Citations

This retrospective propensity-matched cohort study assessed the association between sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without a history of heart failure. Using the TriNetX U.S. Collaborative Network, we identified 1440 matched patients (720 SGLT2i+ vs 720 SGLT2i−) with preserved ejection fraction and no prior heart failure. Nearly 90% of patients had diabetes. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of MI, stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality. At 1 year, MACE occurred in 17.4% of SGLT2i+ versus 22.0% of SGLT2i− patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.746, 95% CI 0.574-0.969; P = .028), and all-cause mortality occurred in 3.1% versus 7.6%, respectively (OR 0.389, 95% CI 0.234-0.645; P < .001). SGLT2i use was also associated with lower risks of major bleeding. Findings were consistent over long-term follow-up. While the observed associations suggest potential cardioprotective effects of SGLT2i post-MI in patients without heart failure, residual confounding cannot be excluded. The observed reduction in bleeding events is novel and warrants further investigation in prospective studies.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have demonstrated benefits in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but their impact following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is less well understood. Using the TriNetX Research Network (TriNetX) multi-center registry (2014–2022), we identified patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)—defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–IV—not previously treated with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) who experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Patients who initiated SGLT2i within 1-year post-AMI were compared with those who did not. Propensity score matching was used to balance cohorts ( n = 20,423 each; mean age 68.3 ± 11.0 years; 54.5% female) for demographics, comorbidities, and treatment variables. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including all-cause mortality, recurrent AMI, acute heart failure, and stroke. Secondary outcomes included cardiac arrest and major bleeding. SGLT2i use was associated with lower rates of MACE (3.7% vs 6.1%; P = .0005), all-cause mortality (0.9% vs 5.6%; P < .0001), and other adverse events at both 30 days and 1 year. In this large, propensity-matched cohort, SGLT2i use post-AMI in HFpEF patients was associated with favorable cardiovascular outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm these associations.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity have significant disability and frequent exacerbations of heart failure. We hypothesized that tirzepatide, a long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors, would improve a comprehensive suite of clinical end points, including measures of health status, functional capacity, quality of life, exercise tolerance, patient well-being, and medication burden, in these patients. METHODS: We randomized (double-blind) 731 patients with class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction ≥50%, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 to tirzepatide (titrated up to 15 mg SC weekly; n=364) or placebo (n=367) added to background therapy for a median of 104 weeks (quartile 1, 66; quartile 3, 126 weeks). The primary end points were whether tirzepatide reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure and improved Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score. The current expanded analysis included sensitivity analyses of the primary end points, 6-minute walk distance, EQ-5D-5L health state index, Patient Global Impression of Severity Overall Health score, New York Heart Association class, use of heart failure medications, and a hierarchical composite based on all-cause death, worsening heart failure, and 52-week changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score and 6-minute walk distance. RESULTS: Patients were 65.2±10.7 years of age; 53.8% (n=393) were female; body mass index was 38.2±6.7 kg/m 2 ; Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score was 53.5±18.5; 6-minute walk distance was 302.8±81.7 m; and 53% (n=388) had a worsening heart failure event in the previous 12 months. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide produced a consistent beneficial effect across all composites of death and worsening heart failure events, analyzed as time to first event (hazard ratios, 0.41–0.67). At 52 weeks, tirzepatide increased the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score by 6.9 points (95% CI, 3.3–10.6; P <0.001), 6-minute walk distance 18.3 meters (95% CI, 9.9–26.7; P <0.001), and EQ-5D-5L 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03–0.09; P <0.001). The tirzepatide group shifted to a more favorable Patient Global Impression of Severity Overall Health score (proportional odds ratio, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.44–2.76]) and New York Heart Association class (proportional odds ratio, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.54–3.31]; both P <0.001) and required fewer heart failure medications ( P =0.015). The broad spectrum of effects was reflected in benefits on the hierarchical composite (win ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.17–2.28]; P =0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide produced a comprehensive, meaningful improvement in heart failure across multiple complementary domains; enhanced health status, quality of life, functional capacity, exercise tolerance, and well-being; and reduced symptoms and medication burden in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04847557.

Abstract Aims The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. Methods and results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Cardiogenic shock was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP &lt; 90 mmHg for ≥30 min [or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg] with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary aetiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. Heart failure-related CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. Of 8974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017–23), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n = 5869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (P &lt; 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P &lt; 0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.

Background Shock and preshock are defined on the basis of the presence of hypotension, hypoperfusion, or both. We sought to determine the hemodynamic underpinnings of shock and preshock noninvasively using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Methods and Results We included Mayo Clinic cardiac intensive care unit patients from 2007 to 2015 with TTE within 1 day of admission. Hypotension and hypoperfusion at the time of cardiac intensive care unit admission were used to define 4 groups. TTE findings were evaluated across these groups, and in‐hospital mortality was evaluated according to TTE findings in each group. We included 5375 patients with a median age of 69.2 years (36.8% women). The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 50%. Groups based on hypotension and hypoperfusion were assigned as follows: no hypotension or hypoperfusion, 59.7%; isolated hypotension, 15.3%; isolated hypoperfusion, 16.4%; and both hypotension and hypoperfusion, 8.7%. Most TTE variables of interest varied across these groups, with worse biventricular function, lower forward flow, and higher filling pressures as the degree of hemodynamic compromise increased. In‐hospital mortality occurred in 8.2%, and inpatient deaths had more TTE parameter abnormalities. In‐hospital mortality increased with the degree of hemodynamic compromise, and a marked gradient in in‐hospital mortality was observed when the clinical classification of shock and preshock was combined with TTE findings reflecting worse biventricular function, lower forward flow, or higher filling pressures. Conclusions Substantial differences in cardiac function are observed between cardiac intensive care unit patients with preshock and shock using TTE, and the combination of the clinical and TTE hemodynamic assessment provides robust mortality risk stratification.

BACKGROUND: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different risk groups, practice settings, and geographic locations. There are limited data on the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities that may impact access to care and outcomes. To address these gaps, we established the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry, a multinational, multicenter prospective registry. METHODS: We assembled cardiologists and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Subsequently, a survey for site resources, demographics, and intention to participate was conducted. We designed an online data platform to facilitate this global initiative. RESULTS: A total of 119 sites responded to an online questionnaire on their practices and main goals of the registry: 49 US sites from 23 states and 70 international sites from 5 continents indicated a willingness to participate in the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Sites were more commonly led by cardiologists (85/119; 72%) and were more often university/teaching (81/119; 68%) than community based (38/119; 32%). The average number of cardio-oncology patients treated per month was 80 per site. The top 3 Global Cardio-Oncology Registry priorities in cardio-oncology care were breast cancer, hematologic malignancies, and patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Executive and scientific committees and specific committees were established. A pilot phase for breast cancer using Research Electronic Data Capture Cloud platform recently started patient enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: We present the structure for a global collaboration. Information derived from the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry will help understand the risk factors impacting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different geographic locations and therefore contribute to reduce access gaps in cardio-oncology care. Risk calculators will be prospectively derived and validated.

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.

AbstractTargeted temperature management (TTM) has become a cornerstone in the treatment of comatose post-cardiac arrest patients over the last two decades. Belief in the efficacy of this intervention for improving neurologically intact survival was based on two trials from 2002, one truly randomized-controlled and one small quasi-randomized trial, without clear confirmation of that finding. Subsequent large randomized trials reported no difference in outcomes between TTM at 33 vs. 36°C and no benefit of TTM at 33°C as compared with fever control alone. Given that these results may help shape post-cardiac arrest patient care, we sought to review the history and rationale as well as trial evidence for TTM, critically review the TTM2 trial, and highlight gaps in knowledge and research needs for the future. Finally, we provide contemporary guidance for the use of TTM in daily clinical practice.