BCAA concentrations are largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the modifiable lifestyle factors related to plasma BCAAs. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis among n = 18,897 women (mean ± SD age: 54.9 ± 7.2 y) in the Women's Health Study, free of T2D and cardiovascular disease at baseline blood draw. Lifestyle factors, weight, and height were self-reported via questionnaire, including smoking status, alcohol, leisure-time physical activity (LTPA), diet quality scores [2010 Alternative Healthy Eating Index (without alcohol) (aHEI); alternate Mediterranean Diet (aMED)], and dietary sources of BCAAs. Plasma BCAAs were quantified via NMR spectroscopy. We calculated multivariable-adjusted percentage mean differences (95% CIs) and P values for linear trend of BCAAs stratified by categoric lifestyle factors. We estimated R2 from univariate cubic spline regression models to estimate the variability in BCAAs explained. RESULTS: Compared with women with BMI (in kg/m2) <25.0, BCAAs were 8.6% (95% CI: 8.0%, 9.3%), 15.3% (95% CI: 14.4%, 16.3%), and 21.0% (95% CI: 18.2%, 23.9%) higher for the BMI strata 25.0-29.9, 30.0-39.9, and ≥40.0, respectively (P-trend < 0.0001). Women with higher LTPA and higher alcohol intake compared with lower had modestly (∼1%) lower plasma BCAAs (P-trend = 0.014 and 0.0003, respectively). Differences in smoking status, aHEI, and aMED score were not related to plasma BCAAs. Women with higher dietary BCAAs had dose-response higher plasma BCAA concentrations, 3.4% (95% CI: 2.5%, 4.4%) higher when comparing the highest with the lowest quintile (P-trend < 0.0001). BMI explained 11.6% of the variability of BCAAs, whereas other factors explained between 0.1% and 1%. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings among a large cohort of US women indicate that BMI, but less so diet, physical activity, and other lifestyle factors, is related to plasma BCAAs.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00000479.

Validation of cardiogenic shock phenotypes in a mixed cardiac intensive care unit population.

BACKGROUND: Proposed phenotypes have recently been identified in cardiogenic shock (CS) populations using unsupervised machine learning clustering methods. We sought to validate these phenotypes in a mixed cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population of patients with CS. METHODS: We included Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2018 with CS. Agnostic K means clustering was used to assign patients to three clusters based on admission values of estimated glomerular filtration rate, bicarbonate, alanine aminotransferase, lactate, platelets, and white blood cell count. In-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality were analyzed using logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models, respectively. RESULTS: We included 1498 CS patients with a mean age of 67.8 ± 13.9 years, and 37.1% were females. The acute coronary syndrome was present in 57.3%, and cardiac arrest was present in 34.0%. Patients were assigned to clusters as follows: Cluster 1 (noncongested), 603 (40.2%); Cluster 2 (cardiorenal), 452 (30.2%); and Cluster 3 (hemometabolic), 443 (29.6%). Clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic characteristics differed across clusters, with the greatest illness severity in Cluster 3. Cluster assignment was associated with in-hospital mortality across subgroups. In-hospital mortality was higher in Cluster 3 (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.6 vs. Cluster 1 and adjusted OR: 2.0 vs. Cluster 2, both p < 0.001). Adjusted 1-year mortality was incrementally higher in Cluster 3 versus Cluster 2 versus Cluster 1 (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We observed similar phenotypes in CICU patients with CS as previously reported, identifying a gradient in both in-hospital and 1-year mortality by cluster. Identifying these clinical phenotypes can improve mortality risk stratification for CS patients beyond standard measures.