Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Is a Risk Factor for In-Hospital Mortality in Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Hospital-Based Survey

Ejection Fraction-Related Differences of Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes in Troponin-Positive Patients without Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Background: The development and course of myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery (MINOCA) disease is still not fully understood. In this study, we aimed to examine the baseline characteristics of in-hospital outcomes and long-term outcomes of a cohort of troponin-positive patients without obstructive coronary artery disease based on different left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs). Methods and results: We included a cohort of 254 patients (mean age: 64 (50.8-75.3) years, 120 females) with suspected myocardial infarction and no obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA) in our institutional database between 2010 and 2021. Among these patients, 170 had LVEF ≥ 50% (84 females, 49.4%), 31 patients had LVEF 40-49% (15 females, 48.4%), and 53 patients had LVEF < 40% (20 females, 37.7%). The mean age in the LVEF ≥ 50% group was 61.5 (48-73) years, in the LVEF 40-49% group was 67 (57-78) years, and in the LVEF < 40% group was 68 (56-75.5) years (p = 0.05). The mean troponin value was highest in the LVEF < 40% group, at 3.8 (1.7-4.6) µg/L, and lowest in the LVEF ≥ 50% group, at 1.1 (0.5-2.1) µg/L (p = 0.05). Creatine Phosphokinase (CK) levels were highest in the LVEF ≥ 50% group (156 (89.5-256)) and lowest in the LVEF 40-49% group (127 (73-256)) (p < 0.05), while the mean BNP value was lowest in the LVEF ≥ 50% group (98 (48-278) pg/mL) and highest in the <40% group (793 (238.3-2247.5) pg/mL) (p = 0.001). Adverse in-hospital cardiovascular events were highest in the LVEF < 40% group compared to the LVEF 40-49% group and the LVEF ≥ 50% group (56% vs. 55% vs. 27%; p < 0.001). Over a follow-up period of 6.2 ± 3.1 years, the all-cause mortality was higher in the LVEF < 40% group compared to the LVEF 40-49% group and the LVEF ≥ 50% group. Among the different factors, LVEF < 40% and LVEF 40-49% were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital cardiovascular events in the multivariable Cox regression analysis. Conclusions: LVEF has different impacts on in-hospital cardiovascular events in this cohort. Furthermore, LVEF influences long-term all-cause mortality.

Outcomes of Non-ST-Segment Myocardial Infarction During Chronic Heart Failure and End-Stage Renal Disease

Non-ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) occurs frequently in a growing population of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) but outcomes with invasive management approaches are unknown. We sought to determine in-hospital outcomes with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in comparison with medical management only. The National Inpatient Sample was used to capture hospitalizations in the United States from 2006 to 2019. Admissions for NSTEMI in patients with chronic HF and ESRD were identified by International Classification of Diseases codes. The cohort was divided into those that received PCI or medical management only. In-hospital outcomes were compared by multivariable logistic regression and propensity matching. In 27,433 hospitalizations, 8,004 patients (29%) underwent PCI, and 19,429 (71%) were managed with medications only. PCI was associated with lower adjusted odds of death during hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.66, p <0.01). This association remained consistent after propensity matching (adjusted odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.64, p <0.01) and was apparent across all subtypes of HF. Patients with PCI had greater duration (5, 3, to 9 vs, 5, 3 to 8 days, p <0.01) and cost of hospitalization ($107,942, 70,230 to $173,182 vs, $44,156, 24,409 to $80,810, p <0.01). In conclusion, patients with HF and ESRD admitted for NSTEMI experienced lower in-hospital mortality with PCI in comparison with medical therapy only. Invasive percutaneous revascularization may be reasonable for appropriately selected patients with HF and ESRD but randomized controlled trials are needed to determine its safety and efficacy in this high-risk population.

Optimized patient selection in high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in patients with poor left-ventricular (LV) function undergoing elective high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCIs). These patients are often in critical condition and not suitable candidates for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. For the definition of HR-PCI, there is a growing consensus that multiple factors must be considered to define the complexity of PCI. These include haemodynamic status, left-ventricular ejection fraction, clinical characteristics, and concomitant diseases, as well as the complexity of the coronary anatomy/lesions. Although haemodynamic support by percutaneous LV assist devices is commonly adopted in HR-PCI (protected PCI), there are no clear guideline recommendations for indication due to limited published data. Therefore, decisions to use a nonsurgical, minimally invasive procedure in HR-PCI patients should be based on a risk–benefit assessment by a multidisciplinary team. Here, the current evidence and indications for protected PCI will be discussed.

Clinical expert consensus document on the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices during complex high-risk PCI in India using a standardised algorithm

Over the past decade, percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), such as the Impella microaxial flow pump (Abiomed), have been increasingly used to provide haemodynamic support during complex and high-risk revascularisation procedures to reduce the risk of intraprocedural haemodynamic compromise and to facilitate complete and optimal revascularisation. A global consensus on patient selection for the use of pLVADs, however, is currently lacking. Access to these devices is different across the world, thus, individual health care environments need to create and refine patient selection paradigms to optimise the use of these devices. The Impella pLVAD has recently been introduced in India and is being used in several centres in the management of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and cardiogenic shock. With this increasing utilisation, there is a need for a standardised evaluation protocol to guide Impella use that factors in the unique economic and infrastructural characteristics of India's health care system to ensure that the needs of patients are optimally managed. In this consensus document, we present an algorithm to guide Impella use in Indian patients: to establish a standardised patient selection and usage paradigm that will allow both optimal patient outcomes and ongoing data collection.

Cardiac Safety Assessment of Lazertinib: Findings From Patients With EGFR Mutation-Positive Advanced NSCLC and Preclinical Studies

Introduction

Lazertinib is a potent, irreversible, brain-penetrant, mutant-selective, and wild-type–sparing third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), creating a wide therapeutic index. Cardiovascular adverse events (AEs), including QT prolongation, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and heart failure, have emerged as potential AEs with certain EGFR TKI therapies.

Methods

Cardiac safety of lazertinib was evaluated in TKI-tolerant adults with EGFR mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving lazertinib (20–320 mg/d). QT intervals corrected with Fridericia’s formula (QTcF) prolongation, time-matched concentration-QTcF relationship, change of LVEF, and cardiac failure-associated AEs were evaluated. The clinical findings were supplemented by the following three preclinical studies: an in vitro hERG inhibition assay, an ex vivo isolated perfused rabbit heart study, and an in vivo telemetry-instrumented beagle dog study.

Results

Preclinical evaluation revealed little to no physiological effect on the basis of electrocardiogram, electrophysiological, proarrhythmic, and hemodynamic parameters. Clinical evaluation of 181 patients revealed no clinically relevant QTcF prolongation by centralized electrocardiogram in any patient and at any dose level. The predicted magnitude of QTcF value increase at maximum steady-state plasma concentration for the therapeutic dose of lazertinib (240 mg/d) was 2.2 msec (upper bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval: 3.6 msec). No patient had clinically relevant LVEF decrease (i.e., minimum postbaseline LVEF value of <50% and a maximum decrease in LVEF value from baseline of ≥10 percentage points). Cardiac failure-associated AE occurred in one patient (grade 2 decreased LVEF) and resolved without any dose modifications.

Conclusions

Our first-in-human study, together with preclinical data, indicates that lazertinib is not associated with increased cardiac risk.

Impact of Simultaneous Consideration of Cardiac and Vascular Function on Long-Term All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality

Background: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a good indicator of cardiac function, and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) is a good indicator of vascular function. Both of them can predict cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Objectives: There is scarce literature discussing the impact of simultaneous consideration of cardiac and vascular function on overall and CV mortality. Methods: We included 958 patients and classified them into four groups. Groups 1 to 4 were patients with LVEF ≥ 50% and baPWV below the median, LVEF < 50% but baPWV below the median, LVEF ≥ 50% but baPWV above the median, and LVEF < 50% and baPWV above the median, respectively. Results: The median follow-up to mortality was 93 (25th–75th percentile: 69–101) months. There were 91 cases of CV mortality and 238 cases of all-cause mortality. After multivariable analysis, age, gender, diabetes, mean blood pressure, group 2 versus group 1, and group 4 versus group 1 were significant predictors of all-cause mortality (P ≤ 0.038) and age, diabetes, mean blood pressure, group 2 versus group 1, and group 4 versus group 1 were significant predictors of CV mortality (P ≤ 0.008). Conclusions: Patients with higher LVEF and lower baPWV had a similar overall and CV mortality as patients with higher LVEF and baPWV. Patients with lower LVEF and higher baPWV had the highest overall and CV mortality among the four study groups. In addition, patients with lower LVEF alone had a higher CV mortality than the patients with higher baPWV alone. Therefore, simultaneous consideration of cardiac and vascular function may be useful in predicting overall and CV mortality.