Usman, Muhammad

Background: Sarcoidosis is a multisystem disorder characterized by non-caseating granulomas in various organs. While cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is clinically rare, it has significant implications, including heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death. Speckle-tracking echocardiography has emerged as a promising tool for detecting subclinical myocardial dysfunction, which is cost-efficient and readily available. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate differences in functional echocardiographic parameters between patients with CS and extracardiac sarcoidosis (ECS) to improve early recognition and management. Methods: A comprehensive search of major bibliographic databases was conducted to identify studies up to December 2024. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were pooled using the inverse-variance random-effect model. Results: Seven studies with 478 patients with sarcoidosis (CS: 159 and ECS: 319) were included. Patients with CS had a significant reduction in left ventricular global longitudinal strain (MD: −2.73; 95% CI: −4.09, −1.38; p < 0.0001) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (MD: −0.59; 95% CI: −1.12, −0.05; p = 0.03) compared to patients with ECS. No significant differences in the LV global circumferential strain, interventricular septum thickness, left ventricular ejection fraction, E/A ratio, E/E’ ratio, LV end-diastolic diameter, and LV end-systolic diameter were noted. Conclusions: LV GLS and TAPSE are promising parameters for the early detection of cardiac involvement in sarcoidosis, with significant prognostic implications. Although STE provides a cost-effective and accessible alternative to CMR and FDG-PET, further research is needed to standardize its use and validate diagnostic cut-offs.

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.

Background: RCTs studying the effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and outcomes have been underpowered to assess patients with overweight or obesity, thus presenting the need for a meta-analysis. Methods: Electronic databases were queried up till February 2022 for RCTs comparing SGLT2i with placebo in patients with overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) or obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) - irrespective of diabetes status - with a follow-up of ≥24 weeks. Meta-analyses were performed using the generic inverse variance technique and a random-effects model. Results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HR) for dichotomous outcomes. Outcomes studied were: (i) weight; (ii) systolic BP; (iii) diastolic BP; (iv) heart rate; (v) HDL-C; (vi) LDL-C; (vii) major adverse cardiac events (MACE), i.e., composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal stroke; (viii) composite of heart failure hospitalization and CV death (HFH/CV death); (ix) mortality; (x) MI; and (xi) stroke. Results: Seventeen RCTs (47,649 patients) were included. Compared with placebo, SGLT2i significantly reduced weight (WMD: -2.32 kg [-2.77, -1.88]), HbA1c (WMD: -0.79 % [-0.98, - 0.61]) and systolic BP (WMD: -2.15 mm Hg [-3.08, - 1.22]). SGLT2i did not have a significant effect on diastolic BP (WMD: -0.55 mmHg [-1.51, 0.41]), heart rate (WMD: 0.08 bpm. [-0.21, 0.37]), HDL-C (WMD: 1.62 mmol l -1 [-0.21, 3.45]) or LDL-C (WMD: 0.53 mmol l -1 [-0.88, 1.94]). Amongst CV outcomes, SGLT2i reduced the risk of MACE (HR: 0.90 [0.81, 0.99]), HFH/CV death (HR: 0.82 [0.75, 0.90]), and mortality (HR: 0.85 [0.77, 0.94]). No effect was noted on stroke (HR: 0.99 [0.85, 1.26]) or MI (HR: 0.89 [0.77, 1.02]). Conclusions: In patients with overweight or obesity, SGLT2i produce a modest but significant reduction in weight, systolic BP and HbA1c. SGLT2i may also reduce the risk of MACE, HFH/CV death, and mortality.

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 &gt; 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.

Abstract Aims Anticoagulants are the mainstay treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), and the CHA2DS2-VASc score is widely used to guide anticoagulation therapy in this cohort. However, utility of CHA2DS2-VASc in NVAF patients is debated, primarily because it is a vascular scoring system, which does not incorporate atrial fibrillation related parameters. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the discrimination ability of CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting ischaemic stroke overall, and in subgroups of patients with or without NVAF. Methods and results PubMed and Embase databases were searched till June 2020 for published articles that assessed the discrimination ability of CHA2DS2-VASc, as measured by C-statistics, during mid-term (2–5 years) and long-term (&gt;5 years) follow-up. Summary estimates were reported as random effects C-statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Seventeen articles were included in the analysis. Nine studies (n = 453 747 patients) reported the discrimination ability of CHA2DS2-VASc in NVAF patients, and 10 studies (n = 138 262 patients) in patients without NVAF. During mid-term follow-up, CHA2DS2-VASc predicted stroke with modest discrimination in the overall cohort [0.67 (0.65–0.69)], with similar discrimination ability in patients with NVAF [0.65 (0.63–0.68)] and in those without NVAF [0.69 (0.68–0.71)] (P-interaction = 0.08). Similarly, at long-term follow-up, CHA2DS2-VASc had modest discrimination [0.66 (0.63–0.69)], which was consistent among patients with NVAF [0.63 (0.54–0.71)] and those without NVAF [0.67 (0.64–0.70)] (P-interaction = 0.39). Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that the discrimination power of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting ischaemic stroke is modest, and is similar in the presence or absence of NVAF. More accurate stroke prediction models are thus needed for the NVAF population.

Background: Efficacy of an intervention is commonly evaluated using P values, in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and numbers needed to treat. However, these measures are not always intuitive to clinicians. The fragility index (FI) is a more intuitive number that can facilitate interpretation but can only be used with binary outcomes. FI is the minimum number of patients who must be moved from the nonevent group to the event group to turn a significant result nonsignificant. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which report a positive (statistically significant) primary outcome by using the FI. Methods and Results: We searched Medline from 2007 to 2017 to identify cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 high impact journals ( The Lancet , New England Journal of Medicine , Journal of the American Medical Association , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal ). Only RCTs with sample sizes >500 and a 2-by-2 factorial design or dichotomous primary outcomes were selected. FI was calculated using a defined approach. Among the cohort of 123 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, median FI was 13 (interquartile range, 5–26). In 28 trials (22.8%), FI ranged between 1 and 4. In 37 trials (30.1%), number of patients lost to follow-up was higher than the FI. Pharmaceutical interventions had higher FI compared with other interventions, FI=19 (7–52; P =0.002). Median FI varied according to subspecialty (electrophysiology=2; heart failure=11; interventional cardiology=8; P =0.020) and multiregional RCTs had higher FI=22 (12–53.25; P =0.023). FI did not differ based on risk of bias indicators, funding, or publication year. Conclusions: Considerable variations in FI were observed among cardiovascular trials, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of results, particularly when number of patients lost to follow-up exceeds FI.