Tan, Min Choon

Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists have been shown to improve outcomes across various cardiovascular diseases. However, data regarding the effects of GLP-1 agonists in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is limited. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the 5-year outcomes of GLP-1 agonists in patients with HCM. Methods: Using TriNetX Analytics Network, we identified patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy between 1/1/2014 and 1/1/2019. Patients were divided into two groups: those treated with GLP-1 agonists for ≥ 1 year and those who were not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using demographics, cardiac medications, and comorbidities. The study outcomes were 5-year all-cause mortality and cardiac adverse events. Results: A total of 52,978 patients with HCM were identified, including 2,654 (5.0%) patients treated with GLP-1 agonists. After PSM, 2,588 patients in each group were analyzed. Patients on GLP-1 agonists were associated with lower odds of all-cause mortality (5.0% vs. 15.6%, p<0.01), all-cause hospitalization (46.3% vs. 67.8%, p<0.01), acute decompensated heart failure ((9.4% vs. 21.4%, p<0.01), cardiac arrest (3.6% vs. 5.4%, p<0.01), cerebrovascular accidents (9.5% vs. 14.1%, p<0.01), and cardiogenic shock (1.4% vs. 3.6%, p<0.01). Additionally, reduced rates of new ICD implantation (3.5% vs. 7.9%, p<0.01) and septal reduction therapy (1.7% vs. 3.5%, p<0.01) were observed in the GLP-1 agonists group. Conclusion: The use of GLP-1 agonists in HCM was associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes. Future clinical trials are needed to validate these potential benefits.

Background: Leadless pacemaker has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional transvenous pacemaker (PM) among elderly patients who are at high risk of complications. Objective: This study aims to assess and compare 5-year clinical outcomes of leadless PM versus transvenous single-chamber PM in elderly patients using a multi-national dataset. Methods: Using the TriNetX Analytics Research Network, we included patients aged ≥65 years who underwent leadless versus transvenous single-chamber PM implantation between 1/1/2014 and 1/1/2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed by using patient’s demographic, LVEF, cardiac comorbidities, and medications. The study outcomes included all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular events over a 5-year follow-up period. Results: After PSM, 7,501 patients in each group were analyzed. Leadless PM was associated with a significantly lower odds of 5-year all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.534; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.497-0.575), heart failure exacerbation (OR: 0.779, 95% CI: 0.721-0.841), major bleeding (OR: 0.666, 95% CI: 0.604-0.734), cardiac arrest (OR: 0.747, 95% CI: 0.646-0.864) and stroke (OR: 0.825, 95% CI: 0.750-0.908) compared to transvenous single-chamber PM. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in all-cause hospitalization (OR: 1.006, 95%CI: 0.938-1.079), cardiac thrombus (OR: 1.077, 95%CI: 0.791-1.465) or venous thromboembolism (OR: 1.028, 95%CI: 0.916-1.153). Conclusion: Leadless PM was associated with significantly improved mortality and cardiovascular outcomes compared to transvenous single-chamber PM in elderly patients. These findings support the strong consideration of leadless pacing as a strategy to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in this high-risk population.

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is the standard of care for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Data regarding the optimal timing of CIED reimplantation after TLE are not well established. Objective: This study aims to assess the 5-year outcomes of early (≤7 days) versus non-early (>7 days) CIED reimplantation following TLE for CIED infection using a multi-national database. Methods: Using the TriNetX Analytics Research Network, we included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent TLE for CIED infection between 1/1/2014 and 1/1/2020. Patients were further categorized into two groups: early CIED reimplantation (≤7 days from TLE) and non-early CIED reimplantation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed by including patient demographics, LVEF, cardiac comorbidities and medications. The study outcomes included all-cause mortality and cardiac adverse events during a 5-year study period. Results: A total of 1668 patients in the early CIED reimplantation group and 1550 in the non-early group were identified. After PSM, 1327 patients in each group were analyzed. Compared to non-early group, early CIED reimplantation group was associated with significantly higher odds of all-cause hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 1.837, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.532-2.203) and repeated device infection (OR: 1.569, 95% CI: 1.314-1.873) at 5-year follow-up. However, no significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality (OR: 0.927, 95% CI: 0.778-1.104), HF exacerbation (OR: 1.021, 95% CI: 0.855-1.218), cardiac arrest (OR:0.924, 95% CI: 0.739-1.157), stroke (OR: 1.169, 95% CI: 0.915-1.494), cardiac thrombus (OR: 1.163, 95% CI: 0.749-1.808), major bleeding (OR: 1.079, 95% CI: 0.857-1.358) and venous thromboembolism (OR: 0.923, 95% CI: 0.759-1.123) between the two groups. Conclusion: Early reimplantation of CIED following TLE of infected devices was associated with worse outcomes in all-cause hospitalization and repeated device infection. Further large prospective studies are needed to define the optimal timing of device reimplantation.

Background: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is increasingly recognized as a cause of acute coronary syndrome, particularly in young to middle-aged women. While most presentations are associated with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a subset of patients present with acute systolic dysfunction. The characteristics of patients who recover their LVEF are not clearly defined. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 495 patients with angiographically confirmed SCAD treated at three Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Rochester, and Florida) from 1994 to 2023. Patients with a prior history of myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and congenital heart disease were excluded. Baseline LVEF at SCAD presentation was categorized into <35%, 35–39%, 40–49%, and ≥50%. Follow-up LVEF was assessed by echocardiography performed between 30 days and 1 year post-SCAD. The primary outcome was improvement in LVEF to ≥50% at follow-up. Results: A total of 495 SCAD patients were included. At presentation, 26% had reduced LVEF: 6% had LVEF <35%, 5% had LVEF between 35–39%, and 15% had LVEF between 40–49%. Patients who did not normalize their EF at follow-up were slightly younger (45 vs. 48 years, p=0.04), were more likely to have had an in-hospital cardiac arrest (13% vs. 4%, p=0.01), required mechanical circulatory support during their care, and had SCAD involving the left main artery (11% vs. 2%, p=0.01). Predictors of EF normalization included SCAD which involved the obtuse marginals (15% vs. 4%, p<0.05). The group with the lowest EF at presentation had the highest probability of persistent EF <50% at follow-up (32% for those with LVEF <35%) while patients who had normal EF at presentation had a 6% chance of having EF <50% at follow-up (Figure 1). Conclusions: Our study shows that the majority of SCAD patients have normal EF at presentation. 80% of those with reduced EF at presentation will normalize at follow-up. Predictors of low EF at follow-up included dissection involving the left main artery, lower EF at SCAD presentation, in-hospital arrest and use of mechanical circulatory support.

ABSTRACT Background Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a major contributor to sudden cardiac death among patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). While catheter ablation reduces the arrhythmic burden, the impact on long‐term outcomes remains uncertain. We assess the efficacy of catheter ablation in patients with IHD. Methods We performed a meta‐analysis by systematically searching electronic databases from inception to April 2025. Pairwise, reconstructed time‐to‐event data meta‐analyses and Trial Sequential analyses were conducted. Results A total of seven studies (1192 participants) were included. Among patients with IHD with ICD, VT ablation was associated with a significant reduction in ICD shocks (RR = 0.50, 95% CI = [0.34–0.74]), a trend toward reduced VT storm (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = [0.40–1.04], p = 0.07), and lower rates of cardiovascular hospitalization (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = [0.53–1.01], p = 0.06) compared to ICD alone. However, no significant differences were observed when compared to patients receiving ICD plus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). VT ablation showed no significant impact on mortality or VT/VF recurrence compared to either ICD alone or ICD with AADs. Reconstructed Kaplan–Meier analysis for all‐cause mortality showed no significant difference between VT ablation and AAD + ICD. Trial Sequential Analysis provided conclusive evidence for VT/VF recurrence, while further data is required for other outcomes. Conclusion Among patients with IHD with ICD, VT ablation reduces ICD shocks, VT storm, and cardiovascular hospitalizations compared to ICD‐only therapy, but offers no significant advantage over ICD combined with AADs. VT ablation does not impact overall mortality or the recurrence of VT/VF. Trial sequential analysis confirmed conclusive evidence for VT/VF recurrence, while additional data is needed for other outcomes.

e19524 Background: Carfilzomib, a second-generation proteasome inhibitor, has emerged as one of the therapeutic agents in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Despite its known cardiotoxicity, real-world data on its long-term cardiovascular outcomes remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world cardiovascular outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory MM treated with carfilzomib. Methods: We utilized the TriNetX network to identify patients (≥18 years old) with relapsed or refractory MM between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2019. We further categorized the patients into two groups: patients exposed to carfilzomib and patients not exposed to carfilzomib. Inclusion in the carfilzomib group required exposure to carfilzomib during the 5-year study period. Propensity score matching was performed to match these two groups based on comorbidities, medications, baseline hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein, and left ventricular ejection fraction to produce two comparable cohorts. The study outcomes were cardiovascular outcomes, including acute heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute venous thromboembolism, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality over the 5-year follow-up duration. Results: A total of 151,802 patients with relapsed or refractory MM were identified, including 6,386 patients (mean age 64.8 ± 10.6 years) who were exposed to carfilzomib and 145,416 patients (mean age 66.1 ± 12.7 years) who were not. After propensity score matching, there were 4,559 (65.3 ± 10.8 years of age, 44.7% female, 18.2% African American [AA]) patients who were exposed to carfilzomib and 4,559 patients who were not (65.2 ± 12.2 years of age, 45.1% female, 17.0% AA). Exposure to carfilzomib was associated with higher odds of acute heart failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.48-1.77, P < 0.001), acute myocardial infarction (aOR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.03-1.48, P = 0.020), cerebrovascular accident (aOR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.47-2.64, P < 0.001), acute venous thromboembolism (aOR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.58-2.03, P < 0.001), all-cause hospitalizations (aOR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.75-2.09, P < 0.001), and all-cause mortality (aOR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.80-2.16, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with relapsed or refractory MM who were exposed to carfilzomib had poorer cardiovascular outcomes compared to those who did not.

Abstract Aims Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) improve heart failure (HF) outcomes but their effects on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain poorly characterized. This study aimed to evaluate the 1-year cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2-Is among patients with AMI. Methods and results We conducted an observational, retrospective cohort study using TriNetX data, including patients aged ≥18 with AMI identified via ICD-10 codes regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), categorized by SGLT2-Is use. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance baseline demographics, comorbidities, and medication use. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated for the primary outcome (recurrent AMI) and the secondary outcomes (acute HF hospitalizations, stroke, all-cause hospitalizations, all-cause mortality, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and cardiac arrest). After PSM, 89 554 patients were analysed (44 777 SGLT2-Is users; 44 777 non-users). The mean age was ∼68 years in both cohorts with a similarly high burden of cardiovascular comorbidities. Mean follow-up duration was 290.854 days for SGLT2-Is users and 284.465 days for non-users. SGLT2-Is use was linked to lower rates of recurrent AMI [aOR: 0.459; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.367–0.551], all-cause hospitalizations (aOR: 0.782; 95% CI: 0.762–0.803), all-cause mortality (aOR: 0.640; 95% CI: 0.612–0.670), and cardiac arrest (aOR: 0.834; 95% CI: 0.773–0.900). No differences were observed in acute HF hospitalizations, new-onset atrial fibrillation, or stroke. Conclusion SGLT2-Is are associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with AMI, including reductions in recurrent AMI, all-cause hospitalizations and mortality, and cardiac arrest. These findings emphasize the need for prospective clinical trials involving patients with AMI and other cardiovascular comorbidities, regardless of LVEF, to confirm these results.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe factors contributing to sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) >30 days after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are not well‐established.ObjectivesThis study aimed to predict the factors associated with late sustained VAs after LVAD implantation and develop a predictive score to identify patients with an increased risk of late sustained VAs after the procedure.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on a training cohort of 623 patients and a validation cohort of 157 patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2020. Late sustained VAs were defined as ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurring >30 days after the LVAD procedure. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed.ResultsA total of 780 patients were included in our study. Late sustained VAs occurred in 30% (n = 232) of the patients. The significant factors associated with late sustained VAs after LVAD were the history of VAs prior to LVAD (34.1% vs. 23.0%, p < 0.01), implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) (87.9% vs. 77.6%, p < 0.01) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in situ (43.5% vs. 33.6%, p = 0.008), VT ablation prior to LVAD (5.2% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.010), use of amiodarone (49.1% vs. 38.7%, p = 0.007), use of mexiletine (15.5% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.01), and higher left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD) on echocardiography prior to LVAD implantation (71.4 vs. 68.7 mm, p = 0.002). During follow‐up, the patients who developed late sustained VAs after LVAD had lower survival than those who did not (HR = 1.96, 95% CI:156–2.4, p < 0.001). The average time from LVAD to orthotopic heart transplant was longer among late sustained VAs patients (23 vs. 14 months, p < 0.01). The “VIN” risk score was created to identify four risk groups: low (scores 0), intermediate (score 1), high (score 2), and very high (score 3). The rates of late VA's in the training cohort at 1 year were 9.5%, 14%, 18%, and 25% which was almost similar to the risk of late VA's at validation cohort 10%, 12%, 20%, and 63%, respectively.ConclusionsLate sustained VAs occurred in 30% of the patients who received LVAD and were associated with lower survival. The VIN risk score was developed and validated to stratify patients into low, intermediate, high, and very high risk of late sustained VAs.

Background: The optimal timing of pacemaker reimplantation following transvenous lead removal (TLR) of infected cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) remains unclear. Objective: Our study aimed to assess the impact of timing to pacemaker reimplantation after TLR of infected CIED on hospital outcomes. Method: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, patients aged ≥18 years who underwent new pacemaker implantation with percutaneous approach following TLR of infected CIED from 2017 to 2020 were identified. The study population was stratified based on the timing of pacemaker reimplantation following TLR of infected CIED: early (<5 days) vs delayed (≥5 days). Weighted-propensity-score matched conditional multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine the impact of the timing on various outcomes. Results: In our study, 469 (66.9%) patients received early device reimplantation, and 232 (33.1%) patients received delayed device reimplantation (≥5 days). Post-procedurally, patients in the delayed group had a higher risk of prolonged hospital stay (95% CI OR: 42.37 (6.36 – 282.11); p<0.01) and non-home discharge (95% CI OR: 2.00 (1.35 – 2.95), p<0.01). There was no significant difference between both groups in the early mortality, 30-day readmission, and procedural complications. Conclusion: Our study suggests that time-to-device reimplantation from TLR of infected CIED did not affect the overall short-term in-hospital outcomes. However, delayed device reimplantation was associated with a higher rate of prolonged hospital stay and non-home discharge.