Systemic sclerosis is associated with increased in-patient mortality in patients hospitalized for heart failure.

AIMS: We aimed to analyse the characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with co-morbid systemic sclerosis (SSc) and compare them to those without SSc, using data from the National Inpatient Sample from years 2016 to 2019. METHODS AND RESULTS: International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision diagnosis codes were used to identify hospitalized patients with a primary diagnosis of HF and secondary diagnoses of SSc from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: those with and without a secondary diagnosis of SSc. Baseline characteristics including demographics and co-morbidities, outcomes of mortality, length of stay (LOS), and costs were compared between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for confounders and assess the impact of SSc on in-hospital mortality, cost, and LOS. A total of 4 709 724 hospitalizations for HF were identified, with 8150 (0.17%) having a secondary diagnosis of SSc. These patients were predominantly female (82.3% vs. 47.8%; P = 0.01), younger (mean age of 67.4 vs. 71.4; P < 0.01), and had significantly lower rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as coronary artery disease (35.8% vs. 50.6%; P < 0.01), hyperlipidaemia (39.1% vs. 52.9%; P < 0.01), diabetes (22.5% vs. 49.1%; P < 0.01), obesity (13.2% vs. 25.0%; P < 0.01), and hypertension (20.2% vs. 23.8%; P < 0.01). Higher rates of co-morbid pulmonary disease in the form of interstitial lung disease (23.1% vs. 2.0%; P < 0.01) and pulmonary hypertension (36.6% vs. 12.7%; P < 0.01) were noted in the SSc cohort. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the HF with SSc group [5.1% vs. 2.6%; odds ratio: 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.60-2.48; P < 0.001]. Unadjusted mortality was also higher among female (86.7% vs. 47.0%; P < 0.01), Black (15.7% vs. 13.0%; P < 0.01), and Hispanic (13.3% vs. 6.9%; P < 0.01) patients in the SSc cohort. After adjusting for potential confounders, SSc remained independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.44-2.28; P < 0.001). Patients with HF and SSc also had longer LOS (6.4 vs. 5.4; adjusted mean difference [AMD]: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.05-0.68; P = 0.02) and higher hospitalization costs ($67 363 vs. $57 128; AMD: 198.9; 95% CI: -4780 to 5178; P = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized for HF, those with SSc were noted to have higher odds of in-hospital mortality than those without SSc. Patients with HF and SSc were more likely to be younger, female, and have higher rates of co-morbid interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension at baseline with fewer traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

Catheter ablation versus medical therapy in atrial fibrillation: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.

This umbrella review synthesizes data from 17 meta-analyses investigating the comparative outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) and medical treatment (MT) for atrial fibrillation (AF). Outcomes assessed were mortality, risk of hospitalization, AF recurrence, cardiovascular events, pulmonary vein stenosis, major bleeding, and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and MLHFQ score. The findings indicate that CA significantly reduces overall mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization with high strength of evidence. The risk of AF recurrence was notably lower with CA, with moderate strength of evidence. Two associations reported an increased risk of pulmonary vein stenosis and major bleeding with CA, supported by high strength of evidence. Improved LVEF and a positive change in MLHFQ were also associated with CA. Among patients with AF and heart failure, CA appears superior to MT for reducing mortality, improving LVEF, and reducing cardiovascular rehospitalizations. In nonspecific populations, CA reduced mortality and improved LVEF but had higher complication rates. Our findings suggest that CA might offer significant benefits in managing AF, particularly in patients with heart failure. However, the risk of complications, including pulmonary vein stenosis and major bleeding, is notable. Further research in understudied populations may help refine these conclusions.

Outcomes of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction-Propensity Matched Regression Analysis.

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is indicated in complex interventions. There is a paucity of evidence for outcomes with large studies on using IVUS during PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Our objective was to compare the in-hospital outcome of IVUS-guided with that of nonguided PCI among NSTEMI hospitalizations. The National Inpatient Sample (2016 to 2019) was queried to identify all hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of NSTEMI. In our study, we compared outcomes of PCI with and without IVUS guidance using a multivariate logistic regression model after propensity score matching, with the primary outcome being in-hospital mortality. A total of 671,280 NSTEMI-related hospitalizations were identified, of whom 48,285 (7.2%) underwent IVUS-guided PCI compared with 622,995 (92.8%) who underwent non-IVUS PCI. After adjusted analysis on matched pairs, we found that IVUS-guided PCI had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality than that of non-IVUS PCI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.736, confidence interval (CI) 0.578 to 0.937, p = 0.013). However, there was a higher use of mechanical circulatory support in the IVUS-guided PCI (aOR 2.138, CI 1.84 to 2.47, p <0.001) than in non-IVUS PCI. The odds of cardiogenic shock (aOR 1.11, CI 0.93 to 1.32, p = 0.233) and procedural complications (aOR 0.794, CI 0.549 to 1.14, p = 0.22) were similar between the cohorts. Hence, we conclude that patients with NSTEMIs who underwent IVUS-guided PCI had less risk of in-hospital mortality and a greater requirement of mechanical circulatory support than did those who underwent non-IVUS PCI, with no difference in procedural complications. Large prospective trials are essential to validate these findings.

Cardiovascular Drug Interactions With Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Patients With COVID-19: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NMVr) is used to treat symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk of progression to severe disease. Patients with cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular disease are at a high risk of developing adverse events from COVID-19 and as a result have a higher likelihood of receiving NMVr. Ritonavir, the pharmaceutical enhancer used in NMVr, is an inhibitor of the enzymes of CYP450 pathway, particularly CYP3A4 and to a lesser degree CYP2D6, and affects the P-glycoprotein pump. Co-administration of NMVr with medications commonly used to manage cardiovascular conditions can potentially cause significant drug-drug interactions and may lead to severe adverse effects. It is crucial to be aware of such interactions and take appropriate measures to avoid them. In this review, we discuss potential drug-drug interactions between NMVr and commonly used cardiovascular medications based on their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic properties.

Strategies for Cardio-Oncology Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose of review: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare and has disproportionately affected the marginalized populations. Patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease (cardio-oncology population) are uniquely affected. In this review, we explore the current data on COVID-19 vulnerability and outcomes in these patients and discuss strategies for cardio-oncology care with a focus on healthcare innovation, health equity, and inclusion. Recent findings: The growing evidence suggest increased morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with comorbid cancer and cardiovascular disease. Additionally, de novo cardiovascular complications such as myocarditis, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, heart failure, and thromboembolic events have increasingly emerged, possibly due to an accentuated host immune response and cytokine release syndrome. Summary: Patient-centric policies are helpful for cardio-oncology surveillance like remote monitoring, increased use of biomarker-based surveillance, imaging modalities like CT scan, and point-of-care ultrasound to minimize the exposure for high-risk patients. Abundant prior experience in cancer therapy scaffolded the repurposed use of corticosteroids, IL-6 inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors in the treatment of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 vaccine timing and dose frequency present a challenge due to overlapping toxicities and immune cell depletion in patients receiving cancer therapies. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic laid bare social and ethnic disparities in healthcare but also steered in innovation to combat problems of patient outreach, particularly with virtual care. In the recovery phase, the backlog in cardio-oncology care, interplay of cancer therapy-related side effects, and long COVID-19 syndrome are crucial issues to address.