Search

Background: There is concern that left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to diagonal to left anterior descending artery (LAD) grafts may be more susceptible to failure compared to single LITA-LAD grafts., Methods: Pooled individual patient data from eight clinical trials with systematic graft imaging were analyzed to assess the incidence of sequential LITA-Diagonal-LAD vs. single LITA-LAD grafts. Mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for patient characteristics and clustering within trials, was used., Results: Of 3969 patients with LITA-LAD grafts, 283 (7.1%) patients received sequential LITA-Diagonal-LAD grafts. Patients with sequential LITA-Diagonal-LAD grafts were older (66 vs. 65 y, p=0.009) and more often male (88% vs. 83%, p=0.03). Overall, graft failure occurred in 9.3% of patients with LITA-LAD grafts, with more graft failure occurring in single (9.5%) than in sequential LITA-Diagonal-LAD grafts (6.4%, p=0.08) at a median (25 th -75 th percentile) time to imaging of 1.0 (1.0-1.1) years. After multivariable adjustment, sequential LITA-Diagonal-LAD grafting was not associated with graft failure (adjusted odds ratio: 1.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.68-2.18, p=0.55). There was no difference in mortality (2.8% vs. 5.3%, p=0.06), myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.6%, p=0.90), revascularization (4.5% vs. 7.3%, p=0.08), or stroke (1.7% vs. 1.2%, p=0.40) between groups., Conclusions: In selected patients, LITA-Diagonal-LAD grafting was not associated with higher risk of graft failure or adverse clinical events at one year., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Aims: Correction of calcium and protein undernutrition using milk, yoghurt, and cheese in older adults in aged care homes is associated with reduced fractures and falls. However, these foods contain potentially atherogenic fats. We aimed to determine whether this intervention that increased dairy consumption to recommended levels adversely affects serum lipid profiles., Method and Results: This was a sub-group analysis of a 2-year cluster-randomised trial involving 60 aged care homes in Australia. Thirty intervention homes provided additional milk, yoghurt, and cheese on menus while 30 control homes continued with their usual menus. A sample of 159 intervention and 86 controls residents (69% female, median age 87.8 years) had dietary intakes recorded using plate waste analysis and fasting serum lipids measured at baseline and 12 months. Diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and use of relevant medications were determined from medical records. Outcome measures were serum total, HDL and LDL cholesterol and ApoA-1 & B. Intervention increased daily dairy servings from 1.9 ± 1.0 to 3.5 ± 1.4 (p < 0.001) while controls continued daily intakes of ≤2 servings daily (1.7 ± 1.0 to 2.0 ± 1.0 (p = 0.028). No group differences were observed for serum total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein-C (TC/HDL-C) ratio, Apoprotein B/Apoprotein A-1 (ApoB/ApoA-1) ratio, low-density lipoprotein-C (LDL-C), non-HDL-C, or triglycerides (TGs) at 12 months., Conclusion: Among older adults in aged care homes, correcting insufficiency in intakes of calcium and protein using milk, yoghurt and cheese does not alter serum lipid levels, suggesting that this is a suitable intervention for reducing the risk of falls and fractures., Clinical Trial Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12613000228785) 2012; https://www.anzctr.org.au., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest SI has received lecture fees from Abbott, Nestle Health Science, UK Dairy Baord, and European Milk Forum. CF, SP, JR, SV, DLH and ES have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Women have worse outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) than men., Objectives: This study aimed to determine the incidence of CABG graft failure in women, its association with cardiac events, and whether it contributes to sex-related differences in outcomes., Methods: A pooled analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials with systematic imaging follow-up was performed. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association of graft failure with myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization between CABG and imaging (primary outcome) and death after imaging (secondary outcome). Mediation analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of graft failure on the association between female sex and risk of death., Results: Seven randomized clinical trials (N = 4,413, 777 women) were included. At a median imaging follow-up of 1.03 years, graft failure was significantly more frequent among women than men (37.3% vs 32.9% at the patient-level and 20.5% vs 15.8% at the graft level; P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). In women, graft failure was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization (OR: 3.94; 95% CI: 1.79-8.67) and death (OR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.73-5.85). Female sex was independently associated with the risk of death (direct effect, HR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.35-2.50) but the association was not mediated by graft failure (indirect effect, HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.86-1.26)., Conclusions: Graft failure is more frequent in women and is associated with adverse cardiac events. The excess mortality risk associated with female sex among CABG patients is not mediated by graft failure., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Di Franco has consulted for Novo Nordisk and Servier; and has served as an Advisory Board Member for Novo Nordisk and Scharper. Dr Fremes has received institutional support from Medtronic, Boston, and Amgen for clinical trial participation. Dr Hare has received research grants, educational grants, honoraria, or consultation fees from Abbott Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Structural Heart, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL-Seqiris, Kaneka (Japan), Lundbeck (Denmark), Menarini (Italy), Merk KA (Germany), Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor; and has received fellowship and research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Heart Foundation of Australia, the Austin Medical Research Foundation, and Diabetes Australia. Dr ten Berg has received institutional funding of the POPular CABG trial by AstraZeneca. Dr Bhatt has served on the Advisory Board of Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Stasys; has served on the Board of Directors of American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave (stock options), Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), and High Enroll (stock); has served as a consultant for Broadview Ventures, Hims, SFJ, and Youngene; has served on Data Monitoring Committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the National Institutes of Health-funded MINT Trial); has received honoraria from American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), and Wiley (steering committee); served as Deputy Editor for Clinical Cardiology; is named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon (neither he nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; receives royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); has served as Site Co-Investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; is a Trustee of the American College of Cardiology; and has performed unfunded research for FlowCo. Dr Alexander has research support through Duke University from Artivion, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Ferring, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Humacyte, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and XaTek; and has received consulting payments or honoraria from AbbVie, Akros, Artivion, AtriCure, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novostia, Pfizer, Portola, Quantum Genomics, Teikoku, Theravance, and Veralox. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While transradial access is favored for cardiac catheterization, the radial artery (RA) is increasingly preferred for coronary artery bypass grafting. Whether the RA is suitable for use as a graft following instrumentation for transradial access remains uncertain., Methods: Consecutive patients from 2015 to 2019 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using both the left and right RAs as grafts were included. Instrumented RAs underwent careful preoperative assessment for suitability. The clinical analysis was stratified by whether patients received an instrumented RA graft (instrumented versus noninstrumented groups). Eligible patients with both instrumented and noninstrumented RAs underwent computed tomography coronary angiography to evaluate graft patency. The primary outcome was a within-patient paired analysis of graft patency comparing instrumented to noninstrumented RA grafts., Results: Of the 1123 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, 294 had both the left and right RAs used as grafts and were included. There were 126 and 168 patients in the instrumented and noninstrumented groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were comparable. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years following coronary artery bypass grafting was 2.4% in the instrumented group and 5.4% in the noninstrumented group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.12-1.61]; P =0.19). There were 50 patients included in the graft patency analysis. At a median follow-up of 4.3 (interquartile range, 3.7-4.5) years, 40/50 (80%) instrumented and 41/50 (82%) noninstrumented grafts were patent (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.29-2.52]; P >0.99). No significant differences were observed in the luminal diameter or cross-sectional area of the instrumented and noninstrumented RA grafts., Conclusions: There was no evidence found in this study that RA graft patency was affected by prior transradial access, and the use of an instrumented RA was not associated with worse outcomes in the exploratory clinical analysis. Although conduits must be carefully selected, prior transradial access should not be considered an absolute contraindication to the use of the RA as a bypass graft., Registration: URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12621000257864., Competing Interests: None.

Background: This study evaluates primary care practices' engagement with various features of a quality improvement (QI) intervention for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in four Australian states., Methods: Twenty-seven practices participated in the QI intervention from November 2019 -November 2020. A combination of surveys, semi-structured interviews and other materials within the QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living with heart disease (QUEL) study were used in the process evaluation. Data were summarised using descriptive statistical and thematic analyses for 26 practices., Results: Sixty-four practice team members and Primary Health Networks staff provided feedback, and nine of the 63 participants participated in the interviews. Seventy-eight percent (40/54) were either general practitioners or practice managers. Although 69% of the practices self-reported improvement in their management of heart disease, engagement with the intervention varied. Forty-two percent (11/26) of the practices attended five or more learning workshops, 69% (18/26) used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and the median (Interquartile intervals) visits per practice to the online SharePoint site were 170 (146-252) visits. Qualitative data identified learning workshops and monthly feedback reports as the key features of the intervention., Conclusion: Practice engagement in a multi-featured data-driven QI intervention was common, with learning workshops and monthly feedback reports identified as the most useful features. A better understanding of these features will help influence future implementation of similar interventions., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12619001790134., Competing Interests: The funding body and industry partners were not involved in the design of the study and did not have any role during its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results. Amgen and Sanofi Australia have provided cash support to the main study. MW is a consultant to Amgen, Freeline and Kyowa Kirin. Other authors have nothing to disclose. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policy on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Hafiz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors. Mental health is considered an important risk factor affecting the treatment of cardiovascular disease. However, little is known about the use of secondary prevention strategies for CVD in patients with both cancer and CVD. This study aimed to compare the utilisation of primary care chronic disease management plans, mental health care and guideline-indicated cardioprotective medications among CVD patients with and without cancer., Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study utilising clinical data of patients with CVD from 50 Australian primary care practices. Outcomes included the use of chronic disease management plans, mental health care, guideline-indicated cardioprotective medications and influenza vaccination. Logistic regression, accounting for demographic and clinical covariates and clustering effects by practices, was used to compare the two groups., Results: Of the 15,040 patients with CVD, 1,486 patients (9.9%) concurrently had cancer. Patients with cancer, compared to those without, were older (77.6 vs 71.8 years, p<0.001), more likely to drink alcohol (62.6% vs 55.7%, p<0.001), have lower systolic (130.3±17.8 vs 132.5±21.1 mmHg, p<0.001) and diastolic (72.2±11 vs 75.3±34 mmHg, p<0.001) blood pressure. Although suboptimal for both groups, patients with cancer were significantly more likely to have general practice management plans (GPMPs) (51.4% vs 43.2%, p<0.001), coordination of team care arrangements (TCAs) (46.2% vs 37.0%, p<0.001), have a review of either GPMP or TCA (42.8% vs 34.7%, p<0.001), have a mental health treatment consultation (15.4% vs 10.5%, p=0.004) and be prescribed blood pressure-lowering medications (70.1% vs 66.0%, p=0.002). However, there were no statistical differences in the prescription of lipid-lowering or antiplatelet medications. After adjustments for covariates and multiple testing, patients with cancer did not show a difference in GPMPs, TCAs, and a review of either, but were more likely to receive mental health treatment consultations than those without cancer (odds ratio 1.76; 95% confidence interval 1.42-2.19)., Conclusions: Less than half of patients with CVD had a GPMP, TCA or review of either. Although those patients with cancer were more likely to receive these interventions, still around half the patients did not. Medicare-funded GPMPs, TCAs and a review of either GPMP or TCA were underutilised, and future studies should seek to identify ways of improving access to these services., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Heart failure (HF) nurse practitioners (NPs) are an important part of the HF specialist team, and their impact on the cost-effectiveness of their role is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a HF NP inpatient service compared with current practice of no HF NP service from a health system perspective at 12 months and 3 years., Methods and Results: We developed a Markov model to estimate costs, effects, and cost-effectiveness for hospitalized HF patients and seen by a HF NP service compared with usual care at 12 months and 3 years. Costs and effects were taken from a retrospective observational cohort study. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from published studies. A total of 500 patients were included (250 patients in the HF NP service vs. 250 patients in usual care). Average age was 77.7 ± 11 years, and 54% were male. At 12 months, the HF NP group was cheaper and more effective compared with no HF NP [$23 031 vs. $25 111 (AUD), respectively; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.68 in HF NP group compared with 0.66 in usual care]. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed a savings of $109 474 per QALY gained at 12 months and a savings of $270 667 per QALY gained at 3 years in favour of the HF NP service., Conclusion: The HF NP service was cost-effective with lower costs and higher QALYs compared with no HF NP service. Economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials are warranted., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D.L.H. reports Consultancy, Advisory Board, Educational or Research Funds from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kaneka, Lundbeck, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor. The other authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)