Baqal, Omar

Background Connective tissue disorders (CTDs) such as Marfan syndrome, Loeys-Dietz syndrome, and Ehlers-Danlos syndromes are traditionally defined by vascular fragility and aortic complications. Increasing evidence, however, demonstrates that CTDs also predispose to atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, often independent of overt cardiomyopathy or severe valvular disease. Content This review integrates emerging data on the arrhythmogenic substrates of CTDs. Four mechanistic bridges are emphasized: (1) diffuse myocardial fibrosis driven by dysregulated TGF-β signaling, (2) structural valve and annular abnormalities, particularly mitral valve prolapse and mitral annular disjunction, (3) altered mechanotransduction linking extracellular matrix instability to cytoskeletal and nuclear signaling pathways, and (4) downstream ion-channel and gap-junction remodeling as secondary amplifiers. We outline the genetic architecture underlying these processes, focusing on established CTD-implicated genes in the TGF-β/SMAD pathway, valve and annulus regulators, cytoskeletal and myocyte-coupling proteins, and extracellular matrix components, while incorporating emerging CTD modifiers that expand the spectrum of arrhythmia susceptibility. Summary Recognition of CTDs as both vascular and electrical disorders reframes clinical management. Imaging markers such as mitral annular disjunction and diffuse fibrosis, together with targeted ambulatory rhythm monitoring and consideration of genetic context, may improve recognition of higher-risk phenotypes. Therapeutic strategies must balance arrhythmia control with procedural risk in fragile connective tissue substrates. Conclusions By unifying genetic, mechanistic, and clinical insights, this review provides an integrated framework for understanding arrhythmias in CTDs. It underscores the need for prospective registries and genotype-phenotype studies to refine surveillance and prevention strategies.

ABSTRACT Patients requiring permanent pacing after tricuspid valve intervention present challenges due to the need to cross tricuspid valve prostheses. We report three cases of successful dual coronary sinus (CS) lead implantation for biventricular pacing following a range of tricuspid interventions—surgical tricuspid annuloplasty, transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair, and transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement. The approach avoided tricuspid valve traversal, was technically feasible and resulted in satisfactory pacing performance without procedural complications. Dual CS lead configurations were individualized based on CS anatomy and pacing characteristics. The degree of QRS narrowing achieved varied according to lead location and ventricular activation patterns, highlighting the importance of individualized lead placement strategies and device programming. Dual CS lead pacing may represent a viable alternative for biventricular pacing in selected patients with prior tricuspid valve interventions. Larger studies are needed to evaluate long‐term outcomes and define the optimal role of this approach among available pacing strategies in this patient population.

Abstract: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. While advances in treatment have improved outcomes, the greatest gains in public health will come from primary prevention. Risk stratification is the foundation of CVD prevention. Traditional tools, such as pooled cohort equations (PCEs) and SCORE2, do not capture non-traditional risk factors and individual variability, driving efforts to refine existing approaches. We critically discuss emerging risk determinants for primary CVD prevention. Coronary artery calcium scoring can reclassify CVD risk but has limitations related to cost, access, and unvalidated improvements in clinical endpoints. Biomarkers such as apolipoprotein B and lipoprotein(a) may identify residual risk beyond LDL-C, particularly in patients with lipid discordance, but remain underused due to uncertain thresholds and the lack of prospective triallevel outcome data. Trials of colchicine in primary prevention have yielded mixed results, making the role of targeting inflammation unclear in CVD prevention. Polygenic risk scores can stratify genetic risk but face challenges in sensitivity, specificity, and generalizability. Multiomics approaches, while offering the promise of deeper phenotyping, lack established clinical applications and consensus on when their use is appropriate. Artificial intelligence may allow better prediction across cohorts but requires broader validation. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, a marker of inflammation and age-related CVD risk, lacks evidence supporting routine screening or intervention in younger, asymptomatic individuals. The proliferation of new risk stratification tools poses a key challenge: determining when additional data meaningfully alter clinical decisions. Until robust outcome-based evidence emerges, risk enhancers should guide, but not dictate, therapy in selected patients.

Complete revascularization improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD); however, the optimal timing of noninfarct-related artery intervention during the index procedure, immediate revascularization (IR) versus a staged approach (SR), remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SR and IR in patients with STEMI and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization. Random-effects models with Hartung–Knapp adjustment were used. Trial sequential analysis assessed evidence conclusiveness, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Eight randomized trials, including 5077 patients (2556 SR; 2521 IR), were analyzed. No significant differences were observed between SR and IR for major adverse cardiovascular events [odds ratios (ORs), 1.07; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.76–1.49], recurrent myocardial infarction (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.80–2.14), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51–1.13), or all-cause mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54–1.06). Rates of stent thrombosis, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization were also comparable. Trial sequential analysis indicated insufficient information size to draw definitive conclusions, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low. In patients with STEMI and MVD, staged and immediate complete revascularization provide comparable ischemic, safety, and mortality outcomes. Current evidence supports clinical equipoise, and revascularization timing should be individualized pending results from adequately powered trials.

Summary Frailty is independently associated with significantly higher 1‐year mortality and MACCE following MTEER. Frail patients also demonstrated increased risks of HF exacerbation, major bleeding, and readmission. Incorporating frailty assessment into pre‐procedural evaluation may improve risk stratification and guide personalized management strategies.

Background: Transthyretin (TTR) cardiac amyloidosis is a progressive cardiomyopathy with high mortality; however, the role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in this population remains unclear. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with confirmed TTR cardiac amyloidosis, with or without ICDs, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2024, across all three Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota). Diagnosis was confirmed by endomyocardial biopsy or abnormal technetium pyrophosphate (PYP) scintigraphy. A 1:4 propensity score-matched cohort of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients with ICDs served as a control group. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, comparing transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (TTR-CA) patients by ICD status and against matched NICM patients. Secondary analyses evaluated predictors of mortality, including the use of tafamidis and the indication for ICD (primary vs. secondary prevention). Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to assess predictors of survival and mortality. Results: A total of 463 patients with confirmed TTR cardiac amyloidosis were included. The median follow-up duration was 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR): 5.3–9.2 years) for the non-ICD group and 6.8 years (IQR: 4.5–9.0 years) for the ICD group. The median age was 74.5 years (IQR: 68.0–80.0 years), and 92.9% of patients were male. Among them, 206 (44.5%) received ICDs and 257 (55.5%) did not. ICD recipients were younger (71.0 vs. 77.0 years; p = 0.001) and had higher rates of hypertension (62.6% vs. 45.6%; p = 0.001), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (62.6% vs. 44.4%; p = 0.001), and diabetes (30.1% vs. 21.8%; p = 0.043). Median left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in the ICD groups (43% vs. 54%; p = 0.007), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were higher in the ICD group (2259.0 pg/mL vs. 1503.0 pg/mL; p = 0.007). Among ICD recipients, 157 (76.2%) received the device for primary prevention, while 48 (23.3%) received the ICD for secondary prevention. Appropriate shocks were delivered in 22 patients (10.6%), primarily for ventricular tachycardia (n = 18) and ventricular fibrillation (n = 4). Inappropriate shocks occurred in six patients (3.0%), and 12 patients (5.8%) experienced device-related complications. Over 10 years of follow-up, ICD implantation did not confer a survival benefit for patients with TTR-CA compared to those without an ICD (p = 0.74). In contrast, a 1:4 propensity-matched NICM cohort with ICDs, which had a median follow-up of 7.1 years (IQR: 4.6–8.8 years), showed significantly improved survival than TTR-CA patients with ICDs (p = 0.034). Among the TTR-CA patients with ICDs, neither the use of tafamidis (p = 0.10) nor the ICD indication (primary vs. secondary prevention; p = 0.85) influenced mortality. In the Cox regression analysis, predictors of mortality in TTR-CA patients included older age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.048; p = 0.001), CKD (HR 1.637; p = 0.029), troponin T >50 ng/L (HR 1.594; p = 0.031), NT-proBNP >3000 pg/mL (HR 1.514; p = 0.050), and ejection fraction <40% (HR 1.935; p = 0.003). ICD implantation was not associated with improved survival (HR 0.932; p = 0.763). Conclusions: In conclusion, our data suggest that ICD therapy may not provide a significant overall survival benefit in older TTR-CA patients with impaired pump function; thus, prospective studies are warranted before any changes to clinical practice are considered. Key predictors of mortality included reduced ejection fraction and elevated cardiac biomarkers. Additional prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of ICDs in treatment strategies for patients with TTR-CA.

Despite advances in ablative therapies, outcomes remain less favorable for persistent atrial fibrillation often due to presence of non-pulmonary vein triggers and abnormal atrial substrates. This review highlights advances in ablation technologies and notable scientific literature on clinical outcomes associated with pursuing adjunctive ablation targets and substrate modification during persistent atrial fibrillation ablation, while also highlighting notable future directions.

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.

Atrial fibrillation is a diverse clinical entity, with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) being particularly challenging to manage. Through this paper, we discuss notable developments in our understanding of ablative strategies for managing PeAF, with a special focus on posterior wall isolation (PWI).