Importance of angina in patients with coronary disease, heart failure, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: insights from STICH

Association between oxidative balance score and heart failure in the older adults: Results from the NHANES 2005-2018

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) imposes a substantial burden on older adults, and healthy diets and lifestyles may bring with benefits. However, quantifiable studies on the dietary and lifestyle risk factors for HF are scant. The Oxidative Balance Score (OBS) reflects the oxidative stress status of dietary components and lifestyle factors, but its relationship with HF risk is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aims to explore the association between OBS and the prevalence of HF.

METHODS

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2018, the association between OBS and the HF prevalence was analyzed by weighted logistic regression and restricted cubic splines (RCS). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses assessed the stability of the results.

RESULTS

The prevalence of HF in the cohort of 6238 older adults was 5.55 %. Compared to the lowest quintile, the adjusted ORs for HF in the highest quintile of OBS and lifestyle OBS were 0.57 (95 % CI: 0.33,0.97) and 0.21 (95 %CI: 0.09,0.50), respectively. The association between OBS and HF prevalence remained stable across different models and subgroups. RCS revealed a potential inflection point. Sensitivity analysis validated the negative association between OBS and HF prevalence, and the correlation analysis between OBS and serum γ-glutamyltransferase (γ-GGT) confirmed the reliability of the study design.

CONCLUSION

The OBS is negatively associated with HF prevalence in older adults, and may help prevent HF in this population.

Selecting the appropriate patients for coronary artery bypass grafting in ischemic cardiomyopathy-importance of myocardial viability

Patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in ischemic cardiomyopathy have a survival advantage over medical therapy at 10 years. The survival advantage of CABG over medical therapy is due to its ability to reduce future myocardial infarction, and by conferring electrical stability. The presence of myocardial viability does not provide a differential survival advantage for CABG over medical therapy. Presence of angina and inducible ischemia are also less predictive of outcome. Moreover, CABG is associated with significant early mortality. Hence, careful patient selection is more important for reducing the early mortality and improving the long-term outcome than relying on results of myocardial viability. Younger patients with good exercise tolerance benefit the most, while patients who are frail and patients with renal dysfunction and dysfunctional right ventricle seem to have very high operative mortality. Elderly patients, because of poor life expectancy, do not benefit from CABG, but the age cutoff is not clear. Patients also need to have revascularizable targets, but this decision is often based on experience of the surgical team and heart team discussion. These recommendations are irrespective of the myocardial viability tests. Optimal medical treatment remains the cornerstone for management of ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Differential Impact of Fractional Flow Reserve Measured After Coronary Stent Implantation by Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Background

Both left ventricular systolic function and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are prognostic factors after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, how these prognostic factors are inter-related in risk stratification of patients after PCI remains unclarified.

Objectives

This study evaluated differential prognostic implication of post-PCI FFR according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Methods

A total of 2,965 patients with available LVEF were selected from the POST-PCI FLOW (Prognostic Implications of Physiologic Investigation After Revascularization with Stent) international registry of patients with post-PCI FFR measurement. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) at 2 years. The secondary outcome was target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and target vessel failure, which was a composite of cardiac death, TVMI, or TVR.

Results

Post-PCI FFR was independently associated with the risk of target vessel failure (per 0.01 decrease: HRadj: 1.029; 95% CI: 1.009-1.049; P = 0.005). Post-PCI FFR was associated with increased risk of cardiac death or TVMI (HRadj: 1.145; 95% CI: 1.025-1.280; P = 0.017) among patients with LVEF ≤40%, and with that of TVR in patients with LVEF >40% (HRadj: 1.028; 95% CI: 1.005-1.052; P = 0.020). Post-PCI FFR ≤0.80 was associated with increased risk of cardiac death or TVMI in the LVEF ≤40% group and with that of TVR in LVEF >40% group. Prognostic impact of post-PCI FFR for the primary outcome was significantly different according to LVEF (Pinteraction = 0.019).

Conclusions

Post-PCI FFR had differential prognostic impact according to LVEF. Residual ischemia by post-PCI FFR ≤0.80 was a prognostic indicator for cardiac death or TVMI among patients with patients with LVEF ≤40%, and it was associated with TVR among patients with patients with LVEF>40%. (Prognostic Implications of Physiologic Investigation After Revascularization with Stent [POST-PCI FLOW]; NCT04684043).

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Chronic Total Occlusion of Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Chronic total occlusion (CTO) of coronary arteries constitutes a substantial clinical challenge and has historically been managed through medical management and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, with the advancement in interventional technology, the success rate of percutaneous treatment has been significantly improved, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a primary mode of treatment for CTOs, demonstrating remarkable clinical efficacy. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate and contrast the outcomes of PCI and CABG in patients with CTO.

Methods and Results

A systematic search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The primary endpoints evaluated in this meta-analysis were the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and the need for repeat revascularization. Nine studies, encompassing a total of 8,674 patients, were found to meet the criteria for inclusion and had a mean follow-up duration of 4.3 years. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that compared to CABG, PCI was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66-0.92; P = 0.003) and cardiac death (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31-0.96; P < 0.05), but an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 1.96; 95%CI: 1.07-3.62; P < 0.05) and repeat revascularization (RR: 7.13; 95% CI: 5.69-8.94; P < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant difference in MACE (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.69-1.81; P = 0.66) between the PCI and CABG groups.

Conclusion

In the present meta-analysis comparing PCI and CABG in patients with chronic total occlusion of the coronary arteries, the results indicated that PCI was superior to CABG in reducing all-cause mortality and cardiac death but inferior in decreasing myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. There was no statistically significant difference in MACE between the two groups.

Revascularisation for Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy

Coronary artery disease is a leading cause of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Coronary artery bypass grafting appears to provide clinical benefits such as improvements in quality of life, reductions in readmissions and MI, and favourable effects on long-term mortality; however, there is a significant short-term procedural risk when left ventricular function is severely impaired, which poses a conundrum for many patients. Could percutaneous coronary intervention provide the same benefits without the hazard of surgery? There have been no randomised studies to support this practice until recently. The REVIVED-BCIS2 trial (NCT01920048) assessed the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in addition to optimal medical therapy in patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction and stable coronary artery disease. This review examines the trial results in detail, suggests a pathway for investigation and revascularisation in ischaemic cardiomyopathy, and explores some of the remaining unanswered questions.

Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure: Management of the Underlying Etiologies and Comorbidities of Heart Failure

Most patients with heart failure (HF) have multiple comorbidities, which impact their quality of life, aggravate HF, and increase mortality. Cardiovascular comorbidities include systemic and pulmonary hypertension, ischemic and valvular heart diseases, and atrial fibrillation. Non-cardiovascular comorbidities include diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney and pulmonary diseases, iron deficiency and anemia, and sleep apnea. In patients with HF with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors combined with calcium channel blockers and/or diuretics is an effective treatment regimen. Measurement of pulmonary vascular resistance via right heart catheterization is recommended for patients with HF considered suitable for implantation of mechanical circulatory support devices or as heart transplantation candidates. Coronary angiography remains the gold standard for the diagnosis and reperfusion in patients with HF and angina pectoris refractory to antianginal medications. In patients with HF and atrial fibrillation, long-term anticoagulants are recommended according to the CHA2DS2-VASc scores. Valvular heart diseases should be treated medically and/or surgically. In patients with HF and DM, metformin is relatively safer; thiazolidinediones cause fluid retention and should be avoided in patients with HF and dyspnea. In renal insufficiency, both volume status and cardiac performance are important for therapy guidance. In patients with HF and pulmonary disease, beta-blockers are underused, which may be related to increased mortality. In patients with HF and anemia, iron supplementation can help improve symptoms. In obstructive sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure therapy helps avoid severe nocturnal hypoxia. Appropriate management of comorbidities is important for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HF.

Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure: Management of the Underlying Etiologies and Comorbidities of Heart Failure

Most patients with heart failure (HF) have multiple comorbidities, which impact their quality of life, aggravate HF, and increase mortality. Cardiovascular comorbidities include systemic and pulmonary hypertension, ischemic and valvular heart diseases, and atrial fibrillation. Non-cardiovascular comorbidities include diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney and pulmonary diseases, iron deficiency and anemia, and sleep apnea. In patients with HF with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors combined with calcium channel blockers and/or diuretics is an effective treatment regimen. Measurement of pulmonary vascular resistance via right heart catheterization is recommended for patients with HF considered suitable for implantation of mechanical circulatory support devices or as heart transplantation candidates. Coronary angiography remains the gold standard for the diagnosis and reperfusion in patients with HF and angina pectoris refractory to antianginal medications. In patients with HF and atrial fibrillation, long-term anticoagulants are recommended according to the CHA2DS2-VASc scores. Valvular heart diseases should be treated medically and/or surgically. In patients with HF and DM, metformin is relatively safer; thiazolidinediones cause fluid retention and should be avoided in patients with HF and dyspnea. In renal insufficiency, both volume status and cardiac performance are important for therapy guidance. In patients with HF and pulmonary disease, beta-blockers are underused, which may be related to increased mortality. In patients with HF and anemia, iron supplementation can help improve symptoms. In obstructive sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure therapy helps avoid severe nocturnal hypoxia. Appropriate management of comorbidities is important for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HF.

Coronary revascularization for heart failure with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of heart failure (HF). Whether coronary revascularization improves outcomes in patients with HF receiving guideline-recommended pharmacological therapy (GRPT) remains uncertain; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched in public databases for RCTs published between 1 January 2001 and 22 November 2022, investigating the effects of coronary revascularization on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic HF due to CAD. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. We included five RCTs that enrolled, altogether, 2842 patients (most aged <65 years; 85% men; 67% with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%). Overall, compared to medical therapy alone, coronary revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.99; p = 0.0278) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93; p = 0.0024) but not the composite of hospitalization for HF or all-cause mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.01; p = 0.0728). There were insufficient data to show whether the effects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention were similar or differed.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with chronic HF and CAD enrolled in RCTs, the effect of coronary revascularization on all-cause mortality was statistically significant but neither substantial (HR 0.88) nor robust (upper 95% CI close to 1.0). RCTs were not blinded, which may bias reporting of the cause-specific reasons for hospitalization and mortality. Further trials are required to determine which patients with HF and CAD obtain a substantial benefit from coronary revascularization by either coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Myocardial viability testing: all STICHed up, or about to be REVIVED?

Patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction frequently undergo myocardial viability testing. The historical model presumes that those who have extensive areas of dysfunctional-yet-viable myocardium derive particular benefit from revascularization, whilst those without extensive viability do not. These suppositions rely on the theory of hibernation and are based on data of low quality: taking a dogmatic approach may therefore lead to patients being refused appropriate, prognostically important treatment. Recent data from a sub-study of the randomized STICH trial challenges these historical concepts, as the volume of viable myocardium failed to predict the effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting. Should the Heart Team now abandon viability testing, or are new paradigms needed in the way we interpret viability? This state-of-the-art review critically examines the evidence base for viability testing, focusing in particular on the presumed interactions between viability, functional recovery, revascularization and prognosis which underly the traditional model. We consider whether viability should relate solely to dysfunctional myocardium or be considered more broadly and explore wider uses of viability testingoutside of revascularization decision-making. Finally, we look forward to ongoing and future randomized trials, which will shape evidence-based clinical practice in the future.

Coronary revascularisation in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Heart failure resulting from ischaemic heart disease is associated with a poor prognosis despite optimal medical treatment. Despite this, patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy have been largely excluded from randomised trials of revascularisation in stable coronary artery disease. Revascularisation has multiple potential mechanisms of benefit, including the reversal of myocardial hibernation, suppression of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction. Coronary artery bypass grafting is considered the first-line mode of revascularisation in these patients; however, evidence from the Surgical Treatment of Ischaemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial showed a reduction in mortality, though this only became apparent with extended follow-up due to an excess of early adverse events in the surgical arm. There is currently no randomised controlled trial evidence for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy; however, the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial has recently completed recruitment and will address this gap in the evidence. Future directions include (1) clinical trials of revascularisation in patients hospitalised with heart failure, (2) defining the role of viability and ischaemia testing in heart failure, (3) studies to enhance the understanding of the mechanistic effects of revascularisation and (4) generating models to refine pre- and post-revascularisation risk prediction.

Organ-saving surgical alternatives to treatment of heart failure

Over time, various surgical treatment strategies have evolved to manage advanced heart failure (HF). Scientific and technological breakthroughs through the last 50 years have put forward various surgical alternatives to patients with advanced HF encompassing surgical ventricular restoration to surgical gene therapy and stem cell replacement of the diseased ventricles. Organ-saving surgical options which used to be promising included dynamic cardiomyoplasty, partial resection of ventricle and cardiac wrapping with Acorn CorCap cardiac support device. These procedures were eventually abandoned due to negative outcomes and without proven disadvantages. Another organ-saving surgical option currently being considered but still make little sense is cardiac regeneration by stem cell therapy, i.e., cardiomyocyte restoration and replacement. Presently, the organ-saving surgical alternatives to treat end-stage HF are revascularization for ischemic cardiomyopathy, mitral valve surgery (repair or replacement) for ischemic mitral incompetence (IMI), left ventricular (LV) aneurysmectomy (surgical ventricular restoration) and mitral valve repair for IMI. These aforementioned procedures have become quite established approaches and with increasing experience are continuously being modified to improve outcome. Various mechanical circulatory support systems have emerged over time to improve functional status of patients with advanced HF, either as a bridge to heart transplantation or as a bridge to myocardial recovery. Likewise offered in those with contraindications to transplantation. Ventricular assist devices (VAD) can keep patients alive until an eventual transplantation. This article reviews the variety of the myriad of alternative organ-saving surgical alternatives that have been available or are currently available provided to patients with end-stage HF, their advantages and deficiencies, as well as prospects in HF therapy.

Co-morbidities and co-medications as confounders of cardioprotection-Does it matter in the clinical setting?

The translation of cardioprotection from robust experimental evidence to beneficial clinical outcome for patients suffering acute myocardial infarction or undergoing cardiovascular surgery has been largely disappointing. The present review attempts to critically analyse the evidence for confounders of cardioprotection in patients with acute myocardial infarction and in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. One reason that has been proposed to be responsible for such lack of translation is the confounding of cardioprotection by co-morbidities and co-medications. Whereas there is solid experimental evidence for such confounding of cardioprotection by single co-morbidities and co-medications, the clinical evidence from retrospective analyses of the limited number of clinical data is less robust. The best evidence for interference of co-medications is that for platelet inhibitors to recruit cardioprotection per se and thus limit the potential for further protection from myocardial infarction and for propofol anaesthesia to negate the protection from remote ischaemic conditioning in cardiovascular surgery. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on Risk factors, comorbidities, and comedications in cardioprotection. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v177.23/issuetoc.

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.

Outcomes of Chronic Total Occlusions in Coronary Arteries According to Three Therapeutic Strategies: A Meta-analysis with 6985 Patients from 8 Published Observational Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and medical treatment (MT) in patients with chronic total occlusions (CTOs).

METHODS

We identified eligible observational studies published in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, PubMed, Excerpta Medica database, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and "Clinical trials" registration from 1999 to October 2018. Main outcome measures were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

There were eight observational studies including 6985 patients. Patients' mean age was 64.4 years. Mean follow-up time was 4.3 years. Comparing with MT (2958 patients), PCI (3157 patients) presented decreased all-cause mortality (odd ratio [OR]: 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.60; P<0.001), cardiac death (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.31-0.52; P<0.001), MACE (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.43-0.71; P<0.001), and MI (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.26-0.62; P<0.001). Comparing with MT, CABG (613 patients) presented lower all-cause mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69; P<0.001) and MACE (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.96; P=0.04), but not lower MI (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.03-1.54; P=0.13) and cardiac death (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.51-1.35). Comparing with CABG, PCI did not present decreased risk for those outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PCI or CABG was associated with better clinical outcome in patients with CTO than MT. PCI is not better than CABG in decreasing mortality, MI, cardiac death, and MACE in coronary CTO patients.

Revascularization in left ventricular dysfunction: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction (LVD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with significant CAD and LVD are a high-risk patient population. They make up a minority of the cases from the largest, prospective coronary revascularization trials. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) Trial and its substudies are the most important and well cited in this field. The 10-year data from STICH showed that surgical revascularization was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy. Several smaller studies have confirmed that surgical revascularization carries a significant risk of short-term mortality but overall improved long-term outcomes in patients with LVD. Data from multiple observational studies further confirm that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary revascularization for long-term survival and freedom from repeat revascularization in patients with LVD. We suggest that patients with LVD undergoing CABG should be considered for multiarterial grafting and that some patients may benefit from an off-pump procedure.

SUMMARY

Surgical revascularization confers a long-term survival benefit in patients with significant CAD and LVD. Further studies will be needed to precisely determine the ideal candidate for surgical versus percutaneous revascularization.

Assessing Prognosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Recent Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

There is no recent comprehensive overview of contemporary clinical trials assessing short and long-term outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This paper reviews factors from recent clinical trials that influenced prognosis in patients with ACS. Cochrane and PubMed databases were screened systematically for clinical trials published in the English literature reporting on ACS prognosis. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text. Studies meeting inclusion criteria evaluated the impact of modern practice on prognosis. In vitro and animal models studies, conference abstracts, imaging studies, and review articles were excluded. Disagreement in inclusion criteria was resolved by consensus. A large study of 8,859 patients showed no difference in all-cause mortality between 31 days and 2 years in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to those with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Other studies showed a significant increase in all-cause mortality in patients with STEMI within the first 30 days, with NSTEMI patients exhibiting a higher mortality rate compared to those with SIHD during the 2-year follow-up period. Our review found that women have a poorer short-term prognosis compared to men. Additionally, reports from patients receiving comprehensive and coordinated care showed longer survival rates. In view of the improved prognosis demonstrated for patients suffering from ACS, assessing prognosis in patients represents a formidable task in modern practice. Our review highlights the need for further evidence-based studies evaluating long-term outcomes on diagnostic and treatment strategies.

Impact of treatment strategies on outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus according to presenting angina severity: A pooled analysis of three federally-funded randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The impact of treatment strategies on outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) according to presenting angina has not been rigorously assessed.

METHODS

We performed a patient-level pooled-analysis (n = 5027) of patients with stable CAD and T2DM randomized to optimal medical therapy [OMT], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] + OMT, or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG] + OMT. Endpoints were death/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke, post-randomization revascularization (both over 5 years), and angina control at 1 year.

RESULTS

Increasing severity of baseline angina was associated with higher rates of death/MI/stroke (p = 0.009) and increased need for post-randomization revascularization (p = 0.001); after multivariable adjustment, only association with post-randomization revascularization remained significant. Baseline angina severity did not influence the superiority of CABG + OMT to reduce the rate of death/MI/stroke and post-randomization revascularization compared to other strategies. CABG + OMT was superior for angina control at 1 year compared to both PCI + OMT and OMT alone but only in patients with ≥ Class II severity at baseline. Comparisons between PCI + OMT and OMT were neutral except that PCI + OMT was superior to OMT for reducing the rate of post-randomization revascularization irrespective of presenting angina severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Presenting angina severity did not influence the superiority of CABG + OMT with respect to 5-year rates of death/MI/stroke and need for post-randomization revascularization. Presenting angina severity minimally influenced relative benefits for angina control at 1 year.

Six-minute walk distance after coronary artery bypass grafting compared with medical therapy in ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Background

In patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction, coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may decrease mortality, but it is not known whether CABG improves functional capacity.

Objective

To determine whether CABG compared with medical therapy alone (MED) increases 6 min walk distance in patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction and coronary artery disease amenable to revascularisation.

Methods

The Surgical Treatment in Ischemic Heart disease trial randomised 1212 patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction to CABG or MED. A 6 min walk distance test was performed both at baseline and at least one follow-up assessment at 4, 12, 24 and/or 36 months in 409 patients randomised to CABG and 466 to MED. Change in 6 min walk distance between baseline and follow-up were compared by treatment allocation.

Results

6 min walk distance at baseline for CABG was mean 340±117 m and for MED 339±118 m. Change in walk distance from baseline was similar for CABG and MED groups at 4 months (mean +38 vs +28 m), 12 months (+47 vs +36 m), 24 months (+31 vs +34 m) and 36 months (-7 vs +7 m), P>0.10 for all. Change in walk distance between CABG and MED groups over all assessments was also similar after adjusting for covariates and imputation for missing values (+8 m, 95% CI -7 to 23 m, P=0.29). Results were consistent for subgroups defined by angina, New York Heart Association class ≥3, left ventricular ejection fraction, baseline walk distance and geographic region.

Conclusion

In patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction CABG compared with MED alone is known to reduce mortality but is unlikely to result in a clinically significant improvement in functional capacity.

Trial registration number

NCT00023595.

Determinants and Prognostic Impact of Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Acute Coronary Syndrome Settings

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Contemporary data on the incidence and prognosis of heart failure (HF) and the influence of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the setting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are scant. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between LVEF and HF with long-term prognosis in a cohort of patients with ACS.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of 6208 patients consecutively admitted for ACS to 2 different Spanish hospitals. Baseline characteristics were examined and a follow-up period was established for registration of death and HF rehospitalization as the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Among the study participants, 5064 had ACS without HF during hospitalization: 290 (5.8%) had LVEF<40%, 540 (10.6%) LVEF 40% to 49%, and 4234 (83.6%) LVEF ≥ 50%. The remaining 1144 patients developed HF in the acute phase: 395 (34.6%) had LVEF<40%, 251 (21.9%) LVEF 40% to 49%, and 498 (43.5%) LVEF ≥ 50%. Patients with LVEF 40% to 49% had a demographic and clinical profile with intermediate features between the LVEF <40% and LVEF ≥ 50% groups. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that mortality and HF readmissions were statistically different depending on LVEF in the non-HF group but not in the HF group. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50% was an independent prognostic factor in the non-HF group only.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS, long-term prognosis is considerably worse in patients who develop HF during hospitalization than in patients without HF, irrespective of LVEF. This parameter is a strong prognostic predictor only in patients without HF.

Update on revascularization in patients with heart failure and coronary artery disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The review explores the recent findings surrounding the evaluation and the treatment of patients with heart failure and coronary artery disease. It also shed the light on the gaps in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgical revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy has the potential to offer symptomatic and survival benefits.

SUMMARY

Patients with heart failure and coronary artery disease should be considered candidates for revascularization on the basis of their symptoms, extent of the disease, and comorbidities. Surgical revascularization in these patients provides a symptomatic relief, and a survival benefit.

Comparison of Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus and With Versus Without Angina Pectoris (from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease)

Angina pectoris (AP) has different prognostic implications in various populations. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) may experience neuropathy such that AP may not be perceived in the setting of coronary artery disease (CAD). The prognostic utility of AP in DM patients with CAD is not well known. We analyzed patients with CAD who underwent coronary angiography at Duke University from 2002 to 2011 and compared patients with and without AP within the previous 6 weeks stratified by DM status. We used multivariable Cox regression to assess the association between AP and the outcomes of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization/revascularization, all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction/revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Of 17,211 patients with CAD, 5,284 (31%) had DM and AP was present in 69% of DM and 67% of non-DM. After risk adjustment, the risk of CV hospitalization/revascularization and all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction/revascularization in patients with and without AP was similar regardless of DM status (all p ≥0.05). In patients with or without DM, AP was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with no AP (adjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.97, p = 0.005 for DM patients). The relation between AP status and clinical outcomes was not dependent on DM status (all interaction p >0.10). In conclusion, in patients with CAD, AP was associated with similar risk for CV hospitalization and revascularization and lower all-cause mortality compared with patients without AP regardless of DM status. Future studies are needed to assess whether these findings are related to increased severity of disease in those without AP or whether AP leads to differential management that improves survival.

Relation of Angina Pectoris to Outcomes, Quality of Life, and Response to Exercise Training in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure (from HF-ACTION)

Angina pectoris (AP) is associated with worse outcomes in heart failure (HF). We investigated the association of AP with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise capacity, and clinical outcomes and its interaction with exercise training in an HF population. We grouped 2,331 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction in the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) trial of usual care ± exercise training according to whether they had self-reported AP by Canadian classification score. HRQoL and clinical outcomes were assessed by AP status. In HF-ACTION, 406 patients (17%) had AP at baseline (44% with Canadian classification score ≥II) with HF severity similar to those without AP. Patients with AP had similar baseline exercise capacity but worse depressive symptoms and HRQoL. AP was associated with 22% greater adjusted risk for all-cause mortality/hospitalizations, driven by hospitalizations. There was significant interaction between baseline AP and exercise training peak VO₂ change (p = 0.019) but not other end points. Exercise training was associated with greater peak VO₂ improvement after 3 months in patients with AP (treatment effect = 1.25 ml/kg/min, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.9). In conclusion, AP was associated with worse HRQoL and depressive symptoms. Despite greater peak VO₂ improvement with exercise training, patients with AP experienced more adverse outcomes.

Cardiac surgery 2015 reviewed

For the year 2015, almost 19,000 published references can be found in PubMed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". The last year has been again characterized by lively discussions in the fields where classic cardiac surgery and modern interventional techniques overlap. Lacking evidence in the field of coronary revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery has been added. As in the years before, CABG remains the gold standard for the revascularization of complex stable triple-vessel disease. Plenty of new information has been presented comparing the conventional to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) demonstrating similar short- and mid-term outcomes at high and low risk, but even a survival advantage with transfemoral TAVI at intermediate risk. In addition, there were many relevant and interesting other contributions from the purely operative arena. This review article will summarize the most pertinent publications in the fields of coronary revascularization, surgical treatment of valve disease, heart failure (i.e., transplantation and ventricular assist devices), and aortic surgery. While the article does not have the expectation of being complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery.

Editor-in-Chief's Top Picks From 2015: Part One

Each week, I record audio summaries for every article in JACC, as well as an issue summary. While this process has been time-consuming, I have become very familiar with every paper that we publish. Thus, I have personally selected the papers (both original investigations and review articles) from 13 distinct specialties for your review. In addition to my personal choices, I have included manuscripts that have been the most accessed or downloaded on our websites, as well as those selected by the JACC Editorial Board members. There are approximately 130 articles selected across this 2-part series, which represent less than 3% of the papers submitted to the Journal in 2015. In order to present the full breadth of this important research in a consumable fashion, we will present these manuscripts over the course of 2 issues in JACC. Part One includes the sections: Congenital Heart Disease, Coronary Disease & Interventions, CVD Prevention & Health Promotion, Cardiac Failure, Cardiomyopathies, Genetics, Omics, & Tissue Regeneration, and Hypertension (1-60). Part Two includes the sections: Imaging, Metabolic Disorders & Lipids, Rhythm Disorders, Statistics, Valvular Heart Disease, and Vascular Medicine.

To Revascularise or Not To Revascularise, That Is the Question: the Diagnostic and Management Conundrum of Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy

Ischaemic cardiomyopathy is an important cardiovascular condition that has differing pathophysiological substrates and clinical manifestations. Contemporary management involves the administration of heart failure pharmacotherapy and device therapy where indicated, which has good prognostic data to support it. Whilst the role of revascularisation is clear in those patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome or angina, the role in those patients presenting either incidentally, with predominant heart failure symptoms, or in those presenting with acute heart failure with an associated elevated troponin is less well defined and lacks randomised outcome data to support its adoption. The aim of this review is therefore to discuss the challenges in the diagnosis of ischaemic cardiomyopathy with a review of the existing imaging modalities that can facilitate, and to revisit the variety of clinical presentations that can occur, with particular emphasis on the contemporary role of revascularisation in these cohorts of patients.