Deborah D. Ascheim

2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect; Nancy M. Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA; Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC; Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA; David DeMets, PhD; Robert A. Guyton, MD,

2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect; Nancy M. Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA; Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC; Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA; David DeMets, PhD; Robert A. Guyton, MD,

Mitral-Valve Repair versus Replacement for Severe Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation

BACKGROUND Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with a substantial risk of death. Practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with a severe form of this condition but acknowledge that the supporting evidence for repair or replacement is limited. METHODS We randomly assigned 251 patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation to undergo either mitral-valve repair or chordal-sparing replacement in order to evaluate efficacy and safety. The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS At 12 months, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 54.6±25.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the repair group and 60.7±31.5 ml per square meter in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, -6.6 and -6.8 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 14.3% in the repair group and 17.6% in the replacement group (hazard ratio with repair, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.47; P=0.45 by the log-rank test). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (z score, 1.33; P=0.18). The rate of moderate or severe recurrence of mitral regurgitation at 12 months was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (32.6% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, in functional status, or in quality of life at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS We observed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 12 months between patients who underwent mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement. Replacement provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation, but there was no significant between-group difference in clinical outcomes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00807040.).

The REMATCH trial: rationale, design, and end points

BACKGROUND Because left ventricular assist devices have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to support the circulation of patients with end-stage heart failure awaiting cardiac transplantation, these devices are increasingly being considered as a potential alternative to biologic cardiac replacement. The Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) trial is a multicenter study supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to compare long-term implantation of left ventricular assist devices with optimal medical management for patients with end-stage heart failure who require, but do not qualify to receive cardiac transplantation. METHODS We discuss the rationale for conducting REMATCH, the obstacles to designing this and other randomized surgical trials, the lessons learned in conducting the multicenter pilot study, and the features of the REMATCH study design (objectives, target population, treatments, end points, analysis, and trial organization). CONCLUSIONS We consider what will be learned from REMATCH, expectations for expanding the use of left ventricular assist devices, and future directions for assessing clinical procedures.

2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS* Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair†; Frederick G. Kushner, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI, Vice Chair*†; Deborah D. Ascheim, MD, FACC†; Donald E. Casey, Jr, MD, MPH, MBA, FACP, FAHA‡; Mina K. Chung, MD, FACC, FAHA*†; James A. de Lemos, MD, FACC*†; Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC*§; James C. Fang, MD, FACC, FAHA*†; Francis M. Fesmire, MD, FACEP* ¶; Barry A. Franklin, PHD, FAHA†; Christopher B. Granger, MD, FACC, FAHA*†; Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, FACC, FAHA†; Jane A. Linderbaum, MS, CNP-BC†; David A. Morrow, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA*†; L. Kristin Newby, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA*†; Joseph P. Ornato, MD, FACC, FAHA, FACP, FACEP†; Narith Ou, PharmD†; Martha J. Radford, MD, FACC, FAHA†; Jacqueline E. Tamis-Holland, MD, FACC†; Carl L. Tommaso, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI#; Cynthia M. Tracy, MD, FACC, FAHA†; Y. Joseph Woo, MD, FACC, FAHA†; David X. Zhao, MD, FACC*†

2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair [∗∗][1] Nancy M. Albert, PhD, RN, FAHA[∗∗][1] Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA Kim K. Birtcher, PharmD, MS, AACC Biykem Bozkurt, MD

Left Ventricular Assist Device as Destination for Patients Undergoing Intravenous Inotropic Therapy: A Subset Analysis From REMATCH (Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance in Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure)

Background—Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have improved survival in patients with end-stage heart failure. Compared with previous trials, the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance in Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure (REMATCH) trial enrolled patients with more advanced heart failure and high prevalence of intravenous inotropic therapy. This study analyzes, on a post hoc basis, outcomes in patients undergoing inotropic infusions at randomization. Methods and Results—Of 129 patients randomized, 91 were receiving intravenous inotropic therapy at randomization to LVAD or optimal medical management (OMM). Mean systolic pressure was 100 versus 107 mm Hg in those not receiving inotropes, serum sodium was 134 versus 137 mEq/L, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 17% for both groups. LVADs improved survival throughout follow-up for patients undergoing baseline inotropic infusions (P=0.0014); for the LVAD group versus the OMM group, respectively, 6-month survival was 60% versus 39%, 1-year survival rates were 49% versus 24%, and 2-year survival rates were 28% versus 11%. For 38 patients not undergoing inotropic infusions, 6-month survival was 61% for those with LVADs and 67% for those with OMM, whereas 1-year rates were 57% and 40%, respectively (P=0.55). Quality-of-life scores for survivors improved. Median days out of hospital for patients on inotropic therapy at randomization were 255 with LVAD and 105 with OMM. Conclusions—Despite severe compromise, patients undergoing inotropic infusions at randomization derived major LVAD survival benefit with improved quality of life. Patients not undergoing inotropic infusions had higher survival rates both with and without LVAD, but differences did not reach significance. Future studies should prespecify analyses of inotropic and other therapies to determine how disease severity and parallel medical treatment influence the benefits offered by mechanical circulatory support.

Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by pre-operative INTERMACS classification

BACKGROUND Risk stratification for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has emerged as an important tool in patient selection and outcomes assessment. Most studies examining risk stratification have been limited to pulsatile devices. We use the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) to stratify patients with continuous-flow devices and assess outcomes in less severe, but functionally impaired, heart failure patients. METHODS This study included 101 bridge-to-transplant and destination-therapy patients at 3 centers. Three groups were studied: Group 1, cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS Profile 1); Group 2, inotrope-dependent (INTERMACS Profile 2 or 3); and Group 3, ambulatory advanced heart failure (INTERMACS Profiles 4 to 7). The outcomes of interest were actuarial survival, survival to discharge and length of stay. RESULTS Survival at 36 months was better in Group 3 than in Group 1 (95.8% vs 51.1%, p = 0.011), but not between Groups 2 and 3 (68.8 vs 95.8%, p = 0.065). Lengths of stay for Groups 1 to 3 were 44, 41 and 17 days: Groups 1 vs 3, p < 0.001; Groups 2 vs 3, p < 0.001; and Groups 1 vs 2, p = 0.62. Lengths of stay for survivors were 49, 39 and 14 for the 3 groups: Groups 1 vs 3, p < 0.001; Groups 2 vs 3, p < 0.001; and Groups 1 vs 2, p = 0.28. CONCLUSION INTERMACS classification is a useful metric for risk-stratifying candidates for MCS. Less acutely ill but functionally impaired heart failure patients receiving continuous-flow LVADs had longer short- and long-term survival and shorter lengths of stay compared with patients who were more acutely ill.

Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation.

BACKGROUND Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. For surgical patients with moderate regurgitation, the benefits of adding mitral-valve repair to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) are uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 301 patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation to CABG alone or CABG plus mitral-valve repair (combined procedure). The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), a measure of left ventricular remodeling, at 1 year. This end point was assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized as the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS At 1 year, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 46.1±22.4 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 49.6±31.5 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean change from baseline, -9.4 and -9.3 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 6.7% in the combined-procedure group and 7.3% in the CABG-alone group (hazard ratio with mitral-valve repair, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 2.12; P=0.81). The rank-based assessment of LVESVI at 1 year (incorporating deaths) showed no significant between-group difference (z score, 0.50; P=0.61). The addition of mitral-valve repair was associated with a longer bypass time (P<0.001), a longer hospital stay after surgery (P=0.002), and more neurologic events (P=0.03). Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation was less common in the combined-procedure group than in the CABG-alone group (11.2% vs. 31.0%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, deaths, readmissions, functional status, or quality of life at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, the addition of mitral-valve repair to CABG did not result in a higher degree of left ventricular reverse remodeling. Mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation but an increased number of untoward events. Thus, at 1 year, this trial did not show a clinically meaningful advantage of adding mitral-valve repair to CABG. Longer-term follow-up may determine whether the lower prevalence of mitral regurgitation translates into a net clinical benefit. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).

Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation during mitral-valve surgery

BACKGROUND Among patients undergoing mitral-valve surgery, 30 to 50% present with atrial fibrillation, which is associated with reduced survival and increased risk of stroke. Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation has been widely adopted, but evidence regarding its safety and effectiveness is limited. METHODS We randomly assigned 260 patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation who required mitral-valve surgery to undergo either surgical ablation (ablation group) or no ablation (control group) during the mitral-valve operation. Patients in the ablation group underwent further randomization to pulmonary-vein isolation or a biatrial maze procedure. All patients underwent closure of the left atrial appendage. The primary end point was freedom from atrial fibrillation at both 6 months and 12 months (as assessed by means of 3-day Holter monitoring). RESULTS More patients in the ablation group than in the control group were free from atrial fibrillation at both 6 and 12 months (63.2% vs. 29.4%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation between patients who underwent pulmonary-vein isolation and those who underwent the biatrial maze procedure (61.0% and 66.0%, respectively; P=0.60). One-year mortality was 6.8% in the ablation group and 8.7% in the control group (hazard ratio with ablation, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 1.84; P=0.55). Ablation was associated with more implantations of a permanent pacemaker than was no ablation (21.5 vs. 8.1 per 100 patient-years, P=0.01). There were no significant between-group differences in major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events, overall serious adverse events, or hospital readmissions. CONCLUSIONS The addition of atrial fibrillation ablation to mitral-valve surgery significantly increased the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1 year among patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, but the risk of implantation of a permanent pacemaker was also increased. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00903370.).