Background Radial access (RA) is increasingly used in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention with encouraging results. However, there are concerns about its safety and efficacy because of higher complexity and the need for strong guide catheter support. Methods and Results We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published through November 2018 reporting the outcomes of RA versus femoral access in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcomes included major bleeding, access-site complications, in-hospital major adverse events, and technical success. Nine observational studies with 10 590 patients (10 617 lesions) were included in the meta-analysis. CTO lesions attempted using RA had lower Japan-CTO score (2.3±1.2 versus 2.5±1.3; P<0.001). Use of RA was associated with similar technical success (78.7% versus 78.5%; odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94-1.31; P=0.24; I2=23%), lower risk of access-site complications (0.73% versus 1.79%; odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.51; P<0.001; I2=0%) and major bleeding (0.18% versus 0.9%; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.45; P<0.001; I2=0%), and similar risk of in-hospital adverse events and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.12-1.07; P=0.07; I2=0%) as compared to femoral access. Results were similar when analyzing radial-only versus any femoral access and when excluding the largest study. Conclusions As compared with femoral access, RA is used in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of less complex lesions and is associated with fewer access-site complications and major bleeding and comparable technical success.

Background The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction has been the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials involving medications and cardiac implantable electronic device therapies. As newer effective pharmacological therapies suggest significant reductions in all-cause mortality, the role of additional device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction deserves further scrutiny. Methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis on the effect of medication and device therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on all-cause mortality was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between January 1980 and July 2017 were identified using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials databases. Pcnetmeta package in R was used to calculate treatment arm-based estimated rates, rate ratios, and probability ranks with 95% credible intervals. Results Combination therapy of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors or ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers) with β-blockers (BBs) alone or in addition to implantable cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators demonstrated a significant reduction of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo. By probability rank, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist combination therapies have the highest probability of being ranked the best treatment. There was no significant difference in the rate of mortality when comparing angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to implantable cardiac defibrillator+optimal pharmacological combination therapy. Conclusions BB and renin-angiotensin system blockers alone or in combination with defibrillator device therapy have robust evidence for a reduction in mortality compared with placebo. The comparative efficacy of pharmacological therapy with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and device therapy deserves further investigation.

Findings among randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of red meat on cardiovascular disease risk factors are inconsistent. We provide an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on red meat and cardiovascular risk factors and determine whether the relationship depends on the composition of the comparison diet, hypothesizing that plant sources would be relatively beneficial.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have emerged as 2 new classes of antihyperglycemic agents that also reduce cardiovascular risk. The relative benefits in patients with and without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for different outcomes with these classes of drugs remain undefined.

Women with a history of certain pregnancy complications are at higher risk for cardiovascular (CVD) disease. However, most clinical guidelines only recommend postpartum follow-up of those with a history of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, or preterm birth. This systematic review was undertaken to determine if there is an association between a broader array of pregnancy complications and the future risk of CVD.

Background To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement in nonelderly adults, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of reported outcome after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and to translate this to age-specific patient outcome estimates. Methods and Results A systematic review was conducted for papers reporting clinical outcome after aortic valve replacement with currently available bioprostheses in patients with a mean age <55 years, published between January 1, 2000, and January 9, 2016. Pooled reported event rates and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event risk for the ages of 25, 35, 45, and 55 years at surgery. Nineteen publications were included, encompassing a total of 2686 patients with 21 117 patient-years of follow-up (pooled mean follow-up: 7.9±4.2 years). Pooled mean age at surgery was 50.7±11.0 years. Pooled early mortality risk was 3.30% (95% CI, 2.39-4.55), late mortality rate was 2.39%/y (95% CI, 1.13-2.94), reintervention 1.82%/y (95% CI, 1.31-2.52), structural valve deterioration 1.59%/y (95% CI, 1.21-2.10), thromboembolism 0.53%/y (95% CI, 0.42-0.67), bleeding 0.22%/y (95% CI, 0.16-0.32), endocarditis 0.48%/y (95% CI, 0.37-0.62), and 20-year pooled actuarial survival was 58.7% and freedom from reintervention was 29.0%. Median time to structural valve deterioration was 17.3 years and median time to all-cause first reintervention was 16.9 years. For a 45-year-old adult, for example, this translated to a microsimulation-based estimated life expectancy of 21 years (general population: 32 years) and lifetime risk of reintervention of 78%, structural valve deterioration 71%, thromboembolism 12%, bleeding 5%, and endocarditis 9%. Conclusions Aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses in young adults is associated with high structural valve deterioration and reintervention rates and low, though not absent, hazards of thromboembolism and bleeding. Foremostly, most patients will require one or more reinterventions during their lifetime and survival is impaired in comparison with the age- and sex-matched general population. Prosthesis durability remains the main concern in nonelderly patients.

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol found little evidence to support the use of nonstatin lipid-modifying medications to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events. Since publication of these guidelines, multiple randomized controlled trials evaluating nonstatin lipid-modifying medications have been published.

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, which are based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a foundation for the delivery of quality cardiovascular care. The ACC and AHA sponsor the development and publication of clinical practice guidelines without commercial support, and members volunteer their time to the writing and review efforts. Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations applicable to patients with or at risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). The focus is on medical practice in the United States, but these guidelines are relevant to patients throughout the world. Although guidelines may be used to inform regulatory or payer decisions, the intent is to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Guidelines are intended to define practices meeting the needs of patients in most, but not all, circumstances, and should not replace clinical judgment. Recommendations for guideline-directed management and therapy, which encompasses clinical evaluation, diagnostic testing, and both pharmacological and procedural treatments, are effective only when followed by both practitioners and patients. Adherence to recommendations can be enhanced by shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, with patient engagement in selecting interventions on the basis of individual values, preferences, and associated conditions and comorbidities. The ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines strives to ensure that the guideline writing committee both contains requisite expertise and is representative of the broader medical community by selecting experts from a broad array of backgrounds, representing different geographic regions, sexes, races, ethnicities, intellectual perspectives/biases, and scopes of clinical practice, and by inviting organizations and professional societies with related interests and expertise to participate as partners or collaborators. The ACC and AHA have rigorous policies and methods to ensure that documents are developed without bias or improper influence. The complete policy on relationships with industry and other entities (RWI) can be found online. Beginning in 2017, numerous modifications to the guidelines have been and continue to be implemented to make guidelines shorter and enhance “user friendliness.” Guidelines are written and presented in a modular knowledge chunk format, in which each chunk includes a table of recommendations, a brief synopsis, recommendation-specific supportive text and, when appropriate, flow diagrams or additional tables. Hyperlinked references are provided for each modular knowledge chunk to facilitate quick access and review. More structured guidelines–including word limits (“targets”) and a web guideline supplement for useful but noncritical tables and figures–are 2 such changes. This Preamble is an abbreviated version, with the detailed version available online. The reader is encouraged to consult the full-text guideline for additional guidance and details, since the executive summary contains mainly the recommendations.

It is unclear whether physiologic pacing by either cardiac biventricular pacing (BiVP) or His bundle pacing (HisBP) may prevent adverse structural and functional consequences known to occur among some patients who receive right ventricular pacing (RVP).

Patients with systemic morphological right ventricles (RVs), including congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries and dextro-transposition of the great arteries with a Mustard or Senning atrial baffle repair, have a high likelihood of developing systemic ventricular dysfunction. Unfortunately, there are a limited number of clinical studies on the efficacy of medical therapy for systemic RV dysfunction. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), beta blockers, and aldosterone antagonists in adults with systemic RVs. The inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years, systemic RVs, and at least 3 months of treatment with ACE inhibitor, ARB, beta blocker, or aldosterone antagonist. The outcomes included RV end-diastolic and end-systolic dimensions, RV ejection fraction, functional class, and exercise capacity. EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were searched. The selected data were pooled and analyzed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis model. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test. A Bayesian meta-analysis model was also used in the event that heterogeneity was low. Bias assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and statistical risk of bias was assessed with Begg and Mazumdar's test and Egger's test. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, contributing a total of 187 patients; treatment with beta blocker was the intervention that could not be analyzed because of the small number of patients and diversity of outcomes reported. After at least 3 months of treatment with ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or aldosterone antagonists, there was no statistically significant change in mean ejection fraction, ventricular dimensions, or peak ventilatory equivalent of oxygen. The methodological quality of the majority of included studies was low, mainly because of a lack of a randomized and controlled design, small sample size, and incomplete follow-up. In conclusion, pooled results across the limited available studies did not provide conclusive evidence with regard to a beneficial effect of medical therapy in adults with systemic RV dysfunction. Randomized controlled trials or comparative-effectiveness studies that are sufficiently powered to demonstrate effect are needed to elucidate the efficacy of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, and aldosterone antagonists in patients with systemic RVs.

Secundum atrial septal defect (ASD) is the most common adult congenital heart defect and can present with wide variation in clinical findings. With the intention of preventing morbidity and mortality associated with late presentation of ASD, consensus guidelines have recommended surgical or percutaneous ASD closure in adults with right heart enlargement, with or without symptoms. The aim of the present analysis was to determine if the protective effect of secundum ASD closure in adults could be qualified by pooling data from published studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by using EMBASE, MEDLINE (through PubMed), and the Cochrane Library databases to assess the effect of secundum ASD percutaneous or surgical closure in unoperated adults ≥18 years of age. Data were pooled across studies with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model or a Bayesian meta-analysis model. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test. Bias assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and statistical risk of bias was assessed with Begg and Mazumdar's test and Egger's test. A total of 11 nonrandomized studies met the inclusion criteria, contributing 603 patients. Pooled analysis showed a protective effect of ASD closure on New York Heart Association functional class and on right ventricular systolic pressure, volumes, and dimensions. Two additional studies comprising 652 patients were reviewed separately for mortality outcome and primary outcome of interest because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Those studies showed that ASD closure was associated with a weak protective effect on adjusted mortality rate but no significant impact on atrial arrhythmias in patients >50 years of age. Across all studies, there was significant heterogeneity between studies for nearly all clinical outcomes. The overall body of evidence was limited to observational cohort studies, the limitations of which make for low-strength evidence. Even within the parameters of the included studies, quality of evidence was further diminished by the lack of well-defined clinical outcomes. In conclusion, pooled data analysis on the impact of secundum ASD closure in adults was notably limited because of the lack of randomized controlled trials in patients with only secundum ASD. The few cohort studies in this population demonstrated improvement in functional status and right ventricular size and function as shown by echocardiogram. However, our findings suggest that at the time of this publication, insufficient data are available to determine the impact of ASD repair on mortality rate in adults.

Risk assessment is a critical step in the current approach to primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Knowledge of the 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease identifies patients in higher-risk groups who are likely to have greater net benefit and lower number needed to treat for both statins and antihypertensive therapy. Current US prevention guidelines for blood pressure and cholesterol management recommend use of the pooled cohort equations to start a process of shared decision-making between clinicians and patients in primary prevention. The pooled cohort equations have been widely validated and are broadly useful for the general US clinical population. But, they may systematically underestimate risk in patients from certain racial/ethnic groups, those with lower socioeconomic status or with chronic inflammatory diseases, and overestimate risk in patients with higher socioeconomic status or who have been closely engaged with preventive healthcare services. If uncertainty remains for patients at borderline or intermediate risk, or if the patient is undecided after a patient-clinician discussion with consideration of risk enhancing factors (eg, family history), additional testing with measurement of coronary artery calcium can be useful to reclassify risk estimates and improve selection of patients for use or avoidance of statin therapy. This special report summarizes the rationale and evidence base for quantitative risk assessment, reviews strengths and limitations of existing risk scores, discusses approaches for refining individual risk estimates for patients, and provides practical advice regarding implementation of risk assessment and decision-making strategies in clinical practice.

The aim was to assess whether periprocedural myocardial injury (PPMI) predicts outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). PPMI is a strong predictor of outcomes following coronary intervention, but its impact in the context of TAVR remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the association between PPMI and short- or long-term outcomes.

Background Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES) has been increasingly used for revascularization of saphenous vein graft stenosis without strong clinical evidence favoring their use. Randomized controlled trials comparing DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft-percutaneous coronary intervention have been inconclusive. Methods and Results We performed a comprehensive literature search through May 15, 2018, for all eligible studies comparing DES versus BMS in patients with saphenous vein graft stenosis in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization. Six randomized controlled trials were eligible and included 1582 patients, of whom 797 received DES and 785 received BMS. The follow-up period ranged from 18 months to 60 months. There was no statistically significant difference between DES and BMS for all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR],1.11; 95% CI, 0.0.77-1.62; P=0.57), cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.64-1.57; P=0.99), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.10; P=20), target vessel revascularization (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.11; P=0.14), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.48-1.16; P=0.19), or stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.42-2.65; P=0.90). Conclusions In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for saphenous vein graft lesions, our results showed that there was no significant difference between DES and BMS for mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis.