Search

In patients with the HeartMate 3 (HM3, Abbott) left ventricular (LV) assist device (LVAD), outflow graft narrowing has been reported as a result of accumulation of biodebris either internal or external to the graft. This study describes the prevalence, imaging findings, and clinical outcomes associated with HM3 LVAD outflow graft narrowing.A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed in patients who received an HM3 LVAD between November 2014 and July 2019. All patients with a computed tomographic (CT) angiogram or a CT scan with intravenous contrast sufficient to evaluate the outflow graft lumen were included. Narrowing was defined as a hypodensity of ≥3 mm.Of 165 HM3 LVAD recipients, 46 (28%) had qualifying imaging. Outflow graft narrowing was present in 33% (15/46). One patient had complete obstruction requiring emergency surgery, whereas 14 patients had a median hypodensity of 4.5 mm (interquartile range, 3.3-5.8 mm). The presence of outflow graft narrowing was significantly associated with a longer duration of LVAD support (588.2 ± 277.5 days vs 131.5 ± 170.9 days; P.0001). One-year survival after identification of narrowing was 93%, with death occurring in 1 patient with complete obstruction. LV unloading (mean percent decrease in LV end-diastolic diameter at time of CT imaging vs pre-LVAD) was 16.7% vs 17.7% in patients with and without narrowing, respectively (P = .86).Among patients with adequate imaging, one-third have evidence of narrowing. Outflow graft narrowing secondary to biodebris was more likely to be found in HM3 LVAD recipients with longer duration of LVAD support. There was no significant difference in LV unloading between patients with and without narrowing.

Hypertension is associated with more end-organ damage, cardiovascular events, and disability-adjusted life years lost in the United States compared with all other modifiable risk factors. Several guidelines and scientific statements now endorse the use of out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring with ambulatory BP monitoring or home BP monitoring to confirm or exclude hypertension status based on office BP measurement. Current ambulatory or home BP monitoring devices have been reliant on the placement of a BP cuff, typically on the upper arm, to measure BP. There are numerous limitations to this approach. Cuff-based BP may not be well-tolerated for repeated measurements as is utilized with ambulatory BP monitoring. Furthermore, improper technique, including incorrect cuff placement or use of the wrong cuff size, may lead to erroneous readings, affecting diagnosis and management of hypertension. Compared with devices that utilize a cuff, cuffless BP devices may overcome challenges related to technique, tolerability, and overall utility in the outpatient setting. However, cuffless devices have several potential limitations that limit its routine use for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. The review discusses the different approaches for determining BP using various cuffless devices including engineering aspects of cuffless device technologies, validation protocols to test accuracy of cuffless devices, potential barriers to widespread implementation, and future areas of research. This review is intended for the clinicians who utilize out-of-office BP monitoring for the diagnosis and management of hypertension.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the consequences of systemic racism in the United States with Black, Hispanic, and other racial and ethnic diverse populations dying at disproportionately higher rates than White Americans. Addressing the social and health disparities amplified by COVID-19 requires in part restructuring of the healthcare system, particularly the diversity of the healthcare workforce to better reflect that of the US population. In January 2021, the Association of Black Cardiologists hosted a virtual roundtable designed to discuss key issues pertaining to medical workforce diversity and to identify strategies aimed at improving racial and ethnic diversity in medical school, graduate medical education, faculty, and leadership positions. The Nurturing Diverse Generations of the Medical Workforce for Success with Authenticity roundtable brought together diverse stakeholders and champions of diversity and inclusion to discuss innovative ideas, solutions, and opportunities to address workforce diversification.

Although mean blood pressure (BP) increases with age, there may be a subset of individuals whose BP does not increase with age. Characterizing the population that maintains normal BP could inform hypertension prevention efforts. We determined the proportion of Jackson Heart Study participants that maintained normal BP at 3 visits over a median of 8 years. Normal BP was defined as systolic BP

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure (BP) Hypertension Clinical Practice Guidelines recommends ambulatory BP monitoring to detect masked hypertension. Data on the short-term reproducibility of masked hypertension are scarce. The IDH study (Improving the Detection of Hypertension) enrolled 408 adults not taking antihypertensive medication from 2011 to 2013. Office BP and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring were performed on 2 occasions, a median of 29 days apart. After excluding participants with office hypertension (mean systolic BP ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg), the analytical sample included 254 participants. Using the κ statistic, we evaluated the reproducibility of masked awake hypertension (awake systolic/diastolic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg) defined by the 2017 BP guideline thresholds, as well as masked 24-hour (24-hour systolic/diastolic BP ≥125/75 mm Hg), masked asleep (asleep systolic/diastolic BP ≥110/65 mm Hg), and any masked hypertension (high awake, 24-hour, and asleep BP). The mean (SD) age of participants was 38.0 (12.3) years and 65.7% were female. Based on the first and second ambulatory BP recordings, 24.0% and 26.4% of participants, respectively, had masked awake hypertension. The κ statistic (95% CI) was 0.50 (0.38–0.62) for masked awake, 0.57 (0.46–0.69) for masked 24-hour, 0.57 (0.47–0.68) for masked asleep, and 0.58 (0.47–0.68) for any masked hypertension. Clinicians should consider the moderate short-term reproducibility of masked hypertension when interpreting the results from a single ambulatory BP recording.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the associations of high awake blood pressure (BP), high asleep BP, and non-dipping BP, determined by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (LVH) and geometry. METHODS: Black and white participants (n=687) in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study underwent 24-hour ABPM and echocardiography at the Year 30 Exam in 2015–2016. The prevalence and prevalence ratios (PR) of LVH were calculated for high awake systolic BP (≥ 130 mmHg), high asleep systolic BP (≥ 110 mmHg), the cross-classification of high awake and asleep systolic BP, and non-dipping systolic BP (percentage decline in awake-to-asleep systolic BP < 10%). Odds ratios (ORs) for abnormal LV geometry associated with these phenotypes were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 46.0% and 49.1% of study participants had high awake and asleep systolic BP, respectively, and 31.1% had non-dipping systolic BP. After adjustment for demographics and clinical characteristics, high awake systolic BP was associated with a PR for LVH of 2.79, (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.63–4.79). High asleep systolic BP was also associated with a PR for LVH of 2.19 (95% CI 1.25–3.83). There was no evidence of an association between non-dipping systolic BP and LVH (PR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44–1.12). High awake systolic BP with or without high asleep systolic BP was associated with a higher OR of concentric remodeling and hypertrophy. CONCLUSION: Awake and asleep systolic BP, but not the decline in awake-to-asleep systolic BP, were associated with increased prevalence of cardiac end-organ damage.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of sex with masked hypertension, defined by out-of-clinic hypertension based on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) among adults without hypertension based on blood pressure (BP) measured in the clinic, after adjusting for potential confounders. METHODS: We evaluated sex differences in the prevalence of masked hypertension and the difference between awake, or alternatively 24-hour, ambulatory BP and clinic BP using multi-variable adjusted models among 658 participants who underwent 24-hour ABPM and had clinic systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) < 140/90 mmHg during the Year 30 Exam of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study. RESULTS: The mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of the participants was 54.8 ± 3.7 years, 58.4% were women, and 58.2% were black. The prevalence of any masked hypertension was 37.5% among women and 60.6% among men. In a model including adjustment for demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, antihypertensive medication, and clinic BP, the prevalence ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing men versus women were 1.39 (1.18, 1.63) for any masked hypertension, and 1.60 (1.28, 1.99), 1.71 (1.36, 2.15), and 1.40 (1.13, 1.73) for masked awake, 24-hour and asleep hypertension respectively. In a fully adjusted model, the differences between mean awake ambulatory BP and clinic BP were 2.75 (standard error [SE] 0.92) mmHg higher for SBP and 3.61 (SE 0.58) mmHg higher for DBP among men compared with women. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of masked hypertension on ABPM was high in both men and women. Male sex was an independent predictor of masked hypertension.

BACKGROUND Telemedicine visit use vastly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this has had an uncertain impact on cardiovascular care quality. OBJECTIVE We sought to examine the association between telemedicine visits and the failure to meet the Controlling High Blood Pressure (BP) quality measure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of 32,727 adult patients with hypertension who were seen in primary care and cardiology clinics at an urban, academic medical center from February to December 2020. The primary outcome was a failure to meet the Controlling High Blood Pressure quality measure, which was defined as having no BP recorded or having a last recorded BP of ≥140/90 mm Hg (ie, poor BP control). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between telemedicine visit use during the study period (none, 1 telemedicine visit, or ≥2 telemedicine visits) and poor BP control; we adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS During the study period, no BP was recorded for 2.3% (486/20,745) of patients with in-person visits only, 27.1% (1863/6878) of patients with 1 telemedicine visit, and 25% (1277/5104) of patients with ≥2 telemedicine visits. After adjustment, telemedicine use was associated with poor BP control (1 telemedicine visit: odds ratio [OR] 2.06, 95% CI 1.94-2.18; PPP=.001; ≥2 telemedicine visits: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-0.99; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS Increased telemedicine visit use is associated with poorer performance on the Controlling High Blood Pressure quality measure. However, telemedicine visit use may not negatively impact BP control when BP is recorded.

Background Telemedicine visit use vastly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this has had an uncertain impact on cardiovascular care quality. Objective We sought to examine the association between telemedicine visits and the failure to meet the Controlling High Blood Pressure (BP) quality measure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 32,727 adult patients with hypertension who were seen in primary care and cardiology clinics at an urban, academic medical center from February to December 2020. The primary outcome was a failure to meet the Controlling High Blood Pressure quality measure, which was defined as having no BP recorded or having a last recorded BP of ≥140/90 mm Hg (ie, poor BP control). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between telemedicine visit use during the study period (none, 1 telemedicine visit, or ≥2 telemedicine visits) and poor BP control; we adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results During the study period, no BP was recorded for 2.3% (486/20,745) of patients with in-person visits only, 27.1% (1863/6878) of patients with 1 telemedicine visit, and 25% (1277/5104) of patients with ≥2 telemedicine visits. After adjustment, telemedicine use was associated with poor BP control (1 telemedicine visit: odds ratio [OR] 2.06, 95% CI 1.94-2.18; P Conclusions Increased telemedicine visit use is associated with poorer performance on the Controlling High Blood Pressure quality measure. However, telemedicine visit use may not negatively impact BP control when BP is recorded.

In 2017, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American College of Physicians/American Academy of Family Physicians (ACP/AAFP) published blood pressure guidelines. Adults recommended antihypertensive medication initiation or intensification by the ACP/AAFP guideline receive the same recommendation from the ACC/AHA guideline. However, many adults ≥60 years old are recommended to initiate or intensify antihypertensive medication by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline. We compared atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates according to antihypertensive treatment recommendations in the ACC/AHA and ACP/AAFP guidelines among adults ≥60 years old with systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg in the REGARDS study (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) and the JHS (Jackson Heart Study). Among 4311 participants not taking antihypertensive medication at baseline, 11.4%, 61.2%, and 27.4% were recommended antihypertensive medication initiation by neither guideline, the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline, and both guidelines, respectively. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates (95% CI) for these groups were 3.4 (1.6–5.2), 18.0 (16.1–19.8), and 25.3 (21.9–28.6) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Among 7281 participants taking antihypertensive medication at baseline, 57.9% and 42.1% were recommended antihypertensive medication intensification by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline and both guidelines, respectively. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates (95% CI) for these groups were 18.2 (16.7–19.7) and 33.0 (30.5–35.4) per 1000 person-years, respectively. In conclusion, adults recommended initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medication by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline have high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk that may be reduced through treatment initiation or intensification.

Background Hypertension guidelines recommend screening and treatment for masked hypertension (MHT). Yet, few primary care providers (PCPs) screen for MHT, and little is known about PCP awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward MHT. Methods Three focus groups involving 30 PCPs from 3 medical centers in New York were conducted. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results Awareness of MHT varied, and only 2 providers had diagnosed MHT. There was also low knowledge about the prevalence and impact of MHT. While some PCPs were receptive to MHT screening after learning about its significance, others viewed the current evidence as insufficient to change practice. Providers were discomforted by labeling patients with nonelevated office blood pressure (BP) as hypertensive and reluctant to add another screening test to their workload without stronger evidence. There was distrust in the accuracy of home BP monitoring to screen for MHT. There was more confidence in ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) for MHT screening, but ABPM was viewed as largely inaccessible. There was broad agreement with lifestyle changes for MHT. There were concerns that antihypertensive medication lacked evidence from randomized trials and could induce harmful side effects. Conclusions Limited PCP knowledge about MHT, concerns about the accuracy and accessibility of screening tests, overloaded PCPs, and insufficient evidence were major barriers to screening and treatment for MHT. Prior to broad uptake by PCPs, randomized trials demonstrating the net benefits of MHT screening and treatment may be needed, along with increased dissemination of knowledge about MHT and improved access to ABPM.

Hypertension is a prevalent condition worldwide with important considerations for athletes. The proper diagnosis and management of hypertension depend on appropriate screening as well as proper technique for blood pressure measurement. The diagnostic workup for hypertension should be thorough and include evaluation for possible underlying etiologies of hypertension as well as identifying high-risk features that may suggest an increased cardiovascular disease risk. How to treat hypertension, including lifestyle modification and antihypertensive therapy, is an important decision that should be made collaboratively with both the clinician and the patient and must be tailored to the patient to improve long-term health outcomes. For many athletes, special consideration must also be given to allow for continued training, maintenance of peak performance, and avoid disqualification from competitive sport.

Objective The mental health toll of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCW) is not yet fully described. We characterized distress, coping, and preferences for support among NYC HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This was a cross-sectional web survey of physicians, advanced practice providers, residents/fellows, and nurses, conducted during a peak of inpatient admissions for COVID-19 in NYC (April 9th–April 24th 2020) at a large medical center in NYC (n = 657). Results Positive screens for psychological symptoms were common; 57% for acute stress, 48% for depressive, and 33% for anxiety symptoms. For each, a higher percent of nurses/advanced practice providers screened positive vs. attending physicians, though housestaff's rates for acute stress and depression did not differ from either. Sixty-one percent of participants reported increased sense of meaning/purpose since the COVID-19 outbreak. Physical activity/exercise was the most common coping behavior (59%), and access to an individual therapist with online self-guided counseling (33%) garnered the most interest. Conclusions NYC HCWs, especially nurses and advanced practice providers, are experiencing COVID-19-related psychological distress. Participants reported using empirically-supported coping behaviors, and endorsed indicators of resilience, but they also reported interest in additional wellness resources. Programs developed to mitigate stress among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic should integrate HCW preferences.

Critical care cardiology has been impacted by the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. COVID-19 causes severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, as well as several cardiovascular complications including myocarditis, venous thromboembolic disease, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest. The cardiac intensive care unit is rapidly evolving as the need for critical care beds increases. Herein, we describe the changes to the cardiac intensive care unit and the evolving role of critical care cardiologists and other clinicians in the care of these complex patients affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. These include practical recommendations regarding a structural and organizational changes to facilitate care of patients with COVID-19; staffing and personnel changes; and health and safety of personnel. We draw upon our own experiences at NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center to offer insights into the unique challenges facing critical care clinicians and provide recommendations of how to address these challenges during this unprecedented time.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019, otherwise known as COVID-19, is a global pandemic with primary respiratory manifestations in those who are symptomatic. It has spread to >187 countries with a rapidly growing number of affected patients. Underlying cardiovascular disease is associated with more severe manifestations of COVID-19 and higher rates of mortality. COVID-19 can have both primary (arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, and myocarditis) and secondary (myocardial injury/biomarker elevation and heart failure) cardiac involvement. In severe cases, profound circulatory failure can result. This review discusses the presentation and management of patients with severe cardiac complications of COVID-19 disease, with an emphasis on a Heart-Lung team approach in patient management. Furthermore, it focuses on the use of and indications for acute mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic and/or mixed shock.

Background Despite growing evidence of cardiovascular complications associated with novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19), there is little data regarding the performance of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and spectrum of echocardiographic findings in this disease. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients admitted to a quaternary care center in New York City between March 1st and April 3rd, 2020. Patients were included if they had a TTE performed during the hospitalization after a known positive diagnosis for COVID-19. Demographic and clinical data were obtained using chart abstraction from the electronic medical record. Results Of 749 patients, 72 (9.6%) had a TTE following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. The most common clinical indications for TTE were concern for a major acute cardiovascular event (45.8%) and hemodynamic instability (29.2%). While most patients had preserved biventricular function, 34.7% were found to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 50% and 13.9% had at least moderately reduced right ventricular function. Four patients had wall motion abnormalities suggestive of stress-induced cardiomyopathy. Using Spearman rank correlation there was an inverse relationship between high sensitivity Troponin T and LVEF (rho = -0.34, p=0.006). Among 20 patients with prior echocardiograms, only two (10%) patients had a new reduction in LVEF of more than 10%. Clinical management was changed in eight (24.2%) of individuals who had a TTE ordered for concern for acute major cardiovascular event; and three (14.3%) in whom TTE was ordered for hemodynamic evaluation. Conclusions This study describes the clinical indications for usage and diagnostic performance, as well as findings seen on TTE in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. In appropriately selected patients TTE can be an invaluable tool for guiding COVID-19 clinical management., Highlights • TTEs are performed in a minority of COVID-19 patients • Focused studies could be performed quickly and the majority of tests were diagnostic • Patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers were more likely to exhibit reduced LV function • In appropriately selected patients TTE can guide COVID-19 clinical management

Introduction: Masked hypertension is defined as having hypertensive blood pressure (BP) outside of the office setting among adults with non-hypertensive BP when measured in the office. Some guidelines recommend defining out-of-office BP using awake measurements while other guidelines recommend using awake and asleep measurements. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that defining masked hypertension using the awake and asleep BP measurements would increase the prevalence of masked hypertension compared to using the awake period alone, and the magnitude of this difference would be greater among non-Hispanic blacks compared with non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. Methods: We pooled previously collected data from 5 NHLBI-funded population- and community-based studies including the Jackson Heart Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study (total participants: 2,866). All participants had office systolic BP (SBP) Results: The prevalence of masked hypertension increased from 29% to 43% when defined using awake, asleep, or 24-hour BP versus using awake BP alone (Table). This increase was larger in non-Hispanic blacks (31-54%) compared with non-Hispanic whites (28-37%) and Hispanics (17-26%). The adjusted prevalence ratio (95% confidence interval) for having masked hypertension for non-Hispanic blacks compared with Non-Hispanic whites was higher from 1.20(1.05,1.37) to 1.33(1.20,1.47) when defined using awake, asleep and 24-hour BP versus awake BP only. Conclusions: Including asleep BP to define masked hypertension increased the prevalence of masked hypertension to a larger extent among non-Hispanic blacks compared to non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics.

Therapeutic inertia may contribute to racial and ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) control.To determine the association between race and ethnicity and therapeutic inertia in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).This cross-sectional study was a secondary analysis of data from SPRINT, a randomized clinical trial comparing intensive (120 mm Hg) vs standard (140 mm Hg) systolic BP treatment goals. Participants were enrolled between November 8, 2010, and March 15, 2013, with a median follow-up 3.26 years. Participants included adults aged 50 years or older at high risk for cardiovascular disease but without diabetes, previous stroke, or heart failure. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured BP above the target goal. Analyses for the present study were performed in from October 2020 through March 2021.Self-reported race and ethnicity, mutually exclusively categorized into groups of Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White participants.Therapeutic inertia, defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the BP was above target goal. The association between self-reported race and ethnicity and therapeutic inertia was estimated using generalized estimating equations and stratified by treatment group. Antihypertensive medication use was assessed with pill bottle inventories at each visit. Blood pressure was measured using an automated device.A total of 8556 participants, including 4141 in the standard group (22 844 participant-visits; median age, 67.0 years [IQR, 61.0-76.0 years]; 1467 women [35.4%]) and 4415 in the intensive group (35 453 participant-visits; median age, 67.0 years [IQR, 61.0-76.0 years]; 1584 women [35.9%]) with at least 1 eligible study visit were included in the present analysis. Among non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic participants, the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia in the standard vs intensive groups was 59.8% (95% CI, 58.9%-60.7%) vs 56.0% (95% CI, 55.2%-56.7%), 56.8% (95% CI, 54.4%-59.2%) vs 54.5% (95% CI, 52.4%-56.6%), and 59.7% (95% CI, 56.5%-63.0%) vs 51.0% (95% CI, 47.4%-54.5%), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios in the standard and intensive groups for therapeutic inertia associated with non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White participants were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for therapeutic inertia comparing Hispanic vs non-Hispanic White participants were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.90-1.13) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00) in the standard and intensive groups, respectively.Among SPRINT participants above BP target goal, this cross-sectional study found that therapeutic inertia prevalence was similar or lower for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants compared with non-Hispanic White participants. These findings suggest that a standardized approach to BP management, as used in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in hypertension.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01206062.