Current cardiology reports
-
To summarize and explain the new guideline on blood pressure (BP) management in chronic kidney disease (CKD) published by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), an independent global nonprofit organization which develops and implements evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in kidney disease. KDIGO issued its first clinical practice guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure (BP) in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) for patients not receiving dialysis in 2012 and now updated the guideline in 2021. ⋯ Recommendations in this update were developed based on systematic literature reviews and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and strength of recommendation following the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The updated guideline includes five chapters covering BP measurement techniques, lifestyle interventions for lowering BP, and management of BP in three target populations, namely adults (with and without diabetes), kidney transplant recipients, and children. A dedicated chapter on BP measurement emphasizing standardized preparation and measurement protocols for office BP measurement is a new addition, following protocols used in large randomized trials of BP targets with pivotal clinical outcomes. Based on the available evidence, and in particular in the CKD subgroup of the SPRINT trial, the 2021 guideline suggests a systolic BP target of <120 mm Hg, based on standardized measurements, for most individuals with CKD not receiving dialysis, with the exception of kidney transplant recipients and children. This recommendation is strictly contingent on the measurement of BP using standardized office readings and not routine office readings.
-
In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), myocardial injury occurs frequently in severe or critically ill hospitalized patients, yet myocarditis is much less common. In this context, revisiting the definition of myocarditis is appropriate with a specific focus on diagnostic and management considerations in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. ⋯ Pathologic cardiac specimens from patients with COVID-19 suggest a mixed inflammatory response involving lymphocytes and macrophages, and importantly, cellular injury occurs predominantly at the level of pericytes and endothelial cells, less often involving direct myocyte necrosis. In COVID-19, the diagnosis of myocarditis has understandably been based predominantly on clinical criteria, and the number of patients with clinically suspected myocarditis who would meet diagnostic histological criteria is unclear. Echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance are important diagnostic tools, although the prognostic implications of abnormalities are still being defined. Importantly, SARS-CoV2 myocarditis should be diagnosed within an appropriate clinical context and should not be based on isolated imaging findings. Therapies in COVID-19 have focused on the major clinical manifestation of pneumonia, but the promotion of viral clearance early in the disease could prevent the development of myocarditis, and further study of immunosuppressive therapies once myocarditis has developed are indicated. A strict and uniform approach is needed to diagnose myocarditis due to SARS-CoV-2 to better understand the natural history of this disease and to facilitate evaluation of potential therapeutic interventions. A methodological approach will also better inform the incidence of COVID-19 associated myocarditis and potential long-term health effects.
-
Pharmacological treatment options for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) are currently limited and comprise non-disease specific therapies such as β-blockers, non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and disopyramide. These agents that offer a variable degree of symptomatic relief, often suboptimal, are often limited by side-effects and fail to address the key molecular abnormalities of the disease. ⋯ Mavacamten is a novel, first-in-class, allosteric inhibitor of cardiac myosin ATPase, which reduces actin-myosin cross-bridge formation, thereby reducing myocardial contractility and improving myocardial energetic consumption in experimental HCM models. Following a successful Phase 2 study, the recently published phase III, placebo-controlled, randomized EXPLORER-HCM trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of mavacamten in reducing left ventricular outflow tract obstruction and ameliorating exercise capacity, New York Heart Association functional class and health status in patients with obstructive HCM. Mavacamten represents the first agent specifically developed for HCM successfully tested in a Phase III trial, to be registered soon for clinical use, representing a radical change of paradigm in the pharmacological treatment of HCM.
-
This review summarizes recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with glucose-lowering drugs. ⋯ The majority of recent CVOTs with glucose-lowering drugs have tested dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors agonists (GLP1-RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), but studies have also been performed with other agents including thiazolidinediones and insulin. All CVOTs with DPP4-I, GLP1-RA, and SGLT2-i have demonstrated the cardiovascular (CV) safety of these agents compared to usual care. However, certain GLP1-RAs (liraglutide, subcutaneous semaglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide) and SGLT2-i (empagliflozin, canagliflozin) have demonstrated a CV benefit, showing significant reductions in composite cardiovascular outcomes. Furthermore, all SGLT2-i also significantly decreased the risk for hospitalization for heart failure. Results from these studies have altered clinical guidelines worldwide and have resulted in new indications for some glucose-lowering drugs. In patients with T2D and high risk for CVD, GLP-1RA or SGLT2-i with proven cardiovascular benefit are recommended, irrespective of glycemic control.
-
To identify key strengths and weaknesses of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and explore its clinical implications in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. ⋯ Previous studies have shown inconsistent benefit of early angiography and revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The ISCHEMIA trial showed no significant reduction in mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing early angiography and revascularization with guideline-directed medical therapy compared to patients on medical therapy alone in specific patient population with stable coronary artery disease. The ISCHEMIA trial provides insights into invasive versus pharmacological treatment for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Though it may have reduced applicability given its broad exclusion criteria, it offers useful information about the utility of non-invasive imaging modalities for selecting optimal revascularization candidates.