Publications

IMPORTANCE

Left ventricular (LV) thrombi can arise in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies. Anticoagulation is thought to reduce the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), but there are no high-quality data on the effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for this indication.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes associated with DOAC use and warfarin use for the treatment of LV thrombi.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cohort study was performed at 3 tertiary care academic medical centers among 514 eligible patients with echocardiographically diagnosed LV thrombi between October 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019. Follow-up was performed through the end of the study period.

EXPOSURES

Type and duration of anticoagulant use.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinically apparent SSE.

RESULTS

A total of 514 patients (379 men; mean [SD] age, 58.4 [14.8] years) with LV thrombi were identified, including 300 who received warfarin and 185 who received a DOAC (64 patients switched treatment between these groups). The median follow-up across the patient cohort was 351 days (interquartile range, 51-866 days). On unadjusted analysis, DOAC treatment vs warfarin use (hazard ratio [HR], 2.71; 95% CI, 1.31-5.57; P = .01) and prior SSE (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.22-3.72; P = .01) were associated with SSE. On multivariable analysis, anticoagulation with DOAC vs warfarin (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.28-5.43; P = .01) and prior SSE (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.17-3.66; P = .01) remained significantly associated with SSE.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this multicenter cohort study of anticoagulation strategies for LV thrombi, DOAC treatment was associated with a higher risk of SSE compared with warfarin use, even after adjustment for other factors. These results challenge the assumption of DOAC equivalence with warfarin for LV thrombi and highlight the need for prospective randomized clinical trials to determine the most effective treatment strategies for LV thrombi.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic and prognostic performance of native T1 mapping (T1), extracellular volume (ECV) mapping, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging for evaluating cardiac amyloidosis (CA).

BACKGROUND

CA is a progressive infiltrative process in the extracellular space that is often underdiagnosed and holds a poor prognosis. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers novel techniques for detecting and quantifying the disease burden of CA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for published studies using native T1, ECV, or LGE to diagnose and prognosticate CA. A total of 18 diagnostic (n = 2,015) and 13 prognostic studies (n = 1,483) were included for analysis. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) of all diagnostic tests were assessed by bivariate analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality for the 3 techniques were determined.

RESULTS

Bivariate comparison showed that ECV (DOR: 84.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 30.3 to 236.2) had a significantly higher DOR for CA than LGE (DOR: 20.1; 95% CI: 9.1 to 44.1; p = 0.03 vs. ECV). There was no significant difference between LGE and native T1 for sensitivity, specificity, and DOR. HR was significantly higher for ECV (HR: 4.27; 95% CI: 2.87 to 6.37) compared with LGE (HR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.90 to 3.56; p = 0.03 vs. ECV) and native T1 (HR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.24 to 3.37; p = 0.01 vs. ECV).

CONCLUSIONS

ECV demonstrates a higher diagnostic OR for assessing cardiac amyloid than LGE and a higher HR for adverse events compared with LGE and native T1. In addition, native T1 showed similar sensitivity and specificity as ECV and LGE without requiring contrast material. Although limited by study heterogeneity, this meta-analysis suggests that ECV provides high diagnostic and prognostic utility for the assessment of cardiac amyloidosis.

Background For patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, the optimal treatment of the non-infarct-related artery has been controversial. This up-to-date meta-analysis focusing on individual clinical end points was performed to further evaluate the benefit of complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods and Results We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention to culprit-only revascularization for multivessel disease in STEMI and performed a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary efficacy end point was cardiovascular death analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Ten studies (7542 patients) were included: 3664 patients were randomized to complete revascularization and 3878 to culprit-only revascularization. Across all patients, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-only revascularization for reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98; =0.037; I=21.8%) and reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; <0.0001; I=0.0%). Complete revascularization also significantly reduced the risk of unplanned revascularization (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.28-0.51; <0.0001; I=64.7%). The difference in all-cause mortality with percutaneous coronary intervention was not statistically significant (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.04; =0.108; I=0.0%). Conclusions For patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention significantly improves hard clinical outcomes including cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction. These data have implications for clinical practice guidelines regarding recommendations for complete revascularization following STEMI.

Novel coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) is an escalating, highly infectious global pandemic that is quickly overwhelming healthcare systems. This has implications on standard cardiac care for ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs). In the setting of anticipated resource scarcity in the future, we are forced to reconsider fibrinolytic therapy in our management algorithms. We encourage clinicians to maintain a high level of suspicion for STEMI mimics, such as myopericarditis which is a known, not infrequent, complication of COVID-19 disease. Herein, we present a pathway developed by a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center for the management of STEMI in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients.