Search

A 60-year-old woman with a past medical history of asthma presented with fulminant myocarditis 9 days after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 16 days after developing symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Her hospital course was complicated by the need for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ventricular arrhythmias, and pseudomonas bacteremia. She ultimately recovered and was discharged to home with normal left ventricular systolic function. Thereafter, she developed symptomatic ventricular tachycardia, for which she received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

Accurate estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is important for guiding cholesterol-lowering therapy. Different methods currently exist to estimate LDL-C.This study sought to assess discordance of estimated LDL-C using the Friedewald, Sampson, and Martin/Hopkins equations.Electronic health record data from patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and triglyceride (TG) levels of 400 mg/dL between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. LDL-C was estimated using the Friedewald, Sampson, and Martin/Hopkins equations. Patients were categorized as concordant if LDL-C was 70 mg/dL with each pairwise comparison of equations and as discordant if LDL-C was 70 mg/dL for the index equation and ≥70 mg/dL for the comparator.The study included 146,106 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (mean age: 68 years; 56% male; 91% White). The Martin/Hopkins equation consistently estimated higher LDL-C values than the Friedewald and Sampson equations. Discordance rates were 15% for the Friedewald vs Martin/Hopkins comparison, 9% for the Friedewald vs Sampson comparison, and 7% for the Sampson vs Martin/Hopkins comparison. Discordance increased at lower LDL-C cutpoints and in those with elevated TG levels. Among patients with TG levels of ≥150 mg/dL, a10 mg/dL difference in LDL-C was present in 67%, 27%, and 23% of patients when comparing the Friedewald vs Martin/Hopkins, Friedewald vs Sampson, and Sampson vs Martin/Hopkins equations, respectively.Clinically meaningful differences in estimated LDL-C exist among equations, particularly at TG levels of ≥150 mg/dL and/or lower LDL-C levels. Reliance on the Friedewald and Sampson equations may result in the underestimation and undertreatment of LDL-C in those at increased risk.

BACKGROUND Bleeding is a common and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) are used paradoxically less in patients at high-risk of bleeding: "bleeding risk-treatment paradox" (RTP). We determined whether hospitals and physicians, who do not align BAS to PCI patients' bleeding risk (ie, exhibit a RTP) have higher bleeding rates. METHODS We examined 28,005 PCIs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry for 7 hospitals comprising BJC HealthCare. BAS included transradial intervention, bivalirudin, and vascular closure devices. Patients' predicted bleeding risk was based on National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model and categorized as low (

Introduction: Despite availability of effective and inexpensive pharmacologic therapies for hypercholesterolemia and hypertension, many patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) do not achieve optimal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels. We hypothesized that risk factor control could be improved by using nurse practitioners and a guideline-directed protocol in a Medicare Advantage (MA) population. Methods: We designed and implemented an ongoing 18 site, multistate (FL, TX, NV), ASCVD risk assessment and management program (Healthy Heart) in a large national MA primary care clinic (Cano Health). The cardiometabolic risk assessment and management program was designed by a team of preventive cardiologists, with the plan of being Nurse Practitioner (NP)-led, with remote support by a cardiologist. Protocols provided details on initiation and titration of drug therapy to achieve LDL-C and SBP goals. Patients with organ transplants, advanced cancer, an ejection fraction Results: From October 2021-October 2022, 5430 patients were enrolled in the program. A total of 1858 (34.2%) had established ASCVD, 1033 (19.0%) had diabetes mellitus (DM). A total of 713 (13.1%) had both ASCVD and DM. In patients who had ASCVD and diabetes together, high intensity statin use increased from 39.4% to 68.3% after enrollment; 52.66% achieved an LDL-C Conclusions: Implementing a novel cardiovascular prevention program in a population of mostly Hispanic MA patients at high risk for ASCVD, using NPs, with strict adherence to a step-by-step evidence-based protocol supervised by cardiologists, is associated with reduction in LDL levels and SBP and with improvement in reaching LDL and SBP targets.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed longstanding racial and ethnic inequities in health risks and outcomes in the United States. We aimed to identify racial and ethnic differences in presentation and outcomes for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: The American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry is a retrospective observational registry capturing consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We present data on the first 7868 patients by race/ethnicity treated at 88 hospitals across the United States between January 17, 2020, and July 22, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure) and COVID-19 cardiorespiratory ordinal severity score (worst to best: death, cardiac arrest, mechanical ventilation with mechanical circulatory support, mechanical ventilation with vasopressors/inotrope support, mechanical ventilation without hemodynamic support, and hospitalization alone. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship between race/ethnicity and each outcome adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and presentation features, and accounting for clustering by hospital. Results: Among 7868 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 33.0% were Hispanic, 25.5% were non-Hispanic Black, 6.3% were Asian, and 35.2% were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic and Black patients were younger than non-Hispanic White and Asian patients and were more likely to be uninsured. Black patients had the highest prevalence of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Black patients also had the highest rates of mechanical ventilation (23.2%) and renal replacement therapy (6.6%) but the lowest rates of remdesivir use (6.1%). Overall mortality was 18.4% with 53% of all deaths occurring in Black and Hispanic patients. The adjusted odds ratios for mortality were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76–1.14) for Black patients, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.73–1.11) for Hispanic patients, and 1.31 (95% CI, 0.96–1.80) for Asian patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients. The median odds ratio across hospitals was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.74–2.48). Results were similar for major adverse cardiovascular events. Asian patients had the highest COVID-19 cardiorespiratory severity at presentation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.16–1.90]). Conclusions: Although in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ by race/ethnicity after adjustment, Black and Hispanic patients bore a greater burden of mortality and morbidity because of their disproportionate representation among COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is an underdiagnosed genetic disorder, resulting from mutations in sarcomeric proteins. It has a highly variable clinical presentation, with some individuals remaining asymptomatic and others having significant limitation of functional status. The disorder is typically characterized by left ventricular hypertrophy that is not explained by another cause. Patients are further classified based on whether there is obstruction of the left ventricular outflow tract. To-date, there are no pharmacologic therapies that alter the natural history of the disease. Therapeutic approaches have instead focused on symptom relief and prevention of sudden cardiac death. Newer therapies under investigation represent potential means to improve limiting symptoms.

A 60-year-old woman with a past medical history of asthma presented with fulminant myocarditis 9 days after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 16 days after developing symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Her hospital course was complicated by the need for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ventricular arrhythmias, and pseudomonas bacteremia. She ultimately recovered and was discharged to home with normal left ventricular systolic function. Thereafter, she developed symptomatic ventricular tachycardia, for which she received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

Multiple class I and class IIa recommendations exist related to surgical ablation (SA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.Examine temporal trends and predictors of SA for AF in a large US healthcare system.We retrospectively analyzed data from the Society for Thoracic Surgery (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database for 21 hospitals in the Providence St. Joseph Health system. All patients with preoperative AF who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), AVR with CABG surgery (AVR+CABG), isolated mitral valve repair or replacement (MVRr), and MVRr with CABG surgery (MVRr+CABG) from July 1, 2014, to March 31, 2020 were included. Temporal trends in SA were evaluated using the Cochran-Armitage trends test. A multilevel logistic regression model was used to examine patient-, hospital-, and surgeon-level predictors of SA.Among 3124 patients with preoperative AF, 910 (29.1%) underwent SA. This was performed most often in those undergoing isolated MVRr (n = 324, 44.8%) or MVRr+CABG (n = 75, 35.2%). Rates of SA increased over time and were highly variable between hospitals. Years since graduation from medical school for the primary operator was one of the few predictors of SA: odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 0.71 (0.56-0.90) for every 10-year increase. Annual surgical (both hospital and operator) and AF catheter ablation volumes were not predictive of SA.Wide variability in rates of SA for AF exist, underscoring the need for greater preoperative collaboration between cardiologists, electrophysiologists, and cardiac surgeons.

Treatment guidelines recommend monitoring of lipids to assess efficacy and adherence to lipid lowering therapy. We assessed whether lipid profile monitoring is associated with intensification of cholesterol lowering therapy. Patients from the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and at least one primary care visit between October 2013 and September 2014 were included (n = 1,061,753). Treatment intensification was defined as the initiation of a statin, an increase in the intensity or dose of statin therapy and/or the addition of ezetimibe. An association between the number of lipid panels and treatment intensification was assessed with adjusted regression models. During the study period, 87.1% of included patients had ≥1 lipid panel. Patients with ≥1 lipid panel were more likely to undergo treatment intensification compared with individuals with 0 lipid panels (9.3% vs 5.4%, respectively, p0.001). Among individuals not on statin therapy at the index date (n = 287,636), those with ≥1 lipid panel were more likely to have a statin initiated compared those who without a lipid panel (21.5% vs 8.7%, p0.001). On regression analysis (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval {CI}]), patients with 1 lipid panel (1.55 [1.50 to 1.59]), 2 to 3 lipid panels (1.76 [1.71 to 1.81]) and3 lipid panels (3.02 [2.90 to 3.14]) showed greater odds of treatment intensification compared with individuals without a lipid panel. In conclusion, lipid monitoring is associated with higher rates of treatment intensification in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This has important clinical implications as higher intensity regimens with statins and in combination with select nonstatin therapies is associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes.

As COVID-19 cases begin to decrease in the USA, learning from the pandemic experience will provide insights regarding disparities of care delivery. We sought to determine if specific populations hospitalized with COVID-19 are equally likely to be enrolled in clinical trials. We examined patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at centers participating in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 CVD Registry. The primary outcome was odds of enrollment in a clinical trial, according to sex, race, and ethnicity. Among 14,397 adults hospitalized with COVID-19, 9.5% (n = 1,377) were enrolled in a clinical trial. The proportion of enrolled patients was the lowest for Black patients (8%); in multivariable analysis, female and Black patients were less likely to be enrolled in a clinical trial related to COVID-19 compared to men and other racial groups, respectively. Determination of specific reasons for the disparities in trial participation related to COVID-19 in these populations should be further investigated.

Background: Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; TRI) reduces adverse outcomes when compared with transfemoral PCI (TFI). However, TRI is also used less in high-risk patients. It remains unknown how baseline patient risk influences access-site choice among PCI operators and whether the absolute benefit of TRI is greater among patients at high risk for bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), and death. Methods: We analyzed 28 005 PCIs performed in a 7-hospital system between July, 01, 2009 and April 30, 2018, to assess the choice of access-site (TRI versus TFI) as a function of baseline risk for bleeding, AKI, and death, and examined whether the association between TRI use (versus TFI) and in-hospital outcomes is influenced by baseline risk. Results: Among 28 005 PCIs, over a 9-year period, TRI increased over time, however, a risk-treatment paradox for TRI use was observed not only for bleeding risk, but also AKI, and mortality risks, where TRI use was lower in those at highest risk. Operator variability with TRI was large. The incidences of bleeding, AKI, and death were higher with TFI versus TRI. The absolute risk difference between TRI and TFI increased with increasing baseline risk. The number needed to treat to prevent one adverse event with TRI (versus TFI) in low-, moderate- and high-risk groups, respectively, was 259, 82, and 32 for bleeding; 194, 53, and 40 for AKI; and 957, 78, and 18 for death. Conclusions: This analysis of a large multicenter cohort of patients with PCI demonstrates a risk-treatment paradox for TRI use, not only for bleeding, but also for AKI and death. Despite this, a greater absolute risk difference favoring TRI was observed among patients with the highest baseline risk. Addressing the risk-treatment paradox by preferentially selecting TRI across the spectrum of risk, but especially high-risk cases, may be an important potential strategy for improving outcomes with PCI.

There is little data describing trends in the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 following publication of randomized trials that failed to demonstrate a benefit of this therapy. We identified 13,957 patients admitted for active COVID-19 at 85 U.S. hospitals participating in a national registry between March 1 and August 31, 2020. The overall proportion of patients receiving hydroxychloroquine peaked at 55.2% in March and April and decreased to 4.8% in May and June and 0.8% in July and August. At the hospital-level, median use was 59.4% in March and April (IQR 48.5–71.5%, range 0–100%) and decreased to 0.3% (IQR 0–5.4%, range 0–100%) by May and June and 0% (IQR 0–1.3%, range 0–36.4%) by July and August. The rate and hospital-level uniformity in deimplementation of this ineffective therapy for COVID-19 reflects a rapid response to evolving clinical information and further study may offer strategies to inform deimplementation of ineffective clinical care.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine cardiovascular care, with unclear impact on procedural deferrals and associated outcomes across diverse patient populations. Methods Cardiovascular procedures performed at 30 hospitals across six Western states in two large, non-profit healthcare systems (Providence St. Joseph Health and Stanford Healthcare) from December 2018-June 2020 were analyzed for changes over time. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared across pandemic phases with multivariate logistic regression. Results Among 36,125 procedures (69% percutaneous coronary intervention, 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 10% transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and 8% surgical aortic valve replacement), weekly volumes changed in two distinct phases after the initial inflection point on February 23, 2020: an initial period of significant deferral (COVID I: March 15 to April 11) followed by recovery (COVID II: April 12 onwards). Compared to pre-COVID, COVID I patients were less likely to be female (p=0.0003), older (p, Graphical Abstract Image, graphical abstract

Non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism anticoagulation risk assessment tools have been increasingly utilized to guide implementation and duration of anticoagulant therapy. Anticoagulation significantly reduces stroke and recurrent venous thromboembolism risk, but comes at the cost of increased risk of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. The decision for anticoagulation in high-risk patients is complicated by the fact that many risk factors associated with increased thromboembolic risk are simultaneously associated with increased bleeding risk. Traditional risk assessment tools rely heavily on age, sex, and presence of cardiovascular comorbidities, with newer tools additionally taking into account changes in risk factors over time and novel biomarkers to facilitate more personalized risk assessment. These tools may help counsel and inform patients about the risks and benefits of starting or continuing anticoagulant therapy and can identify patients who may benefit from more careful management. Although the ability to predict anticoagulant-associated hemorrhagic risk is modest, ischemic and bleeding risk scores have been shown to add significant value to therapeutic management decisions. Ultimately, further work is needed to optimally implement accurate and actionable risk stratification into clinical practice.

Despite decades of improvement in the quality and outcomes of cardiovascular care, significant gaps remain. Existing quality improvement strategies are often limited in scope to specific clinical conditions and episodic care. Health services and outcomes research is essential to inform gaps in care but rarely results in the development and implementation of care delivery solutions. Although individual health systems are engaged in projects to improve the quality of care delivery, these efforts often lack a robust study design or implementation evaluation that can inform generalizability and further dissemination. Aligning the work of health care systems and health services and outcomes researchers could serve as a strategy to overcome persisting gaps in cardiovascular quality and outcomes. We describe the inception of the Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium that seeks to rapidly improve cardiovascular care by (1) developing, implementing, and evaluating multicenter quality improvement projects using innovative care designs; (2) serving as a resource for quality improvement and care innovation partners; and (3) establishing a presence within existing quality improvement and care innovation structures. Success of the collaborative will be defined by projects that result in changes to care delivery with demonstrable impacts on the quality and outcomes of care across multiple health systems. Furthermore, insights gained from implementation of these projects across sites in Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium will inform and promote broad dissemination for greater impact.

Background: Procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin (BIV), trans-radial intervention (TRI), and use of a vascular closure device (VCD) are thought to mitigate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related bleeding. We compared the impact of these bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) for PCIs stratified by bleeding risk. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of PCIs from 18 facilities within one health care system from 2009Q3 to 2017Q4. Bleeding risk was assessed per the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model, with procedures stratified into 6 categories (first, second, third quartiles, 75th–90th, 90th–97.5th, and top 2.5th percentiles). Regression models were used to assess the impact of BAS on bleeding outcome. Results: Of 74 953 PCIs, 9.4% used no BAS, 12.0% used BIV alone, 20.8% used TRI alone, 26.8% used VCD alone, 5.4% used TRI+BIV, and 25.6% used VCD+BIV. The crude bleeding rate was 4.4% overall. Only 2 comparisons showed significant trends across all risk strata: VCD+BIV versus no BAS, odds ratio (95% CI) range: first quartile, 0.36 (0.18–0.72) to top 2.5th percentile, 0.50 (0.32–0.78); TRI versus no BAS, odds ratio (95% CI) range: first quartile, 0.15 (0.06–0.38) to top 2.5th percentile, 0.49 (0.28–0.86). TRI had lower odds of bleeding compared with BIV for all risk strata except the top 2.5th percentile. Addition of BIV to TRI did not change the odds of bleeding for any risk strata. Factors potentially limiting use of TRI (renal failure, shock, cardiac arrest, and mechanical circulatory support) were present in ≤10% of procedures below the 90th percentile. Conclusions: Among individual BAS, only TRI had consistently lower odds of bleeding across all risk strata. Factors potentially limiting TRI were found infrequently in procedures below the 90th percentile of bleeding risk. For transfemoral PCI, VCD+BIV had lower odds of bleeding compared with no BAS across all risk strata.

How Providence St. Joseph Health consolidated one of its cardiac surgery programs, maintained procedural volume, and improved clinical outcomes.

The potential benefit and risks of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) over single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) in patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is controversial.We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational and randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing DAPT to SAPT following urgent or elective CABG. Subanalyses were performed restricted to: a) RCTs; b) stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD); c) extended duration DAPT (≥6 months); and d) follow-up ≥2 years.Twenty-two studies comprising 20,315 patients undergoing CABG were included. Of the participants studied, 7481 (37%) received postoperative DAPT and 12,834 (63%) received SAPT. Overall, DAPT was associated with a lower cardiovascular (CV) mortality (OR 0.67; p = 0.02) and a trend towards lower all-cause mortality (OR 0.78; p = 0.08). There were no differences in rates of myocardial infarction or stroke. Subanalyses in RCTs, SIHD, and prolonged follow-up failed to demonstrate improvement in these outcomes with DAPT. However, in studies with extended duration DAPT, stroke was significantly reduced in the DAPT group (OR 0.47; p = 0.04). Saphenous vein graft (SVG) occlusion up to 1 year after CABG was significantly lower with DAPT overall (OR 0.64; p 0.01) and in the RCT subanalysis (OR 0.58; p 0.01). Major bleeding was significantly higher with DAPT (OR 1.31; p = 0.03).While DAPT has been associated with lower CV mortality in observational samples undergoing CABG, such findings were not replicated in RCTs. Lower rates of SVG occlusion with DAPT are offset by a higher rate of major bleeding.

Millions of individuals in the United States require long-term treatment with an oral anticoagulant. For decades, vitamin K antagonists were the only oral option available; however, they have a number of well-known limitations. Introduction of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has long been considered a major therapeutic advance, largely because they lack the need for therapeutic monitoring. Despite this, DOACs, like vitamin K antagonists, can still cause major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, even when used appropriately. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) involving the DOACs represent an important contributor to increased bleeding risk. Awareness of these DDIs and how best to address them is of critical importance in optimizing management while mitigating bleeding risk. This review provides an overview of DOAC metabolism, the most common drugs likely to contribute to DOAC DDIs, their underlying mechanisms, and how best to address them.

Background: Association between hospital site-led structure, system and process changes, number of site-initiated technologies, the perceived value of program-directed services aimed at promoting quality improvement and process and outcome metrics achieved are unknown after a 2-year acute myocardial infarction and heart failure (AMI-HF) quality program. Methods: After participation in the Patient Navigator Program, hospitals (n=35) completed surveys on the implementation of structure, system and process changes, number of site-initiated technologies, and the perceived value of program directed educational calls and webinars, quality-focused site visits, use of a list-serv that facilitated site coordinator communication and data reports. Univariate analyses assessed the associations of each factor with 30-day unadjusted AMI-HF rehospitalization and in-hospital risk adjusted AMI death and 14 AMI-HF process metrics. Results: When hospital structure, system and process changes were high, sites were more likely to improve 30-day HF re-hospitalization, p =0.014. The number of site-initiated technologies and the value of using a list-serv to communicate with other program sites were not associated with outcome or process metric changes from baseline to 2 years. Sites that rated program-led educational calls and webinars as a high value were more likely to improve AMI-HF self-care education documentation, p =0.049. Sites that rated quality-related site visits as high value were more likely to improve left ventricular systolic dysfunction evaluation, p =0.035 and 30-day unadjusted AMI-HF rehospitalization rates ( p =0.021 and 0.007, respectively). Sites who rated the value of data reports more highly were less likely to improve 30-day unadjusted AMI rehospitalization, p =0.006 and more likely to improve 30-day HF rehospitalization, p =0.033. Conclusion: Hospital-initiated structure-system-process changes and Patient Navigator Program-directed services that were perceived as high value, especially site visits and data reports, were more likely to be associated with improved 30-day HF re-hospitalization rates and some process improvements compared to baseline.

Importance The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed health care delivery worldwide. Although decreases in hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have been reported during the pandemic, the implication for in-hospital outcomes is not well understood. Objective To define changes in AMI case rates, patient demographics, cardiovascular comorbidities, treatment approaches, and in-hospital outcomes during the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study retrospectively analyzed AMI hospitalizations that occurred between December 30, 2018, and May 16, 2020, in 1 of the 49 hospitals in the Providence St Joseph Health system located in 6 states (Alaska, Washington, Montana, Oregon, California, and Texas). The cohort included patients aged 18 years or older who had a principal discharge diagnosis of AMI (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] or non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]). Segmented regression analysis was performed to assess changes in weekly case volumes. Cases were grouped into 1 of 3 periods: before COVID-19 (December 30, 2018, to February 22, 2020), early COVID-19 (February 23, 2020, to March 28, 2020), and later COVID-19 (March 29, 2020, to May 16, 2020). In-hospital mortality was risk-adjusted using an observed to expected (O/E) ratio and covariate-adjusted multivariable model. Exposure Date of hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the weekly rate of AMI (STEMI or NSTEMI) hospitalizations. The secondary outcomes were patient characteristics, treatment approaches, and in-hospital outcomes of this patient population. Results The cohort included 15 244 AMI hospitalizations (of which 4955 were for STEMI [33%] and 10 289 for NSTEMI [67%]) involving 14 724 patients (mean [SD] age of 68 [13] years and 10 019 men [66%]). Beginning February 23, 2020, AMI-associated hospitalizations decreased at a rate of –19.0 (95% CI, –29.0 to –9.0) cases per week for 5 weeks (early COVID-19 period). Thereafter, AMI-associated hospitalizations increased at a rate of +10.5 (95% CI, +4.6 to +16.5) cases per week (later COVID-19 period). No appreciable differences in patient demographics, cardiovascular comorbidities, and treatment approaches were observed across periods. The O/E mortality ratio for AMI increased during the early period (1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48), which was disproportionately associated with patients with STEMI (1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). Although the O/E mortality ratio for AMI was not statistically different during the later period (1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47), increases in the O/E mortality ratio were noted for patients with STEMI (2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) and after risk adjustment (odds ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26). Conclusions and Relevance This cross-sectional study found important changes in AMI hospitalization rates and worse outcomes during the early and later COVID-19 periods. Future studies are needed to identify contributors to the increased mortality rate among patients with STEMI.

In the 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association Guideline (AHA) on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treatment thresholds have been replaced with a focus on global risk. In this context, we re-examine the need for fasting lipid measurements in various clinical scenarios including estimating initial risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a primary prevention patient; screening for familial lipid disorders in a patient with a strong family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or genetic dyslipidemia; clarifying a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome so it can be used to make lifestyle counseling more effective; assessing residual risk in a treated patient; diagnosing and treating patients with suspected hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis; or diagnosing hypertriglyceridemia in patients who require therapy for other conditions that may further elevate triglycerides. Posing a specific question can aid the clinician in understanding when fasting lipids are needed and when nonfasting lipids are adequate.

Successful implementation of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines hinges on a clear understanding of the clinician-patient risk discussion (CPRD). This is a dialogue between the clinician and patient about potential for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk reduction benefits, adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences. Designed especially for primary prevention patients, this process of shared decision making establishes the appropriateness of a statin for a specific patient. CPRD respects the autonomy of an individual striving to make an informed choice aligned with personal values and preferences. Dedicating sufficient time to high-quality CPRD offers an opportunity to strengthen clinician-patient relationships, patient engagement, and medication adherence. We review the guideline-recommended CPRD, the general concept of shared decision making and decision aids, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Risk Estimator application as an implementation tool, and address potential barriers to implementation.

Initial incorporation of the 2013 Blood Cholesterol Guidelines [(1)][1] into clinical practice came with a particular challenge. Providers were asked to assess atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk by manually entering data into an electronic spreadsheet, using the Omnibus Risk

Periprocedural management of anticoagulation is a common clinical conundrum that involves a multidisciplinary team, cuts across many specialties, and varies greatly between institutions in the way it is practiced. Nowhere is this more evident than in the management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although they have been found to improve patient outcomes, standardized evidence-based protocols are infrequently in place. The frequency of anticoagulant interruption in preparation for a procedure is high, with an estimated 250,000 patients undergoing temporary interruption annually in North America alone. Knowledge about risk of bleeding and short-term thrombotic risk resides in many specialties, further complicating the issue. Our goal in creating this pathway is to help guide clinicians in the complex decision making in this area. In this document, we aim to: 1) validate the appropriateness of the decision to chronically anticoagulate; 2) guide clinicians in the decision of whether to interrupt anticoagulation; 3) provide direction on how to interrupt anticoagulation with specific guidance for vitamin K antagonists and direct-acting oral anticoagulants; 4) evaluate whether to bridge with a parenteral agent periprocedurally; 5) offer advice on how to bridge; and 6) outline the process of restarting anticoagulation post-procedure.

Measurement of the inflammatory biomarker high sensitivity C-reaction protein (hsCRP) has been proposed for assessment of risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). It remains unclear which patient populations would benefit from and should be targeted for hsCRP testing. Current data indicate that hsCRP levels are independently associated with risk of CVD, including both coronary events and stroke, in various asymptomatic populations; add predictive power to current coronary risk scores for some intermediate risk individuals; and are associated with clinical outcomes in high risk individuals treated with statin therapy. HsCRP levels are also associated with incident diabetes and CVD outcomes in patients with the metabolic syndrome. There is a growing body of evidence to support recommendations for measurement of hsCRP in selected asymptomatic individuals deemed to be at intermediate risk of CVD according to traditional risk factor assessment and who do not already warrant treatment with chronic aspirin and statin therapy, and selected secondary CVD prevention patients for further risk stratification in combination with LDL cholesterol.

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an inflammatory biomarker that is strongly associated with coronary heart disease, inflammation, and the metabolic syndrome. Large-scale prospective cohort trials have shown that measurement of CRP may add predictive accuracy to the Framingham risk score, but interpretation of these data are conflicting. In the primary prevention setting, CRP can be used to reclassify patients in low or intermediate Framingham risk score groups to a higher risk category, thus making them eligible for more intensive pharmacologic interventions.

In the 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association Guideline (AHA) on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treatment thresholds have been replaced with a focus on global risk. In this context, we re-examine the need for fasting lipid measurements in various clinical scenarios including estimating initial risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a primary prevention patient; screening for familial lipid disorders in a patient with a strong family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or genetic dyslipidemia; clarifying a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome so it can be used to make lifestyle counseling more effective; assessing residual risk in a treated patient; diagnosing and treating patients with suspected hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis; or diagnosing hypertriglyceridemia in patients who require therapy for other conditions that may further elevate triglycerides. Posing a specific question can aid the clinician in understanding when fasting lipids are needed and when nonfasting lipids are adequate.

We appreciate Dr. Cerit's thoughtful comments on our recent article. We agree with his belief that individual patient characteristics should be carefully considered when deciding whether to order fasting or nonfasting lipids. This is one purpose of the patient–clinician risk discussion as outlined

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States and worldwide. Fortunately, it is often preventable with early adoption of lifestyle modification, prevention of risk factor onset, and aggressive treatment of existing risk factors. The Million Hearts Initiative is an effort by the Centers for Disease Control that aims to prevent 1 million myocardial infarctions and strokes over the next 5 years. As part of this initiative, we present a simply organized “ABCDE” approach for guiding a consistent comprehensive approach to managing cardiovascular risk in daily clinical practice. ABCDE stands for assessment of risk, antiplatelet therapy, blood pressure management, cholesterol management, cigarette/tobacco cessation, diet and weight management, diabetes prevention and treatment, and exercise, interventions regularly used to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk. Throughout this article we summarize recommendations related to each topic and reference landmark trials and data that support our approach. We believe that the ABCDE approach will be the core framework for addressing CV risk in our effort to prevent CVD.

An elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a causal risk factor for the development of coronary artery disease (CAD). In both its native and oxidized forms, LDL-C causes direct endothelial cell injury and dysfunction, predisposing to an inflammatory response in the artery wall that

The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) has provided education and guidance for decades on the management of hypercholesterolemia. Its third report (ATP III) was published 10 years ago, with a white paper update in 2004. There is a need for translation of more recent evidence into a revised guideline. To help address the significant challenges facing the ATP IV writing group, this statement aims to provide balanced recommendations that build on ATP III. The authors aim for simplicity to increase the likelihood of implementation in clinical practice. To move from ATP III to ATP IV, the authors recommend the following: (1) assess risk more accurately, (2) simplify the starting algorithm, (3) prioritize statin therapy, (4) relax the follow-up interval for repeat lipid testing, (5) designate70 mg/dl as an "ideal" low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target, (6) endorse targets beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, (7) refine therapeutic target levels to the equivalent population percentile, (8) remove misleading descriptors such as "borderline high," and (9) make lifestyle messages simpler. In conclusion, the solutions offered in this statement represent ways to translate the totality of published reports into enhanced hyperlipidemia guidelines to better combat the devastating impact of hyperlipidemia on cardiovascular health.

PURPOSE One hypothesis by which exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) reduces mortality and cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease invokes a beneficial effect of exercise on autonomic modulation. This study aimed to evaluate the autonomic effects of CR in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS Participants referred to phase 2 CR underwent 4 bicycle stress tests, 2 before starting CR and 2 after. On visits 1 and 3, a symptom-limited bicycle stress test was performed. On visits 2 and 4, the subject exercised to the same workload, but atropine was administered during maximal exercise to achieve parasympathetic blockade. Parasympathetic effect in exercise recovery was computed before and after CR. Heart rate variability for each segment was also quantified. Plasma catecholamine levels were obtained at baseline, peak exercise, and during recovery. RESULTS Seventeen subjects (age 56 ± 10 years; 4 women) were enrolled. Six completed the post-CR testing. There was a significant increase in parasympathetic effect during exercise recovery post-CR (P < .001). There was also a significant increase in heart rate variability during exercise recovery post-CR (P < .001). Resting catecholamine levels were not different pre- and post-CR (NS). Post-CR, there was a blunted increase in peak exercise plasma catecholamine levels compared with those seen pre-CR, but this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated a shift toward increased parasympathetic and possibly, blunted sympathetic effect in this cohort after completion of an exercise-based CR program. Our findings provide insight into the mechanism for the observed changes in exercise parameters following exercise training, and the improved outcomes seen after CR.