Quantification and Impact of Untreated Coronary Artery Disease After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention the Residual SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) Score

Objectives the purpose of this study was to quantify the extent and complexity of residual coronary stenoses following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to evaluate its impact on adverse ischemic outcomes.Background Incomplete revascularization (IR) after PCI is common, and most studies have suggested that IR is associated with a worse prognosis compared with complete revascularization (CR). However, formal quantification of the extent and complexity of residual atherosclerosis after PCI has not been performed.Methods the baseline Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (bSS) from 2,686 angiograms from patients with moderate-and high-risk acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI enrolled in the prospective ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial was determined. the SS after PCI was also assessed, generating the residual SS (rSS). Patients with rSS >0 were defined as having IR and were stratified by rSS tertiles, and their outcomes were compared to the CR group.Results the bSS was 12.8 +/- 6.7, and after PCI the rSS was 5.6 +/- 2.2. Following PCI, 1,084 patients (40.4%) had rSS = 0 (CR), 523 (19.5%) had rSS >0 but 2 but 8. Age, insulin-treated diabetes, hypertension, smoking, elevated biomarkers or ST-segment deviation, and lower ejection fraction were more frequent in patients with IR compared with CR. the 30-day and 1-year rates of ischemic events were significantly higher in the IR group compared with the CR group, especially those with high rSS. By multivariable analysis, rSS was a strong independent predictor of all ischemic outcomes at 1 year, including all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 1.02 to 1.09, p = 0.006).Conclusions the rSS is useful to quantify and risk-stratify the degree and complexity of residual stenosis after PCI. Specifically, rSS >8.0 after PCI in patients with moderate-and high-risk ACS is associated with a poor 30-day and 1-year prognosis. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes; NCT00093158) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:2165-74) (C) 2012 by the American College of Cardiology Foundationsanofi-aventisMedicines CompanyAbbott VascularBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaColumbia Univ, Med Ctr, Cardiovasc Res Fdn, New York, NY 10022 USAUniv Montreal, Hop Sacre Coeur Montreal, Montreal, PQ, CanadaUniv Bologna, Inst Cardiol, Bologna, ItalyUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Hosp Israelita Albert Einstein, Sau Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista Med, Sau Paulo, BrazilMt Sinai Med Ctr, New York, NY 10029 USAErasmus Univ, Thoraxctr, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, NetherlandsUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Hosp Israelita Albert Einstein, Sau Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista Med, Sau Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

The Relationship Between Attenuated Plaque Identified by Intravascular Ultrasound and No-Reflow After Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction

n/

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on clinical outcomes after left main coronary artery revascularization

Aim: To evaluate the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on 3-year outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the EXCEL trial. Methods and results: The EXCEL trial randomized patients with LMCAD to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents (n = 948) or CABG (n = 957). Among 1804 patients with known baseline LVEF, 74 (4.1%) had LVEF <40% [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)], 152 (8.4%) LVEF 40–49% [heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF)] and 1578 (87.5%) LVEF ≥50% (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction). Patients with HFrEF vs. HFmrEF vs. preserved LVEF experienced a longer postoperative hospital stay (9.0 vs. 7.0 vs. 6.0 days, P = 0.02) with greater peri-procedural complications after CABG, while hospital stay after PCI was unaffected by LVEF (1.5 vs. 2.0 vs. 1.0 days, P = 0.20). The composite primary endpoint of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years was 29.3% (PCI) vs. 27.6% (CABG) in patients with HFrEF, 16.2% vs. 15.0% in patients with HFmrEF, and 14.5% vs. 14.6% in those with preserved LVEF, respectively (Pinteraction = 0.90). Smoothing spline analysis demonstrated that the 3-year risk of all-cause death increased when LVEF decreased, both in patients undergoing CABG and PCI. Conclusion: In the EXCEL trial, the composite rate of death, stroke or myocardial infarction at 3 years was significantly higher in patients with HFrEF compared with HFmrEF or preserved LVEF, driven by an increased rate of all-cause death. No significant differences after PCI vs. CABG were observed among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF and preserved LVEF. Longer-term follow-up could provide important insights on differences in clinical outcomes that might emerge over time. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01205776

Impact of non-respect of SYNTAX score II recommendation for surgery in patients with left main coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: an EXCEL substudy

OBJECTIVES: The SYNTAX score II (SSII) was developed from the SYNTAX trial to predict the 4-year all-cause mortality after left main or multivessel disease revascularization and to facilitate the decision-making process. The SSII provides the following treatment recommendations: (i) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (equipoise risk), (ii) CABG preferred (excessive risk for PCI) or (iii) PCI preferred (excessive risk for CABG). We sought to externally validate SSII and to investigate the impact of not abiding by the SSII recommendations in the randomized EXCEL trial of PCI versus CABG for left main disease. METHODS: The calibration plot of predicted versus observed 4-year mortality was constructed from individual values of SSII in EXCEL. To assess overestimation versus underestimation of predicted mortality risk, an optimal fit regression line with slope and intercept was determined. Prospective treatment recommendations based on SSII were compared with actual treatments and all-cause mortality at 4 years. RESULTS: SSII variables were available from EXCEL trial in 1807/1905 (95%) patients. For the entire cohort, discrimination was possibly helpful (C statistic = 0.670). SSII-predicted all-cause mortality at 4 years overestimated the observed mortality, particularly in the highest-risk percentiles, as confirmed by the fit regression line [intercept 2.37 (1.51-3.24), P = 0.003; slope 0.67 (0.61-0.74), P < 0.001]. When the SSII-recommended treatment was CABG, randomized EXCEL patients treated with PCI had a trend towards higher mortality compared with those treated with CABG (14.1% vs 5.3%, P = 0.07) in the as-treat population. In the intention-to-treat population, patients randomized to PCI had higher mortality compared with those randomized to CABG (15.1% vs 4.1%, P = 0.02), when SSII recommended CABG. CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial of patients with left main disease, the SSII-predicted 4-year mortality overestimated the 4-year observed mortality with a possibly helpful discrimination. Non-compliance with SSII CABG treatment recommendations (i.e. randomized to PCI) was associated with higher 4-year all-cause mortality

Comparing results of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease by surgical revascularization pump strategy

Objective: We performed a post hoc analysis of the Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial to determine the effect an on-versus off-pump strategy had on outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods:All randomized patients in EXCEL (n = 1905) were included. The outcomes of interest were the primary end point composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; the composite study end point or ischemia-driven revascularization; and the rate of death from any cause at 5 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan–Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. Results: Propensity matching resulted in groups of 1142 patients (571 each) for on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention and 472 patients (236 each) for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention. In the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point was similar (18.0% vs 22.1%, P = .19) and the composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (23.3% vs 31.0%, P = .01) was lower, and mortality (7.6% vs 11.8%, P = .025) was lower in the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting group at 5 years. In the off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point (19.4% vs 22.2%, P = .47), composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (25.9% vs 34.2%, P = .07), and mortality (12.5% vs 14.2%, P = .59) were similar at 5 years. Conclusions: In the EXCEL trial, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a decreased 5-year rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization, and decreased mortality when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were similar to percutaneous coronary intervention.</p

Definitions and methodology for the grayscale and radiofrequency intravascular ultrasound and coronary angiographic analyses

Objectives: In a prospective study of the natural history of coronary atherosclerosis using angiography and grayscale and radio

Adverse Cardiovascular Events Arising From Atherosclerotic Lesions With and Without Angiographic Disease Progression

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to use angiography and grayscale and intravascular ultrasound–virtual histology to assess coronary lesions that caused events during a median follow-up period of 3.4 years.BackgroundVulnerable plaque-related events are assumed to be the result of substantial progression of insignificant lesions.MethodsIn the PROSPECT (Providing Regional Observations to Study Predictors of Events in the Coronary Tree) study, 697 patients with acute coronary syndromes underwent treatment of all culprit lesions followed by 3-vessel imaging to assess the natural history of culprit and untreated nonculprit (NC) lesions. Future adverse cardiovascular events adjudicated to NC lesions were divided into those with versus without substantial lesion progression (SLP) (≥20% angiographic diameter stenosis increase).ResultsNC lesion events occurred in 72 patients, 44 (61%) with and 28 (39%) without SLP. Myocardial infarctions (n = 6) occurred only in patients with SLP. Conversely, patients without SLP presented only with unstable or increasing angina requiring rehospitalization. Lesions with versus without SLP occurred later (median time to event 401 vs. 223 days, p = 0.07); were less severe at baseline (median diameter stenosis 26.4% vs. 53.8%, p < 0.0001) but more severe at the time of the event (mean diameter stenosis 73.8% vs. 56%, p < 0.0001); and had comparable baseline median plaque burden (68.7% vs. 70.1%, p = 0.17), minimum luminal area (3.7 vs. 4.0 mm2, p = 0.60), and intravascular ultrasound–virtual histology phenotype (83.3% vs. 90.9%, p = 0.68; classified as fibroatheromas at baseline).ConclusionsNC lesions responsible for future cardiovascular events showed angiographic increase during 3.4 years of follow-up, whereas SLP underlay many but not all of them. NC events due to lesions with SLP were angiographically less severe and presented with a delayed time course but were otherwise indistinguishable from NC events that were not associated with SLP

Anticoagulation in Patients With COVID-19: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Clinical, laboratory, and autopsy findings support an association between coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and thromboembolic disease. Acute COVID-19 infection is characterized by mononuclear cell reactivity and pan-endothelialitis, contributing to a high incidence of thrombosis in large and small blood vessels, both arterial and venous. Observational studies and randomized trials have investigated whether full-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes compared with prophylactic dose heparin. Although no benefit for therapeutic heparin has been found in patients who are critically ill hospitalized with COVID-19, some studies support a possible role for therapeutic anticoagulation in patients not yet requiring intensive care unit support. We summarize the pathology, rationale, and current evidence for use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 and describe the main design elements of the ongoing FREEDOM COVID-19 Anticoagulation trial, in which 3,600 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 not requiring intensive care unit level of care are being randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin vs therapeutic-dose apixaban. (FREEDOM COVID-19 Anticoagulation Strategy [FREEDOM COVID]; NCT04512079).Dr Farkouh has received research grants from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Infraredx; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Vectorious, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, and Amgen; and has equity/ options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter. Dr Godoy is supported by the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship (Doctoral Research Award) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.S

Safety and efficacy of the supreme biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have worse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention than nondiabetic patients. The novel Supreme DES is a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent designed to synchronize early drug delivery, limiting the potential for long-term inflammatory response. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Supreme DES in patients with DM. Methods This is a prespecified analysis of the diabetic subgroup from the PIONEER III randomized (2:1), controlled trial, comparing the Supreme DES with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). The primary safety and efficacy composite endpoint was target lesion failure at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Results The PIONEER III trial randomized 1629 patients, of which 494 (30.3%) had DM with 331 (398 lesions) randomly assigned to Supreme DES and 163 (208 lesions) to DP-EES. Among patients with DM, target lesion failure at 1 year was 6.1% (20/331) with Supreme DES vs 3.7% (6/163) with DP-EES (hazard ratio = 1.65; 95% confidence interval = 0.66-4.10, P = .28). The composite of cardiac death or target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.3% (11/331) with Supreme DES and 3.7% (6/163) with DP-EES (hazard ratio = 0.90; 95% confidence interval = 0.33-2.44, P = .83). There were no significant differences in other secondary endpoints. Conclusions This prespecified substudy of the PIONEER III trial demonstrated the relative safety and efficacy of the novel Supreme DES when compared with commercially available DP-EES in diabetics at 1 year. Longer term follow-up will be required to ensure continued safety and efficacy of the Supreme DES

Randomized Trial of Anticoagulation Strategies for Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND Prior studies of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVES We sought to determine the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 not requiring intensive care unit treatment were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin, therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, or therapeutic-dose apixaban. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, requirement for intensive care unit-level of care, systemic thromboembolism, or ischemic stroke assessed in the combined therapeutic-dose groups compared with the prophylactic-dose group. RESULTS Between August 26, 2020, and September 19, 2022, 3,398 noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,141), therapeutic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,136), or therapeutic-dose apixaban (n = 1,121) at 76 centers in 10 countries. The 30-day primary outcome occurred in 13.2% of patients in the prophylactic-dose group and 11.3% of patients in the combined therapeutic-dose groups (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69-1.04; P = 0.11). All-cause mortality occurred in 7.0% of patients treated with prophylactic-dose enoxaparin and 4.9% of patients treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.93; P = 0.01), and intubation was required in 8.4% vs 6.4% of patients, respectively (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98; P = 0.03). Results were similar in the 2 therapeutic-dose groups, and major bleeding in all 3 groups was infrequent. CONCLUSIONS Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 30-day primary composite outcome was not significantly reduced with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. However, fewer patients who were treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation required intubation and fewer died (FREEDOM COVID [FREEDOM COVID Anticoagulation Strategy]; NCT04512079).Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, and Abbott; has served as a consultant to Daiichi-Sankyo, Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen, Adona Medical, and Millennia Biopharma; and has equity/ options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; his daughter is an employee at IQVIA; and his employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, BiosenseWebster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Dr Farkouh has received institutional research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis; has received consulting fees from Otitopic; and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk. Dr Lala has received consulting fees from Merck and Bioventrix; has received honoraria from Zoll Medical and Novartis; has served on an advisory board for Sequana Medical; and is the Deputy Editor for the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Dr Moreno has received honoraria from Amgen, Cuquerela Medical, and Gafney; has received payment for expert testimony from Koskoff, Koskoff & Dominus, Dallas W. Hartman, and Riscassi & Davis PC; and has stock options in Provisio. Dr Goodman has received institutional research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received consulting fees from Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Novartis, Pendopharm/Pharmascience, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, JAMP Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pendopharm/Pharmascience, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier; has served on Data Safety and Monitoring boards for Daiichi-Sankyo/American Regent and Novo Nordisk A/C; has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, JAMP Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pendopharm/Pharmascience, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, and Tolmar Pharmaceuticals; has a leadership role in the Novartis Council for Heart Health (unpaid); and otherwise has received salary support or honoraria from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario/University of Toronto (Polo) Chair, Canadian Heart Failure Society, Canadian Heart Research Centre and MD Primer, Canadian VIGOUR Centre, Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Centre for Clinical Research, Duke Clinical Research Institute, New York University Clinical Coordinating Centre, PERFUSE Research Institute, and the TIMI Study Group (Brigham Health). Dr Ricalde has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Servier, and Boston Scientific; has received honoraria from Medtronic, Pfizer, Merck, Boston Scientific, Biosensors, and Bayer; has served on an advisory board for Medtronic; and has leadership roles in SOLACI and Kardiologen. Dr Payro has received consulting fees from Bayer Mexico; has received honoraria from Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Viatris; has received payments for expert testimony from Bayer; has received travel support from AstraZeneca; has served on an advisory board for Bayer; and his institution has received equipment donated from AstraZeneca. Dr Castellano has received consulting fees and honoraria from Ferrer International, Servier, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received travel support from Ferrer International. Dr Hung has served as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Fosun, and Gilead. Dr Nadkarni has received consulting fees from Renalytix, Variant Bio, Qiming Capital, Menarini Health, Daiichi-Sankyo, BioVie, and Cambridge Health; has received honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo and Menarini Health; has patents for automatic disease diagnoses using longitudinal medical record data, methods, and apparatus for diagnosis of progressive kidney function decline using a machine learning model, electronic phenotyping technique for diagnosing chronic kidney disease, deep learning to identify biventricular structure and function, fusion models for identification of pulmonary embolism, and SparTeN: a novel spatio-temporal deep learning model; has served on a Data Safety and Monitoring Board for CRIC OSMB; has leadership roles for Renalytix scientific advisory board, Pensive Health scientific advisory board, and ASN Augmented Intelligence and Digital Health Committee; has ownership interests in Renalytix, Data2Wisdom LLC, Verici Dx, Nexus I Connect, and Pensieve Health; and his institution receives royalties from Renalytix. Dr Goday has received the Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship (Doctoral Research Award) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr Furtado has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, CytoDin, Pfizer, Servier, Amgen, Alliar Diagnostics, and the Brazilian Ministry of Health; has received consulting fees from Biomm and Bayer; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Servier, and Pfizer; and has received travel support from Servier, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. Dr Granada has received consulting fees, travel support, and stock from Cogent Technologies Corp; and has received stock from Kutai. Dr Contreras has served as a consultant for Merck, CVRx, Novodisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received educational grants from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca. Dr Bhatt has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, Cincor, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer Inc, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89bio; has received royalties from Elsevier; has received consultant fees from Broadview Ventures and McKinsey; has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Belvoir Publications, Boston Scientific, Cleveland Clinic, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, Rutgers University, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, Cowen and Company, HMP Global, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, K2P, Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD, MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME, Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute, Slack Publications, WebMD, Wiley, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care; has received fees from expert testimony from the Arnold and Porter law firm; has received travel support from the American College of Cardiology, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, American Heart Association; has a patent for otagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AngioWave, Baim Institute, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Janssen, Level Ex, Mayo Clinic, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, Population Health Research Institute, and Stasys; serves as a trustee or director for American College of Cardiology, AngioWave, Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, High Enroll, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; has ownership interests in AngioWave, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, and High Enroll; has other interests in Clinical Cardiology, the NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee; has conducted unfunded research with FlowCo and Takeda, Contego Medical, American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee, Inaugural Chair, VA CART Research and Publications Committee; and has been a site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Phillips SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions. Dr Fuster declares that he raised $7 million from patients for this study granted to Mount Sinai Heart, unrelated to industry. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.S