Platypnea-Orthodeoxia Syndrome in Two Previously Healthy Adults: A Case-based Review

We describe here the clinical manifestations of platypnea-orthodeoxia in two patients with interatrial shunting. In both cases, the patients were asymptomatic prior to developing additional cardiopulmonary issues that apparently enhanced right-to-left intracardiac shunting. The patients were both treated with percutaneously deployed occlusion devices, with excellent results. Symptoms and positional oxygen desaturation resolved after device placement in both cases. In addition, these patients remain symptom-free 30 months after device implantation

Five-Year Follow-Up of the Argentine Randomized Trial of Coronary Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients With Multiple Vessel Disease (ERACI II)

ObjectivesThe purpose of the present study is to report the five-year follow-up results of the ERACI II trial.BackgroundImmediate and one-year follow-up results of the ERACI II study showed a prognosis advantage of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stents over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).MethodsA total of 450 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either PCI (n = 225); or CABG (n = 225). Only patients with multi-vessel disease were enrolled. Clinical follow-up during five years was obtained in 92% of the total population after hospital discharge. The primary end point of the study was to compare freedom from major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 30 days, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years of follow-up.ResultsAt five years of follow-up, patients initially treated with PCI had similar survival and freedom from non-fatal acute myocardial infarction than those initially treated with CABG (92.8% vs. 88.4% and 97.3% vs. 94% respectively, p = 0.16). Freedom from repeat revascularization procedures (PCI/CABG) was significantly lower with PCI compared with CABG (71.5% vs. 92.4%, p = 0.0002). Freedom from MACE was also significantly lower with PCI compared with CABG (65.3% vs. 76.4%; p = 0.013). At five years similar numbers of patients randomized to each revascularization procedure were asymptomatic or with class I angina.ConclusionsAt five years of follow-up, in the ERACI II study, there were no survival benefits from any revascularization procedure; however patients initially treated with CABG had better freedom from repeat revascularization procedures and from MACE

Percutaneous Approach to Pericardial Disease Management

Percutaneous access of the pericardial space is increasingly sought. This is not only due to growing prevalence of pericardial effusions and cardiac tamponade, but also the emerging diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the pericardial space for mapping and ablation of arrhythmogenic circuits, biopsy, and drug delivery. Although increasingly performed, percutaneous pericardiocentesis remains a technically challenging procedure with potentially life-threatening complications. Consequently, management of patients with pericardial disease is highly complex. In this chapter we outline a step-by-step approach to percutaneous pericardiocentesis and the required specialised management of pericardial disease patients. Procedural complications are discussed along with their alleviating therapeutic strategies. Furthermore, we describe approaches to the prevention and management of recurrent pericardial effusion including diagnostic and therapeutic procedures such as percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy and intra-pericardial delivery of chemotherapeutics and sclerosing agents

Unusual sequelae after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty: A Doppler echocardiographic study

AbstractPercutaneous mitral valvuloplasty is a promising new technique for the treatment of mitral stenosis, with a relatively low complication rate reported to date. To assess the sequelae of this procedure, Doppler echocardiographic studies were prospectively performed before and after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty in a series of 172 patients (mean age 53 ± 17 years). After balloon dilation, mitral valve area increased from 0.9 ± 0.3 to 2 ± 0.8 cm2(p < 0.0001), mean gradient decreased from 16 ± 6 to 6 ± 3 mm Hg (p < 0.0001) and mean left atrial pressure decreased from 24 ± 7 to 14 ± 6 mm Hg (p < 0.0001).Although most patients were symptomatically improved, six (4%) were identified who had unusual sequelae evident on Doppler echocardiographic examination immediately after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty. These included rupture of a posterior mitral valve leaflet, producing a flail distal leaflet portion with severe mitral regurgitation detected on Doppler color flow mapping (n = 1); asymptomatic rupture of the chordae tendineae attached to the anterior mitral valve leaflet with systolic anterior motion of the ruptured chordae into the left ventricular outflow tract (n = 1); a double-orifice mitral valve (n = 1); and evidence of a tear in the anterior mitral valve leaflet (n = 3), producing on both pulsed Doppler ultrasound and color flow mapping a second discrete jet of mitral regurgitation in addition to regurgitation through the main mitral valve orifice. All six patients made a satisfactory recovery and none has required mitral valve replacement.In a small percent of cases, percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty may produce unusual disruption of the mitral valve and supporting apparatus that may be readily detected by Doppler echocardiographic studies

Optimal coronary balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting versus primary stent (OCBAS) Immediate and long-term follow-up results

AbstractObjective. This study sought to compare two strategies of revascularization in patients obtaining a good immediate angiographic result after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA): elective stenting versus optimal PTCA. A good immediate angiographic result with provisional stenting was considered to occur only if early loss in minimal luminal diameter (MLD) was documented at 30 min post-PTCA angiography.Background. Coronary stenting reduces restenosis in lesions exhibiting early deterioration (>0.3 mm) in MLD within the first 24 hours (early loss) after successful PTCA. Lesions with no early loss after PTCA have a low restenosis rate.Methods. To compare angiographic restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) of lesions treated with coronary stenting versus those treated with optimal PTCA, 116 patients were randomized to stent (n = 57) or to optimal PTCA (n = 59). After randomization in the PTCA group, 13.5% of the patients crossed over to stent due to early loss (provisional stenting).Results. Baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics were similar in both groups of patients. At 7.6 months, 96.6% of the entire population had a follow-up angiographic study: 98.2% in the stent and 94.9% in the PTCA group. Immediate and follow-up angiographic data showed that acute gain was significantly higher in the stent than in the PTCA group (1.95 vs. 1.5 mm; p < 0.03). However, late loss was significantly higher in the stent than the PTCA group (0.63 ± 0.59 vs. 0.26 ± 0.44, respectively; p = 0.01). Hence, net gain with both techniques was similar (1.32 ± 0.3 vs. 1.24 ± 0.29 mm for the stent and the PTCA groups, respectively; p = NS). Angiographic restenosis rate at follow-up (19.2% in stent vs. 16.4% in PTCA; p = NS) and TVR (17.5% in stent vs. 13.5% in PTCA; p = NS) were similar. Furthermore, event-free survival was 80.8% in the stent versus 83.1% in the PTCA group (p = NS). Overall costs (hospital and follow-up) were US $591,740 in the stent versus US$398,480 in the PTCA group (p < 0.02).Conclusions. The strategy of PTCA with delay angiogram and provisional stent if early loss occurs had similar restenosis rate and TVR, but lower cost than primary stenting after PTCA

Coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with acute-onset idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy

AbstractObjectives. This study sought to determine whether coronary endothelial dysfunction exists in patients with acute-onset idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and to explore its relation to recovery of left ventricular systolic function in this patient population.Background. Coronary endothelial dysfunction exists in chronic DCM, but its importance in the development and progression of ventricular dysfunction is not known. To address this issue we studied coronary endothelial function in patients with idiopathic DCM <6 months in duration and explored the relation between coronary endothelial function and subsequent changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).Methods. Ten patients with acute-onset idiopathic DCM (duration of heart failure symptoms 2.0 ± 0.4 months [mean ± SEM]) and 11 control patients with normal left ventricular function underwent assessment of coronary endothelial function during intracoronary administration of the endothelium-dependent vasodilator acetylcholine and the endothelium-independent vasodilator adenosine. Coronary cross-sectional area (CSA) was determined by quantitative coronary angiography and coronary blood flow (CBF) by the product of coronary CSA and CBF velocity measured by an intracoronary Doppler catheter. Patients with DCM underwent assessment of left ventricular function before and several months after the study.Results. Acetylcholine infusion produced no change in coronary CSA in control patients but significant epicardial constriction in patients with DCM (−36 ± 11%, p < 0.01). These changes were associated with increases in CBF in control patients (+118 ± 49%, p < 0.01) but no change in patients with DCM. Infusion of adenosine produced increases in coronary caliber and blood flow in both groups. Follow-up assessment of left ventricular function was obtained in nine patients with DCM 7.0 ± 1.7 months after initial study, at which time LVEF had improved by ≥0.10 in four patients. Multiple linear regression revealed a positive correlation between both the coronary CSA (r2 = 0.57, p < 0.05) and CBF (r2 = 0.68, p < 0.01) response to acetylcholine and the subsequent improvement in LVEF.Conclusions. Coronary endothelial dysfunction exists at both the microvascular and the epicardial level in patients with acute-onset idiopathic DCM. The preservation of coronary endothelial function in this population is associated with subsequent improvement in left ventricular function

Efficacy and safety of a double-coated paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent: The EUCATAX trial

Objectives: The aim of this study was the comparison of a new double-coated paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent with bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background: Stent coating with biodegradable polymers as a platform for elution of drugs has the potential for complete elution of drugs and for decreasing the risk of late complications. Methods: Multicenter randomized trial comparing a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) coated with a biodegradable polymer and glycocalyx with the equivalent BMS. We randomly assigned 422 patients with de novo coronary lesions to PES (211 patients) or to BMS (211 patients). Primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Clinical secondary end points were target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Angiographic secondary end points were late loss and binary restenosis. Results: At 1 year of follow-up, TVF rate was 9.5% in the PES group and 17.1% in the BMS group (P = 0.02), and MACE rate was 10% in PES and 19% in BMS arm (P = 0.009). All other secondary end points were reached but ST. ST rate was low and similar in both study arms. Conclusions: The study shows that patients treated with PES with dual coating technology had significantly lower incidence of TVF and MACE than those treated with BMS design; however, longer follow-up should be necessary to assess true advantages of this technology compared with the previous one.Fil: Rodriguez, Alfredo E.. Sanatorio "Otamendi y Miroli S. A."; ArgentinaFil: Vigo, Cesar F.. Sanatorio del Salvador S. A.; ArgentinaFil: Delacasa, Alejandro. Sanatorio Belgrano; ArgentinaFil: Mieres, Juan. Sanatorio "Otamendi y Miroli S. A."; ArgentinaFil: Fernandez Pereira, Carlos. Sanatorio "Otamendi y Miroli S. A."; ArgentinaFil: Bernardi, Victor. Clinica del Sol;Fil: Bettinoti, Marcelo. Sanatorio Guemes Sociedad Anonima.; ArgentinaFil: Rodriguez Granillo, Gaston Alfredo. Sanatorio "Otamendi y Miroli S.A.". Servicio de Diagnóstico por Imágenes. Departamento de Imágenes en Cardiología. Centro de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Curotto, Valeria. Sanatorio "Otamendi y Miroli S. A."; ArgentinaFil: Rubilar, Bibiana. Sanatorio "Otamendi y Miroli S. A."; ArgentinaFil: Tronge, Jorge. No especifíca;Fil: Palacios, Igor F.. Massachusetts General Hospital; Estados UnidosFil: Antoniucci, David. Careggi Hospital; Itali

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

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