Aim: The “2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease” provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. There have been many advances in the field of PE in the last few years, requiring a careful assessment of their impact on patient care. However, variations

In a high-risk population of overweight or obese patients, lorcaserin facilitated sustained weight loss without a higher rate of major cardiovascular events than that with placebo. (Funded by Eisai; CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02019264 .).

BackgroundAnticoagulation in patients with malignancy and atrial fibrillation is challenging because of enhanced risks for thrombosis and bleeding and the frequent need for invasive procedures. Data on direct oral antagonists in such patients are sparse.Methods and ResultsThe ENGAGE AF‐TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Study 48) trial randomized 21 105 patients with atrial fibrillation to edoxaban or warfarin. Patients with malignancy, defined as a postrandomization new diagnosis or recurrence of remote cancer, were followed up over a median of 2.8 years. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of edoxaban versus warfarin. Over a median of 495 days (interquartile range, 230–771 days), 1153 patients (5.5%) were diagnosed with new or recurrent malignancy, most commonly involving the gastrointestinal tract (20.6%), prostate (13.6%), and lung (11.1%). Malignancy was associated with increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.78–3.50) and major bleeding (adjusted HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.07–2.89), but not stroke/systemic embolism (adjusted HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.83–1.42). Relative outcomes with higher‐dose edoxaban versus warfarin were consistent regardless of malignancy status for stroke/systemic embolism (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.31–1.15] for malignancy versus HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.76–1.05] for no malignancy; interaction P=0.25) and major bleeding (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.69–1.40] for malignancy versus HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69–1.05] for no malignancy; interaction P=0.31). There was, however, a significant treatment interaction for the composite ischemic end point (ischemic stroke/systemic embolism/myocardial infarction), with greater efficacy of higher‐dose edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with malignancy (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31–0.93) compared with no malignancy (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88–1.18; interaction P=0.026).ConclusionsIn patients with atrial fibrillation who develop malignancy, the efficacy and safety profile of edoxaban relative to warfarin is preserved, and it may represent a more practical alternative.

BackgroundInterleukin‐6 (IL‐6) is an inflammatory cytokine implicated in plaque instability in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to evaluate the prognostic implications of IL‐6 post‐ACS.Methods and Results IL‐6 concentration was assessed at baseline in 4939 subjects in SOLID‐TIMI 52 (Stabilization of Plaque Using Darapladib—Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 52), a randomized trial of darapladib in patients ≤30 days from ACS. Patients were followed for a median of 2.5 years for major adverse cardiovascular events; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Primary analyses were adjusted first for baseline characteristics, days from index ACS, ACS type, and randomized treatment arm. For every SD increase in IL‐6, there was a 10% higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01‐1.19) and a 22% higher risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure (adj HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.11‐1.34). Patients in the highest IL‐6 quartile had a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (adj HR Q4:Q1 1.57, 95% CI 1.22‐2.03) and cardiovascular death or heart failure (adj HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.6‐3.29). After further adjustment for biomarkers (high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein, lipoprotein‐associated phospholipase A2 activity, high‐sensitivity troponin I, and B‐type natriuretic peptide), IL‐6 remained significantly associated with the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (adj HR Q4:Q1 1.43, 95% CI 1.09‐1.88) and cardiovascular death or heart failure (adj HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.22‐2.63).ConclusionsIn patients after ACS, IL‐6 concentration is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes independent of established risk predictors and biomarkers. These findings lend support to the concept of IL‐6 as a potential therapeutic target in patients with unstable ischemic heart disease.

No abstract

IMPORTANCEWomen with aortopathy conditions are at risk for pregnancy-related aortic dissection, and these conditions may not be recognized until after the aortic dissection occurs.OBJECTIVE To examine the clinical characteristics, imaging features, and outcomes in women with pregnancy-related acute aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND-Heart failure (HF) hospitalization places patients at increased short-term risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Long-term risk for VTE associated with incident HF, HF subtypes, or structural heart disease is unknown. OBJECTIVES-In the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) cohort, VTE risk associated with incident HF, HF subtypes, and abnormal echocardiographic measures in the absence of clinical HF was assessed. METHODS-During follow-up, ARIC identified incident HF and subcategorized HF with preserved ejection fraction or reduced ejection fraction. At the fifth clinical examination, echocardiography was performed. Physicians adjudicated incident VTE using hospital records. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between HF or echocardiographic exposures and VTE. RESULTS-Over a mean of 22 years in 13,728 subjects, of whom 2,696 (20%) developed incident HF, 729 subsequent VTE events were identified. HF was associated with increased longterm risk for VTE (adjusted hazard ratio: 3.13; 95% confidence interval: 2.58 to 3.80). In 7,588 subjects followed for a mean of 10 years, the risk for VTE was similar for HF with preserved ejection fraction (adjusted hazard ratio: 4.71; 95% CI: 2.94 to 7.52) and HF with reduced ejection