Need for better and broader training in cardio-obstetrics: A national survey of cardiologists, cardiovascular team members, and cardiology fellows in training

Background Team-based models of cardio-obstetrics care have been developed to address the increasing rate of maternal mortality from cardiovascular diseases. Cardiovascular clinician and trainee knowledge and comfort with this topic, and the extent of implementation of an interdisciplinary approach to cardio-obstetrics, are unknown. Methods and Results We aimed to assess the current state of cardio-obstetrics knowledge, practices, and services provided by US cardiovascular clinicians and trainees. A survey developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology was circulated to a representative sample of cardiologists (N=311), cardiovascular team members (N=51), and fellows in training (N=139) from June 18, 2020, to July 29, 2020. Knowledge and attitudes about the provision of cardiovascular care to pregnant patients and the prevalence and composition of cardio-obstetrics teams were assessed. The widest knowledge gaps on the care of pregnant compared with nonpregnant patients were reported for medication safety (42%), acute coronary syndromes (39%), aortopathies (40%), and valvular heart disease (30%). Most respondents (76%) lack access to a dedicated cardio-obstetrics team, and only 29% of practicing cardiologists received cardio-obstetrics didactics during training. One third of fellows in training reported seeing pregnant women 0 to 1 time per year, and 12% of fellows in training report formal training in cardio-obstetrics. Conclusions Formalized training in cardio-obstetrics is uncommon, and limited access to multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics teams and large knowledge gaps exist among cardiovascular clinicians. Augmentation of cardio-obstetrics education across career stages is needed to reduce these deficits. These survey results are an initial step toward developing a standard expectation for clinicians\u27 training in cardio-obstetrics

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of late Na current inhibition (ranolazine) in coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD): impact on angina and myocardial perfusion reserve.

AimsThe mechanistic basis of the symptoms and signs of myocardial ischaemia in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and evidence of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is unclear. The aim of this study was to mechanistically test short-term late sodium current inhibition (ranolazine) in such subjects on angina, myocardial perfusion reserve index, and diastolic filling.Materials and resultsRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, mechanistic trial in subjects with evidence of CMD [invasive coronary reactivity testing or non-invasive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI)]. Short-term oral ranolazine 500-1000 mg twice daily for 2 weeks vs. placebo. Angina measured by Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and SAQ-7 (co-primaries), diary angina (secondary), stress MPRI, diastolic filling, quality of life (QoL). Of 128 (96% women) subjects, no treatment differences in the outcomes were observed. Peak heart rate was lower during pharmacological stress during ranolazine (-3.55 b.p.m., P < 0.001). The change in SAQ-7 directly correlated with the change in MPRI (correlation 0.25, P = 0.005). The change in MPRI predicted the change in SAQ QoL, adjusted for body mass index (BMI), prior myocardial infarction, and site (P = 0.0032). Low coronary flow reserve (CFR <2.5) subjects improved MPRI (P < 0.0137), SAQ angina frequency (P = 0.027), and SAQ-7 (P = 0.041).ConclusionsIn this mechanistic trial among symptomatic subjects, no obstructive CAD, short-term late sodium current inhibition was not generally effective for SAQ angina. Angina and myocardial perfusion reserve changes were related, supporting the notion that strategies to improve ischaemia should be tested in these subjects.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342029

AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update

"Since the 2006 update of the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) guidelines on secondary prevention (1), important evidence from clinical trials has emerged that further supports and broadens the merits of intensive risk-reduction therapies for patients with established coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease, including peripheral artery disease, atherosclerotic aortic disease, and carotid artery disease. In reviewing this evidence and its clinical impact, the writing group believed it would be more appropriate to expand the title of this guideline to “Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease.” Indeed, the growing body of evidence confirms that in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, comprehensive risk factor management reduces risk as assessed by a variety of outcomes, including improved survival, reduced recurrent events, the need for revascularization procedures, and improved quality of life. It is important not only that the healthcare provider implement these recommendations in appropriate patients but also that healthcare systems support this implementation to maximize the benefit to the patient. Compelling evidence-based results from recent clinical trials and revised practice guidelines provide the impetus for this update of the 2006 recommendations with evidence-based results (2–165) (Table 1). Classification of recommendations and level of evidence are expressed in ACCF/AHA format, as detailed in Table 2. Recommendations made herein are largely based on major practice guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and updated ACCF/AHA practice guidelines, as well as on results from recent clinical trials. Thus, the development of the present guideline involved a process of partial adaptation of other guideline statements and reports and supplemental literature searches. The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. Writing group members performed these relevant supplemental literature searches with key search phrases including but not limited to tobacco/smoking/smoking cessation; blood pressure control/hypertension; cholesterol/hypercholesterolemia/lipids/lipoproteins/dyslipidemia; physical activity/exercise/exercise training; weight management/overweight/obesity; type 2 diabetes mellitus management; antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants; renin/angiotensin/aldosterone system blockers; β-blockers; influenza vaccination; clinical depression/depression screening; and cardiac/cardiovascular rehabilitation. Additional searches cross-referenced these topics with the subtopics of clinical trials, secondary prevention, atherosclerosis, and coronary/cerebral/peripheral artery disease. These searches were limited to studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted in human subjects and published in English. In addition, the writing group reviewed documents related to the subject matter previously published by the AHA, the ACCF, and the National Institutes of Health.

AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: A guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation

"Since the 2006 update of the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) guidelines on secondary prevention,1 important evidence from clinical trials has emerged that further supports and broadens the merits of intensive risk-reduction therapies for patients with established coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease, including peripheral artery disease, atherosclerotic aortic disease, and carotid artery disease. In reviewing this evidence and its clinical impact, the writing group believed it would be more appropriate to expand the title of this guideline to “Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease.” Indeed, the growing body of evidence confirms that in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, comprehensive risk factor management reduces risk as assessed by a variety of outcomes, including improved survival, reduced recurrent events, the need for revascularization procedures, and improved quality of life. It is important not only that the healthcare provider implement these recommendations in appropriate patients but also that healthcare systems support this implementation to maximize the benefit to the patient. Compelling evidence-based results from recent clinical trials and revised practice guidelines provide the impetus for this update of the 2006 recommendations with evidence-based results2–165 (Table 1). Classification of recommendations and level of evidence are expressed in ACCF/AHA format, as detailed in Table 2. Recommendations made herein are largely based on major practice guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and updated ACCF/AHA practice guidelines, as well as on results from recent clinical trials. Thus, the development of the present guideline involved a process of partial adaptation of other guideline statements and reports and supplemental literature searches. The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. Writing group members performed these relevant supplemental literature searches with key search phrases including but not limited to tobacco/smoking/smoking cessation; blood pressure control/hypertension; cholesterol/hypercholesterolemia/lipids/lipoproteins/dyslipidemia; physical activity/exercise/exercise training; weight management/overweight/obesity; type 2 diabetes mellitus management; antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants; renin/angiotensin/aldosterone system blockers; β-blockers; influenza vaccination; clinical depression/depression screening; and cardiac/cardiovascular rehabilitation. Additional searches cross-referenced these topics with the subtopics of clinical trials, secondary prevention, atherosclerosis, and coronary/cerebral/peripheral artery disease. These searches were limited to studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted in human subjects and published in English. In addition, the writing group reviewed documents related to the subject matter previously published by the AHA, the ACCF, and the National Institutes of Health.

Association of Spontaneous Preterm Delivery and Future Maternal Cardiovascular Risk.

Background: Although many atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors are well established, less is known about a woman’s cardiovascular response to pregnancy, which appears to be an early marker of future maternal CVD risk. Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO) including spontaneous preterm delivery (sPTD) has been associated with up to a three-fold increased risk of maternal ASCVD later in life. However, little is known about the association between changes in vascular function associated with APOs and future maternal CVD risk.Methods: We completed a case controlled, matched study, “Is Spontaneous Preterm Delivery Associated with Clustering of Future Maternal Cardiovascular Risk MarkErs?” (SPACE) enrolled 20 women with sPTD (gestation ≤34 weeks) and 20 control women (gestation ≥39 weeks) matched for age (�5 years), parity, race/ethnicity and route of delivery collected between 24-72 hours postpartum. Vascular function was measured by augmentation index corrected for heart rate 75 bpm (AIx75), central pulse pressure (CPP), and pulse wave velocity (PWV). Linear regression models were used to analyze the data. Results: The mean age at enrollment for sPTD and controls was 33 � 6 years and 32 � 6 years respectively. Women with sPTD had significantly lower AIx75 compared to controls (24.10 � 16.10 % vs 39.90 � 15.2 %, p=0.001), respectively. In addition, CPP was significantly lower in sPTD compared to controls (29.1�5 mmHg vs. 34.6 �6 mmHg, respectively, p=0.004). Furthermore, women with sPTD and chorioamnionitis both clinically and/or on pathology report (n=8) had significantly lower AIx75 than matched controls (13.5 �13.7% vs 39.9 � 15.2% vs, p=0.001) respectively, while women with sPTD and no signs or symptoms of chorioamnionitis had a trend toward lower AIx75 than matched controls (26.6� 15.9 % vs. 39.9 � 15.2 %, p=0.065). There was no difference between sPTD and controls in PWV (5.12 � 1.62 m/s vs 5.58 � 1.51m/s, p=0.1219), respectively