Spall, Harriette G.C. Van

Kidney dysfunction after heart transplantation (HT) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recipient and perioperative factors may all influence the risk of kidney injury. Furthermore, data suggest that the incidence of kidney dysfunction, both acute and chronic, is increasing after the implementation of the United States’ 2018 allocation system due to increasing use of temporary mechanical circulatory support and changing recipient characteristics. While data are robust regarding nephroprotective therapies such as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition and SGLT2i (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) to minimize the progression of chronic kidney disease in patients with heart failure, data in HT recipients are beginning to emerge. This state-of-the-art review will critically examine the existing literature regarding the epidemiology of kidney dysfunction after HT, mitigation strategies for acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease, including pharmacotherapeutics, the need for kidney transplantation after HT, and practical next steps for the larger HT community.

Hypertension is the single most important modifiable risk factor for preventable disability and death worldwide and disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged populations. We face a paradox—blood pressure control is low and recent trends suggest it is even declining, despite the availability of inexpensive and effective therapies. A variety of barriers on the system, patient, and healthcare provider side hinder effective drug-based risk factor management. Clinical inertia represents a major barrier on the clinician side, as well as workload and limited education. Common barriers on the patient side include limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and nonadherence with misaligned incentives, limited resources, lack of structured clinical pathways, and reimbursement issues. New innovations in the field of RNA-targeted therapies and device-based interventions could prevent and potentially even cure diseases previously designated as chronic health conditions, such as hypertension. Such novel therapies could potentially overcome several major barriers to effective treatment, including nonadherence. Drug development of novel, long-acting treatments requires consideration of specific clinical trial design aspects, including safety collection, benefit: risk assessment, the development and assessment of novel, qualitative surrogate end points, such as time-in-therapeutic range, the use of representative trial settings as well as the definition of standard of care in placebo-controlled trials, which should be of reasonably high-quality allowing for credible evaluation of effectiveness. Here, we provide an overview on barriers to effective treatment and a framework for trials assessing novel treatments for cardiovascular disease risk factors, including early and broad implementation programs.

Abstract Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.

Objective: Limited data exist around the receipt of palliative care (PC) in patients hospitalized with common chronic conditions. We studied the independent predictors, temporal trends in rates of PC utilization in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of common chronic diseases. Methods: Population-based cohort study of all hospitalizations with an acute exacerbation of heart disease (HD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), cancer (CA), and chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD). Patients aged ≥18 years or older between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2017, referred for inpatient PC were extracted from the National Inpatient Sample. Poisson regression analyses were used to estimate temporal trends. Results: Between 2004 and 2017, of 91,877,531 hospitalizations, 55.2%, 13.9%, 17.2%, and 13.8% hospitalizations were related to HD, CVA, CA, and CLRD, respectively. There was a temporal increase in the uptake of PC across all disease groups. Age-adjusted estimated rates of PC per 100,000 hospitalizations/year were highest for CA (2308 (95% CI 2249–2366) to 10,794 (95% CI 10,652–10,936)), whereas the CLRD cohort had the lowest rates of PC referrals (255 (95% CI 231–278) to 1882 (95% CI 1821–1943)) between 2004 and 2017, respectively. In the subgroup analysis of patients who died during hospitalization, the CVA group had the highest uptake of PC per 100,000 hospitalizations/year (4979 (95% CI 4918–5040)) followed by CA (4241 (95% CI 4189–4292)), HD (3250 (95% CI 3211–3289)) and CLRD (3248 (95% CI 3162–3405)). Conclusion: PC service utilization is increasing but remains disparate, particularly in patients that die during hospital admission from common chronic conditions. These findings highlight the need to develop a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach to improve access to PC services in these patients.

Abstract Aims There are several risk scores designed to predict mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). This study aimed to assess performance of risk scores validated for mortality prediction in patients with acute HF (AHF) and chronic HF. Methods and results MEDLINE and Scopus were searched from January 2015 to January 2021 for studies which internally or externally validated risk models for predicting all-cause mortality in patients with AHF and chronic HF. Discrimination data were analysed using C-statistics, and pooled using generic inverse-variance random-effects model. Nineteen studies (n = 494 156 patients; AHF: 24 762; chronic HF mid-term mortality: 62 000; chronic HF long-term mortality: 452 097) and 11 risk scores were included. Overall, discrimination of risk scores was good across the three subgroups: AHF mortality [C-statistic: 0.76 (0.68–0.83)], chronic HF mid-term mortality [1 year; C-statistic: 0.74 (0.68–0.79)], and chronic HF long-term mortality [≥2 years; C-statistic: 0.71 (0.69–0.73)]. MEESSI-AHF [C-statistic: 0.81 (0.80–0.83)] and MARKER-HF [C-statistic: 0.85 (0.80–0.89)] had an excellent discrimination for AHF and chronic HF mid-term mortality, respectively, whereas MECKI had good discrimination [C-statistic: 0.78 (0.73–0.83)] for chronic HF long-term mortality relative to other models. Overall, risk scores predicting short-term mortality in patients with AHF did not have evidence of poor calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow P > 0.05). However, risk models predicting mid-term and long-term mortality in patients with chronic HF varied in calibration performance. Conclusions The majority of recently validated risk scores showed good discrimination for mortality in patients with HF. MEESSI-AHF demonstrated excellent discrimination in patients with AHF, and MARKER-HF and MECKI displayed an excellent discrimination in patients with chronic HF. However, modest reporting of calibration and lack of head-to-head comparisons in same populations warrant future studies.

Background Women are less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) than men. A potential reason is risk aversion because of the worse outcomes with pPCI among women. However, whether pPCI is associated with a comparable mortality benefit in men and women remains unknown. Methods and Results We selected patients admitted with a principal diagnosis of ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction in the National Inpatient Sample (2016–2018). We used propensity‐score matching to calculate average treatment effects of pPCI for in‐hospital mortality, major complications, length of stay, and cost. As a sensitivity analysis, we used logit models followed by a marginal command to calculate the average marginal effect. We included 413 500 weighted hospitalizations (30.7% women, 69.3% men). Women had more comorbidities except smoking and prior sternotomy. Compared with men, women were less likely to undergo angiography (81.0% versus 87.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74–0.81; P <0.001) or pPCI (74.0% versus 82.0%; adjusted OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73–0.79; P <0.001). There were no significant differences in average treatment effects of pPCI on mortality between men (−8.4% [−9.3% to −7.6%], P <0.001), and women (−9.5% [−10.8% to −8.3%], P <0.001) ( P interaction=0.16). This persisted in age‐stratified analyses (≥85, 65–84, 45–64, <45 years) and sensitivity analysis, excluding emergent admissions. The average treatment effects of pPCI on major complications were comparable except for acute stroke, leaving against medical advice, and palliative encounter. There were no differences in the average treatment effects of pPCI on length of stay, but the proportional increase in cost with pPCI was higher in women. Conclusions pPCI results in a comparable reduction in in‐hospital mortality in men and women. Nonetheless, risk‐adjusted rates of pPCI remain lower in women in contemporary US practice.

Abstract Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold standard, guideline-recommended revascularization strategy in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are limited data on its use and effectiveness among patients with active cancer presenting with STEMI. Methods and results All STEMI hospitalizations between 2004 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analysed, stratified by cancer type. Propensity score matching was performed to estimate the average treatment effect of pPCI in each cancer on in-hospital adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its individual components, and compare treatment effect between cancer and non-cancer patients. Out of 1 870 815 patients with STEMI, 38 932 (2.1%) had a current cancer diagnosis [haematological: 11 251 (28.9% of all cancers); breast: 4675 (12.0%); lung: 9538 (24.5%); colon: 3749 (9.6%); prostate: 9719 (25.0%)]. Patients with cancer received pPCI less commonly than those without cancer (from 54.2% for lung cancer to 70.6% for haematological vs. 82.3% in no cancer). Performance of pPCI was strongly associated with lower adjusted probabilities of MACCE and all-cause mortality in the cancer groups compared with the no cancer group. There was no significant difference in estimated average pPCI treatment effect between the cancer groups and non-cancer group. Conclusion Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is underutilized in STEMI patients with current cancer despite its significantly lower associated rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality and MACCE that is comparable to patients without cancer. Further work is required to assess the long-term benefit and safety of pPCI in this high-risk group.