Impact of anemia on outcomes and resource utilization in patients with myocardial infarction: A national database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although anemia is common in patients with myocardial infarction (MI), management remains controversial. We quantified the association of anemia with in-hospital outcomes and resource utilization in patients admitted with MI using a large national database. METHODS: All hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis code for acute MI in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 2014 and 2018 were identified. Among these hospitalizations, patients with anemia were identified using a secondary diagnosis code. Data on demographic and clinical variables were collected. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital adverse events, length of stay (LOS), and total cost. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear models were used to evaluate the relationship between anemia and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1,113,181 MI hospitalizations, 254,816 (22.8%) included concomitant anemia. Anemic patients were older and more likely to be women. After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, anemia was associated with higher mortality (7.1 vs. 4.3%; odds ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.12, p < 0.001). Anemia was also associated with a mean of 2.71 days longer LOS (average marginal effects [AME] 2.71; 95% CI 2.68-2.73, p < 0.05), and $ 9703 mean higher total costs (AME $9703, 95% CI $9577-$9829, p < 0.05). Anemic patients who received blood transfusions had higher mortality as compared with those who did not (8.2% vs. 7.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In MI patients, anemia was associated with higher in-hospital mortality, adverse events, total cost, and length of stay. Transfusion was associated with increased mortality, and its role in MI requires further research.

Best practices for vascular arterial access and closure: a contemporary guide for the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

More than 1 million transcatheter-based cardiovascular procedures across the spectrum of interventional cardiology are performed annually in the United States. With the expanded indications for and increased complexities associated with these procedures, interventional cardiologists are expected to possess the requisite expertise to complete these interventions safely and effectively. While the art of vascular access and closure remains a prerequisite and critical skillset in contemporary practice, there remain significant variations in the techniques employed, resulting in the bleeding and vascular complications encountered in clinical practice. With an increasing recognition of the potential merits to standardized approaches to vascular access and closure, cardiovascular societies have put forth recommendations around best practices for performing these procedures in the cardiac catheterization laboratories. In this review, we aim to: (1) Examine the evolving definitions of bleeding and vascular complications; (2) Review best practices for transradial and transfemoral access and closure, including for large bore procedures; and (3) Highlight knowledge gaps and proposed areas of clinical research pertaining to vascular access which may inform clinical practice and potentially optimize the outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter-based cardiac and vascular interventions.

A Randomized Comparison of Radial Artery Intimal Hyperplasia Following Distal Versus Proximal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography: PRESERVE RADIAL.

BACKGROUND: Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to conventional forearm transradial access (fTRA) for coronary angiography (CAG). Differences in healing of the radial artery (RA) in the forearm have not been evaluated between these 2 access strategies. We sought to compare the mean difference in forearm RA intimal-medial thickening (IMT) in patients randomized to dTRA versus fTRA. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this single-center randomized clinical trial, 64 patients undergoing nonemergent CAG were randomized (1:1) to dTRA versus fTRA. Ultra-high-resolution (55-MHz) vascular ultrasound of the forearm and distal RA was performed pre-CAG and at 90 days. The primary end point was the mean change in forearm RA IMT. Secondary end points included procedural characteristics, vascular injury, RA occlusion, and ipsilateral hand pain and function. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, mean forearm RA IMT, and procedural specifics were similar between the dTRA and fTRA cohorts. There was no difference in mean change in forearm RA IMT between the 2 cohorts (0.07 versus 0.07 mm; P=0.37). No RA occlusions or signs of major vascular injury were observed at 90 days. Ipsilateral hand pain and function (Borg pain scale score: 12 versus 11; P=0.24; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulders, and Hand scale score: 6 versus 8; P=0.46) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Following CAG, dTRA was associated with no differences in mean change of forearm RA IMT, hand pain, and function versus fTRA for CAG. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate mechanisms and predictors of RA healing and identify effective strategies to preserving RA integrity for repeated procedures. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04801901.

Do Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Differ by the Number of Antianginals for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease? Insights from the BARI 2D Trial.

Medical therapy, including antianginal treatment, is the cornerstone in the management of stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, it remains unclear whether combining antianginal agents provides benefits beyond monotherapy in terms of quality of life (QoL) and cardiovascular outcomes. We used data from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial, which compared cardiovascular and QoL outcomes in patients with SIHD and diabetes mellitus randomized to revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone. We categorized patients into 3 groups: ≥2 versus 1 versus 0 antianginals. We compared patient characteristics, QoL metrics, and cardiovascular end points at baseline and at 5 years, creating a multivariable model to adjust for key clinical confounders. Of 2,368 patients, 348 patients (14.7%) were on 0 antianginals, 1,020 patients (43.1%) were on 1 antianginal, and 1,000 patients (42.2%) were on ≥2 antianginals at baseline. The most common antianginal class was ß blockers. At baseline, patients on 0 antianginals had better QoL metrics (self-health score, Duke activity status index, and energy rating) than patients on ≥2 antianginals. However, at the 1-year follow-up, patients taking only 1 antianginal showed greater QoL improvement than those taking 0 antianginal, without any incremental benefit in QoL metrics seen in patients taking ≥2 antianginal agents, even after adjusting for multiple covariates such as age, heart failure, diabetes control, and myocardial jeopardy index. Lastly, at the 5-year follow-up, after adjustment, there were no differences in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or myocardial infarction between patients taking different numbers of antianginals. Adults on a single antianginal for SIHD and diabetes mellitus had similar or better improvements in QoL than those on 2 or more antianginal agents at 1 year of follow-up. These findings merit further research to better understand the impact of medical therapy intensity on QoL in patients with SIHD and associated co-morbidities.

A Randomized Comparison of Radial Artery Intimal Hyperplasia Following Distal vs. Proximal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography: PRESERVE RADIAL Trial.

Background: Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to conventional forearm transradial access (fTRA) for coronary angiography (CAG). Differences in healing of the radial artery in the forearm (FRA) have not been evaluated between these 2 access strategies. We sought to compare FRA intimal-medial thickening (IMT) in patients randomized to dTRA vs. fTRA for CAG. Methods and Results: Sixty-four consecutive patients undergoing non-emergent CAG were randomized (1:1) to dTRA vs. fTRA. Ultrahigh resolution (55 MHz) vascular ultrasound) of the FRA and distal RA was performed pre-CAG and at 90 days. Primary endpoint was 90-day FRA IMT. Secondary endpoints included procedural characteristics, vascular injury, RA occlusion and ipsilateral hand pain and function. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, mean FRA IMT, time to RA access, procedure time, and radiation exposure were similar between the dTRA and fTRA cohorts. There were no between group differences in 90-day FRA IMT (0.37 mm vs 0.38 mm, respectively; p =0.73). No RA occlusions or signs of major vascular injury were observed at 90 days. Ipsilateral hand pain and function (Borg pain scale:12 vs 11, p =0.24; DASH scores: 6 vs 8, p =0.46) were comparable. Conclusions: In this single center randomized clinical trial, similar patterns of FRA vascular healing at 90 days, procedural results as well as hand pain and function were observed following dTRA vs. fTRA for CAG. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the mechanistics and predictors of RA healing and to identify strategies aimed at preserving RA integrity for future procedures. What is New?: DTRA has been proposed as an alternative to traditional fTRA in the wrist for CAG and PCI because of ergonomic and post-procedural recovery benefits to the patient, as well as potential reductions in occlusion of the FRA.There are gaps in knowledge, however, regarding potential differences in remodeling of the FRA in patients undergoing dTRA versus fTRA.In this randomized clinical trial, there were no differences in IMT and patterns of vascular injury and healing, using ultrahigh resolution (55 MHz) ultrasound, at 90 days in patients randomized to dTRA or FTRA for elective and non-emergent CAG and PCI. What Are the Clinical Implications: Our findings highlight the need for further inquiry through large multicenter randomized clinical trials to better the understand the mechanistics and predictors of IMT and to identify strategies to mitigate the adverse effects of vessel remodeling in patients undergoing TRA across the entire severity spectrum of cardiovascular disease.

Sex-Related Differences in Patient Characteristics, Hemodynamics, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock: INOVA-SHOCK Registry.

Background: Little is known about sex-related differences in outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated within a standardized team-based approach (STBA). Methods: We evaluated 520 consecutive patients (151 women and 369 men) with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) in a single-center registry (January 2017-December 2019) and examined outcomes according to sex and CS phenotype. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke. Results: Women with AMI-CS had higher baseline acuity (CardShock score: female [F]: 5.5 vs male [M]: 4.0; P = .04). Women with HF-CS more often presented with cardiac arrest (F: 12.4% vs M: 2.4%; P< .01) and had higher rates of vasopressor use (F: 70.8% vs M: 58.0%; P = .04) and mechanical circulatory support (F: 46.1% vs M: 32.5%; P = .04). There were no sex-related differences in in-hospital mortality for AMI-CS (F: 45.2% vs M: 36.9%; P = .28) and HF-CS (F: 28.1% vs M: 24.5%; P = .56). Women with HF-CS experienced higher rates of major bleeding (F: 25.8% vs M: 13.7%; P = .02) and vascular complications (F: 15.7% vs M: 6.1%; P = .01). However, female sex was not an independent predictor of these complications. No sex differences in survival were noted at 1 year. Conclusions: Within an STBA, although women with AMI-CS and HF-CS presented with higher acuity, they experienced similar in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, stroke, and 30-day readmissions as men. Further research is needed to better understand the extent to which historical differences in CS outcomes can be mitigated by an STBA.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: an American college of chest physicians clinical practice guideline

The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management

A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network. METHODS: The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.

Executive Summary: Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Cardiogenic Shock From Heart Failure Versus Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Characteristics, Hospital Course, and 1-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about clinical characteristics, hospital course, and longitudinal outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) related to heart failure (HF-CS) compared to acute myocardial infarction (AMI; CS related to AMI [AMI-CS]). METHODS: We examined in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of 520 (219 AMI-CS, 301 HF-CS) consecutive patients with CS (January 3, 2017-December 31, 2019) in a single-center registry. RESULTS: Mean age was 61.5±13.5 years, 71% were male, 22% were Black patients, and 63% had chronic kidney disease. The HF-CS cohort was younger (58.5 versus 65.6 years, P<0.001), had fewer cardiac arrests (15.9% versus 35.2%, P<0.001), less vasopressor utilization (61.8% versus 82.2%, P<0.001), higher pulmonary artery pulsatility index (2.14 versus 1.51, P<0.01), lower cardiac power output (0.64 versus 0.77 W, P<0.01) and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (25.4 versus 22.2 mm Hg, P<0.001) than patients with AMI-CS. Patients with HF-CS received less temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.9% versus 76.3% P<0.001) and experienced lower rates of major bleeding (17.3% versus 26.0%, P=0.02) and in-hospital mortality (23.9% versus 39.3%, P<0.001). Postdischarge, 133 AMI-CS and 229 patients with HF-CS experienced similar rates of 30-day readmission (19.5% versus 24.5%, P=0.30) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.3% versus 28.8%, P=0.45). Patients with HF-CS had lower 1-year mortality (n=123, 42.6%) compared to the patients with AMI-CS (n=110, 52.9%, P=0.03). Cumulative 1-year mortality was also lower in patients with HF-CS (log-rank test, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF-CS were younger, and despite lower cardiac power output and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, less likely to receive vasopressors or temporary mechanical circulatory support. Although patients with HF-CS had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality, both cohorts experienced similarly high rates of postdischarge major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and 30-day readmission, highlighting that both cohorts warrant careful long-term follow-up. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03378739.