Aim: The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests.

Epidemiological evidence is accumulating that indicates greater time spent in sedentary behavior is associated with all-cause and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in adults such that some countries have disseminated broad guidelines that recommend minimizing sedentary behaviors. Research examining the possible deleterious consequences of excess sedentary behavior is rapidly evolving, with the epidemiologybased literature ahead of potential biological mechanisms that might explain the observed associations. This American Heart Association science advisory reviews the current evidence on sedentary behavior in terms of assessment methods, population prevalence, determinants, associations with cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality, potential underlying mechanisms, and interventions. Recommendations for future research on this emerging cardiovascular health topic are included. Further evidence is required to better inform public health interventions and future quantitative guidelines on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular health outcomes. E vidence is accumulating that sedentary behavior might be associated with increased cardiovascular-specific and overall mortality. Insufficient physical activity predicts premature cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and disease burden, such that the United States and other developed countries have issued physical activity guidelines, but these guidelines are specific to physical activity and do not include sedentary behavior.1 Sedentary behavior guidelines to reduce the risk of chronic diseases for adults have been developed in some countries, but they are broadly stated and nonquantitative. For example, Australia and the United Kingdom have public health guidelines stating that adults should minimize the amount of time spent being sedentary (sitting) for extended periods.2,3 Such broad public health guidelines for adults are likely appropriate, because evidence is still accumulating regarding the strength of the association, the evidence for causation (including understanding mechanisms), and the support for dose-response relationships that demonstrate sedentary behavior to be an independent risk factor for adverse health outcomes. Although at one time, excess sedentary behavior was considered to be at one end of the continuum of physical activity such that a person with no moderateto-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was considered "sedentary," consensus is building that sedentary behavior is distinct from lack of MVPA. Even the word "sedentary," derived from the Latin "sedentarius" and defined as "sitting, remaining in one place," connotes a different set of behaviors than non-MVPA. 4 Thus, researchers studying MVPA, physical inactivity, and sedentary behavior are now viewing these behaviors as separate entities with their own unique determinants and health consequences. CLiniCAL STATEMEnTS And GUidELinESThis American Heart Association science advisory summarizes the existing evidence about sedentary behavior as a potential risk factor for CVD and...

Aim: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

No abstract

BackgroundPatients with a myocardial bridge (MB) and no significant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) may experience angina presumably from ischemia, but noninvasive assessment has been limited and the underlying mechanism poorly understood. This study seeks to correlate a novel exercise echocardiography (EE) finding for MBs with invasive structural and hemodynamic measurements.Methods and ResultsEighteen patients with angina and an EE pattern of focal end‐systolic to early‐diastolic buckling in the septum with apical sparing were prospectively enrolled for invasive assessment. This included coronary angiography, left anterior descending artery (LAD) intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and intracoronary pressure and Doppler measurements at rest and during dobutamine stress. All patients were found to have an LAD MB on IVUS. The ratios of diastolic intracoronary pressure divided by aortic pressure at rest (Pd/Pa) and during dobutamine stress (diastolic fractional flow reserve [dFFR]) and peak Doppler flow velocity recordings at rest and with stress were successfully performed in 14 patients. All had abnormal dFFR (≤0.75) at stress within the bridge, distally or in both positions, and on average showed a more than doubling in peak Doppler flow velocity inside the MB at stress. Seventy‐five percent of patients had normalization of dFFR distal to the MB, with partial pressure recovery and a decrease in peak Doppler flow velocity.ConclusionsA distinctive septal wall motion abnormality with apical sparing on EE is associated with a documented MB by IVUS and a decreased dFFR. We posit that the septal wall motion abnormality on EE is due to dynamic ischemia local to the compressed segment of the LAD from the increase in velocity and decrease in perfusion pressure, consistent with the Venturi effect.

No abstract

The optimal preoperative cardiac evaluation strategy for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) undergoing liver transplantation remains unknown. Patients are frequently referred for cardiac catheterization, but the effects of coronary artery disease (CAD) on posttransplant mortality are also unknown. We sought to determine the contribution of CAD and multivessel CAD in particular to posttransplant mortality. We performed a retrospective study of ESLD patients undergoing cardiac catheterization before liver transplant surgery between August 1, 2004 and August 1, 2007 to determine the effects of CAD on outcomes after transplantation. Among 83 patients who underwent left heart catheterization, 47 underwent liver transplantation during the follow-up period. Twenty-one of all ESLD patients who underwent liver transplantation (45%) had CAD. Fifteen of the transplant patients with CAD (71%) had multivessel disease. Among transplant patients, the presence of multivessel CAD (versus no CAD) was predictive of mortality (27% versus 4%, P ¼ 0.046), increased length of stay (22 versus 15 days, P ¼ 0.050), and postoperative pressor requirements (27% versus 4%, P ¼ 0.029). Interestingly, neither the presence of any CAD nor the severity of stenosis in any single coronary artery predicted mortality. Furthermore, none of the traditional clinical predictors (age, gender, diabetes, creatinine, ejection fraction, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score) were predictive of mortality among transplant recipients. In conclusion, multivessel CAD is associated with higher mortality after liver transplantation when it is documented angiographically before transplantation, even in the absence of severe coronary artery stenosis. This study provides preliminary evidence showing that there may be significant prognostic value in coronary angiography as a part of the pretransplant workup.

BackgroundThe rapidly changing landscape of percutaneous coronary intervention provides a unique model for examining disparities over time. Previous studies have not examined socioeconomic inequalities in the current era of drug eluting stents (DES).Methods and ResultsWe analyzed 835 070 hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project across all insurance types from 2008 to 2011, examining whether quality of care and outcomes for patients with ACS differed by income (based on zip code of residence) with adjustment for patient characteristics and clustering by hospital. We found that lower‐income patients were less likely to receive an angiogram within 24 hours of a ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (69.5% for IQ1 versus 73.7% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.79 [0.68 to 0.91]) or within 48 hours of a Non‐STEMI (47.6% for IQ1 versus 51.8% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.86 [0.75 to 0.99]). Lower income was associated with less use of a DES (64.7% for IQ1 versus 71.2% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.83 [0.74 to 0.93]). However, no differences were found for coronary artery bypass surgery. Among STEMI patients, lower‐income patients also had slightly increased adjusted mortality rates (10.8% for IQ1 versus 9.4% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 1.17 [1.11 to 1.25]). After further adjusting for time to reperfusion among STEMI patients, mortality differences across income groups decreased.ConclusionsFor the most well accepted procedural treatments for ACS, income inequalities have faded. However, such inequalities have persisted for DES use, a relatively expensive and until recently, controversial revascularization procedure. Differences in mortality are significantly associated with differences in time to primary PCI, suggesting an important target for understanding why these inequalities persist.