Publications

INTRODUCTION: Measurement of the spatial ventricular gradient (SVG), spatial QRST angles, and other vectorcardiographic measures of myocardial electrical heterogeneity have emerged as novel risk stratification methods for sudden cardiac death and other adverse cardiovascular events. Prior studies of normal limits of these measurements included primarily young, healthy, White volunteers, but normal limits in older patients are unknown. The influence of race and body mass index (BMI) on these measurements is also unclear.

METHODS: Normal 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) from a single center were identified. Patients with abnormal cardiovascular, pulmonary, or renal history (assessed by International Classification of Disease [ICD-9/ICD-10] codes) or abnormal cardiovascular imaging were excluded. The SVG and QRST angles were measured and stratified by age, sex, and race. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the influence of age, BMI, and heart rate (HR) on these measurements.

RESULTS: Among 3292 patients, observed ranges of SVG and QRST angles (peak and mean) differed significantly based on sex, age, and race. Sex differences attenuated with increasing age. Men tended to have larger SVG magnitude (60.4 [46.1-77.8] vs. 52.5 [41.3-65.8] mv*ms, p < .0001) and elevation, and more anterior/negative SVG azimuth (-14.8 [-25.1 to -4.3] vs. 1.3 [-9.8 to 10.5] deg, p < .0001) compared to women. Men also had wider QRST angles. Observed ranges varied significantly with BMI and HR. SVG and QRST angle measurements were robust to different filtering bandwidths and moderate fiducial point annotation errors, but were heavily affected by changes in baseline correction.

CONCLUSIONS: Age, sex, race, BMI, and HR significantly affect the range of SVG and QRST angles in patients with normal ECGs and no known cardiovascular disease, and should be accounted for in future studies. An online calculator for prediction of these "normal limits" given demographics is provided at https://bivectors.github.io/gehcalc/.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are increasingly used to inform health decision-making when randomised trials are not feasible, ethical or timely. The target trial approach provides a framework to help minimise common biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions. Incomplete reporting of studies using the target trial framework limits the ability for clinicians, researchers, patients and other decision-makers to appraise, synthesise and interpret findings to inform clinical and public health practice and policy. This paper describes the methods that we will use to develop the TrAnsparent ReportinG of observational studies Emulating a Target trial (TARGET) reporting guideline.

METHODS/DESIGN: The TARGET reporting guideline will be developed in five stages following recommended guidance. The first stage will identify target trial reporting practices by systematically reviewing published studies that explicitly emulated a target trial. The second stage will identify and refine items to be considered for inclusion in the TARGET guideline by consulting content experts using sequential online surveys. The third stage will prioritise and consolidate key items to be included in the TARGET guideline at an in-person consensus meeting of TARGET investigators. The fourth stage will produce and pilot-test both the TARGET guideline and explanation and elaboration document with relevant stakeholders. The fifth stage will disseminate the TARGET guideline and resources via journals, conferences and courses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the survey has been attained (HC220536). The TARGET guideline will be disseminated widely in partnership with stakeholders to maximise adoption and improve reporting of these studies.

Several studies have shown that women and racial and ethnic minority patients are at increased risk of developing lower extremity peripheral artery disease and suffering adverse outcomes from it, but a knowledge gap remains regarding the underlying causes of these increased risks. Both groups are more likely to be underdiagnosed, have poorly managed contributory comorbidities, and incur disparities in treatment and management postdiagnosis. Opportunities for improvement in the care of women and racial and ethnic minorities with peripheral artery disease include increased rates of screening, higher rates of clinical suspicion (particularly in the absence of typical symptoms of intermittent claudication), and more aggressive risk factor management before and after the diagnosis of peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) has been performed for over 20 years, although success rates have remained modest. Several adjunctive lesion sets have been studied but none have become standard of practice. We sought to describe how the efficacy of ablation for PsAF has evolved in this time period with a focus on the effect of adjunctive ablation strategies.

METHODS: Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. We performed meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

RESULTS: A total of 99 studies (15 424 patients) were included. Ablation for PsAF achieved the primary outcome (freedom of atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia rate at 12 months follow-up) in 48.2% (5% CI, 44.0-52.3). Meta-regression showed freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months has improved over time, while procedure time and fluoroscopy time have significantly reduced. Through the use of cumulative meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis, we show that some ablation strategies may initially seem promising, but after several randomized controlled trials may be found to be ineffective. Trial sequential analysis showed that complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation is ineffective and further study of this treatment would be futile, while posterior wall isolation currently does not have sufficient evidence for routine use in PsAF ablation.

CONCLUSIONS: Overall success rates from PsAF ablation and procedure/fluoroscopy times have improved over time. However, no adjunctive lesion set, in addition to pulmonary vein isolation, has been conclusively demonstrated to be beneficial. Through the use of trial sequential analysis, we highlight the importance of adequately powered randomized controlled trials, to avoid reaching premature conclusions, before widespread adoption of novel therapies.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical decision tools for assessing bleeding risk in individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) have limited performance and were developed for individuals treated with warfarin. This study develops and validates a clinical risk score to personalize estimates of bleeding risk for individuals with atrial fibrillation taking direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

METHODS: Among individuals taking dabigatran 150 mg twice per day from 44 countries and 951 centers in this secondary analysis of the RE-LY trial (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), a risk score was developed to determine the comparative risk for bleeding on the basis of covariates derived in a Cox proportional hazards model. The risk prediction model was internally validated with bootstrapping. The model was then further developed in the GARFIELD-AF registry (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation), with individuals taking dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. To determine generalizability in external cohorts and among individuals on different DOACs, the risk prediction model was validated in the COMBINE-AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) pooled clinical trial cohort and the Quebec Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec and Med-Echo Administrative Databases (RAMQ) administrative database. The primary outcome was major bleeding. The risk score, termed the DOAC Score, was compared with the HAS-BLED score.

RESULTS: Of the 5684 patients in RE-LY, 386 (6.8%) experienced a major bleeding event, within a median follow-up of 1.74 years. The prediction model had an optimism-corrected C statistic of 0.73 after internal validation with bootstrapping and was well-calibrated based on visual inspection of calibration plots (goodness-of-fit P=0.57). The DOAC Score assigned points for age, creatinine clearance/glomerular filtration rate, underweight status, stroke/transient ischemic attack/embolism history, diabetes, hypertension, antiplatelet use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory use, liver disease, and bleeding history, with each additional point scored associated with a 48.7% (95% CI, 38.9%-59.3%; P<0.001) increase in major bleeding in RE-LY. The score had superior performance to the HAS-BLED score in RE-LY (C statistic, 0.73 versus 0.60; P for difference <0.001) and among 12 296 individuals in GARFIELD-AF (C statistic, 0.71 versus 0.66; P for difference = 0.025). The DOAC Score had stronger predictive performance than the HAS-BLED score in both validation cohorts, including 25 586 individuals in COMBINE-AF (C statistic, 0.67 versus 0.63; P for difference <0.001) and 11 945 individuals in RAMQ (C statistic, 0.65 versus 0.58; P for difference <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with atrial fibrillation potentially eligible for DOAC therapy, the DOAC Score can help stratify patients on the basis of expected bleeding risk.

AIMS: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is treatable but guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) may not be affordable or accessible to people living with the disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS: In this cross-sectional survey, we investigated the price, affordability, and accessibility of four pivotal classes of HFrEF GDMT: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI); beta-blockers; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA); and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). We sampled online or community pharmacies in 10 countries across a range of World Bank income groups, assessing mean 30 day retail prescription prices, affordability relative to gross national income per capita per month, and accessibility. We reported median price ratios relative to the International Reference Standard. We performed a literature review to evaluate accessibility to GDMT classes through publicly funded drug programmes in each country. HFrEF GDMT prices, both absolute and relative to the international reference, were highest in the United States and lowest in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The most expensive drug was the ARNI, sacubitril/valsartan, with a mean (standard deviation, SD) 30 day price ranging from $11.06 (0.81) in Pakistan to $611.50 (3.54) in United States. The least expensive drug was the MRA, spironolactone, with a mean (SD) 30 day price ranging from $0.18 (0.00) in Pakistan to $12.32 (0.00) in England. Affordability (SD) of quadruple therapy-ARNI, beta-blockers, MRA, and SGLT2i-was best in high-income and worst in low-income countries, ranging from 1.49 (0.00)% of gross national income per capita per month in England to 232.47 (31.47)% in Uganda. Publicly funded drug programmes offset costs for eligible patients, but ARNI and SGLT2i were inaccessible through these programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Price, affordability, and access were substantially improved in all countries by substituting ARNI for ACEi/ARB.

CONCLUSIONS: There was marked variation between countries in the retail price of HFrEF GDMT. Despite higher prices in high-income countries, GDMT was more accessible and affordable than in low- and middle-income countries. Publicly funded drug programmes in lower income countries increased affordability but limited access to newer HFrEF GDMT classes. Pharmaco-disparities must be addressed to improve HFrEF outcomes globally.

IMPORTANCE: Trials showing equivalent or better outcomes with initial evaluation using coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared with stress testing in patients with stable chest pain have informed guidelines but raise questions about overtesting and excess catheterization.

OBJECTIVE: To test a modified initial cCTA strategy designed to improve clinical efficiency vs usual testing (UT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a pragmatic randomized clinical trial enrolling participants from December 3, 2018, to May 18, 2021, with a median of 11.8 months of follow-up. Patients from 65 North American and European sites with stable symptoms of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and no prior testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to precision strategy (PS) or UT.

INTERVENTIONS: PS incorporated the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) minimal risk score to quantitatively select minimal-risk participants for deferred testing, assigning all others to cCTA with selective CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT). UT included site-selected stress testing or catheterization. Site clinicians determined subsequent care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were clinical efficiency (invasive catheterization without obstructive CAD) and safety (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) combined into a composite primary end point. Secondary end points included safety components of the primary outcome and medication use.

RESULTS: A total of 2103 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [11.5] years; 1056 male [50.2%]) were included in the study, and 422 [20.1%] were classified as minimal risk. The primary end point occurred in 44 of 1057 participants (4.2%) in the PS group and in 118 of 1046 participants (11.3%) in the UT group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). Clinical efficiency was higher with PS, with lower rates of catheterization without obstructive disease (27 [2.6%]) vs UT participants (107 [10.2%]; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36). The safety composite of death/MI was similar (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.73-3.15). Death occurred in 5 individuals (0.5%) in the PS group vs 7 (0.7%) in the UT group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23-2.23), and nonfatal MI occurred in 13 individuals (1.2%) in the PS group vs 5 (0.5%) in the UT group (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 0.96-7.36). Use of lipid-lowering (450 of 900 [50.0%] vs 365 of 873 [41.8%]) and antiplatelet (321 of 900 [35.7%] vs 237 of 873 [27.1%]) medications at 1 year was higher in the PS group compared with the UT group (both P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An initial diagnostic approach to stable chest pain starting with quantitative risk stratification and deferred testing for minimal-risk patients and cCTA with selective FFR-CT in all others increased clinical efficiency relative to UT at 1 year. Additional randomized clinical trials are needed to verify these findings, including safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.

IMPORTANCE: Guidelines recommend deferral of testing for symptomatic people with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and low pretest probability. To our knowledge, no randomized trial has prospectively evaluated such a strategy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess process of care and health outcomes in people identified as minimal risk for CAD when testing is deferred.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized, pragmatic effectiveness trial included prespecified subgroup analysis of the PRECISE trial at 65 North American and European sites. Participants identified as minimal risk by the validated PROMISE minimal risk score (PMRS) were included.

INTERVENTION: Randomization to a precision strategy using the PMRS to assign those with minimal risk to deferred testing and others to coronary computed tomography angiography with selective computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve, or to usual testing (stress testing or catheterization with PMRS masked). Randomization was stratified by PMRS risk.

MAIN OUTCOME: Composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or catheterization without obstructive CAD through 12 months.

RESULTS: Among 2103 participants, 422 were identified as minimal risk (20%) and randomized to deferred testing (n = 214) or usual testing (n = 208). Mean age (SD) was 46 (8.6) years; 304 were women (72%). During follow-up, 138 of those randomized to deferred testing never had testing (64%), whereas 76 had a downstream test (36%) (at median [IQR] 48 [15-78] days) for worsening (30%), uncontrolled (10%), or new symptoms (6%), or changing clinician preference (19%) or participant preference (10%). Results were normal for 96% of these tests. The primary end point occurred in 2 deferred testing (0.9%) and 13 usual testing participants (6.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66; P = .01). No death or MI was observed in the deferred testing participants, while 1 noncardiovascular death and 1 MI occurred in the usual testing group. Two participants (0.9%) had catheterizations without obstructive CAD in the deferred testing group and 12 (5.8%) with usual testing (P = .02). At baseline, 70% of participants had frequent angina and there was similar reduction of frequent angina to less than 20% at 12 months in both groups.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In symptomatic participants with suspected CAD, identification of minimal risk by the PMRS guided a strategy of initially deferred testing. The strategy was safe with no observed adverse outcome events, fewer catheterizations without obstructive CAD, and similar symptom relief compared with usual testing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.