Newby, L. Kristin

Abstract Whether initiation of statins could increase survival free of dementia and disability in adults aged ≥75 years is unknown. PREVENTABLE, a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled randomized pragmatic clinical trial, will compare high‐intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg) with placebo in 20,000 community‐dwelling adults aged ≥75 years without cardiovascular disease, disability, or dementia at baseline. Exclusion criteria include statin use in the prior year or for >5 years and inability to take a statin. Potential participants are identified using computable phenotypes derived from the electronic health record and local referrals from the community. Participants will undergo baseline cognitive testing, with physical testing and a blinded lipid panel if feasible. Cognitive testing and disability screening will be conducted annually. Multiple data sources will be queried for cardiovascular events, dementia, and disability; survival is site‐reported and supplemented by a National Death Index search. The primary outcome is survival free of new dementia or persisting disability. Co‐secondary outcomes are a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina or myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or coronary revascularization; and a composite of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Ancillary studies will offer mechanistic insights into the effects of statins on key outcomes. Biorepository samples are obtained and stored for future study. These results will inform the benefit of statins for increasing survival free of dementia and disability among older adults. This is a pioneering pragmatic study testing important questions with low participant burden to align with the needs of the growing population of older adults.

AbstractAimsThe aims of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) are to develop a registry to investigate the epidemiology of cardiac critical illness and to establish a multicentre research network to conduct randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with cardiac critical illness.Methods and resultsThe CCCTN was founded in 2017 with 16 centres and has grown to a research network of over 40 academic and clinical centres in the United States and Canada. Each centre enters data for consecutive cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions for at least 2 months of each calendar year. More than 20 000 unique CICU admissions are now included in the CCCTN Registry. To date, scientific observations from the CCCTN Registry include description of variations in care, the epidemiology and outcomes of all CICU patients, as well as subsets of patients with specific disease states, such as shock, heart failure, renal dysfunction, and respiratory failure. The CCCTN has also characterised utilization patterns, including use of mechanical circulatory support in response to changes in the heart transplantation allocation system, and the use and impact of multidisciplinary shock teams. Over years of multicentre collaboration, the CCCTN has established a robust research network to facilitate multicentre registry-based randomised trials in patients with cardiac critical illness.ConclusionThe CCCTN is a large, prospective registry dedicated to describing processes-of-care and expanding clinical knowledge in cardiac critical illness. The CCCTN will serve as an investigational platform from which to conduct randomised controlled trials in this important patient population.

Background: With the improvement in outcomes for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the practice of routine admission to cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) is evolving. We aimed to describe the epidemiology of patients with ACS admitted to contemporary CICUs. Methods: Using the CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) Registry for consecutive medical CICU admissions across 26 advanced CICUs in North America between 2017 and 2020, we identified patients with a primary diagnosis of ACS at CICU admission and compared patient characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes to patients admitted with a non-ACS diagnosis and across sub-populations of patients with ACS, including by indication for CICU admission. Results: Of 10 118 CICU admissions, 29.4% (n=2978) were for a primary diagnosis of ACS, with significant interhospital variability (range, 13.4%–56.6%). Compared with patients admitted with a diagnosis other than ACS, patients with ACS had fewer comorbidities, lower acute severity of illness with less utilization of advanced CICU therapies (41.3% versus 66.1%, P <0.0001), and lower CICU mortality (5.4% versus 9.9%, P <0.0001). Monitoring alone, without another CICU indication at the time of admission, was the most frequent admission indication in patients with ACS (53.8%); less common indications in patients with ACS included respiratory insufficiency, shock, or the need for vasoactive therapy. Of patients with ACS admitted for monitoring alone, 94.8% did not subsequently require advanced intensive care unit therapies and had a low CICU length of stay (1.5 days [0.9–2.4] versus 2.6 [1.4–5.1], P <0.0001) and CICU mortality (0.6% versus 11.0%, P <0.0001), compared with patients with ACS with an admission indication beyond monitoring. Conclusions: In a registry of tertiary care CICUs, ACS represent ≈1/3 of all admissions with significant variability across hospitals. More than half of the ACS admissions to the CICU were for routine monitoring alone, with a low rate of complications and mortality. This observation highlights an opportunity for prospective studies to refine triage strategies for lower risk patients with ACS.

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. Methods: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. Results: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%–50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%–100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. Conclusions: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

Background— Prior studies have demonstrated an inconsistent association between patients’ arrival time for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and their subsequent medical care and outcomes. Methods and Results— Using a contemporary national clinical registry, we examined differences in medical care and in-hospital mortality among AMI patients admitted during regular hours (weekdays 7 am to 7 pm ) versus off-hours (weekends, holidays, and 7 pm to 7 am weeknights). The study cohort included 62 814 AMI patients from the Get With the Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease database admitted to 379 hospitals throughout the United States from July 2000 through September 2005. Overall, 33 982 (54.1%) patients arrived during off-hours. Compared with those arriving during regular hours, eligible off-hour patients were slightly less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 0.98), had longer door-to-balloon times (median, 110 versus 85 minutes; P <0.0001), and were less likely to achieve door-to-balloon ≤90 minutes (adjusted OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.39). Arrival during off-hours was associated with slightly lower overall revascularization rates (adjusted OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.97). No measurable differences, however, were found in in-hospital mortality between regular hours and off-hours in the overall AMI, ST-elevated MI, and non–ST-elevated MI cohorts (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.06; adjusted OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.18; and adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04, respectively). Similar observations were made across most age and sex subgroups and with an alternative definition for arrival time (weekends/holidays versus weekdays). Conclusions— Despite slightly fewer primary percutaneous coronary interventions and overall revascularizations and significantly longer door-to-balloon times, patients presenting with AMI during off-hours had in-hospital mortality similar to those presenting during regular hours.

Background and Purpose— Women have poorer outcomes from stroke than men. Women also have risk factors that are unique, including pregnancy and hormone therapy. Hormone therapy for postmenopausal replacement increased the risk of ischemic stroke according to results of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials. Based on the current understanding of the mechanisms of action of estrogen, the reasons for this increased risk are uncertain. One method to better understand the reasons for this increased risk is to re-evaluate estrogen’s role in the neurovascular unit, simplistically comprised of the neurons, glia, and endothelial cells, as well as the processes of inflammation, and hemostasis/thrombosis. Besides the role of estrogen there are many gaps of knowledge about issues specific to women and stroke. Summary of Review— A multidisciplinary workshop was held in August 2005 to summarize the current evidence for estrogen and, more generally, stroke in women, and to provide recommendations for future basic, preclinical, and clinical research studies. Conclusions— These studies may ultimately change the approach to stroke prevention and treatment in women.