Publications Simultaneous With Meeting Presentation
2019; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 139; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circulationaha.118.039246
ISSN1524-4539
AutoresDharam J. Kumbhani, Joseph A. Hill,
Tópico(s)Congenital Heart Disease Studies
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 139, No. 3Publications Simultaneous With Meeting Presentation Free AccessNewsPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessNewsPDF/EPUBPublications Simultaneous With Meeting PresentationAHA Scientific Sessions 2018 Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD, SM and Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD Dharam J. KumbhaniDharam J. Kumbhani University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. and Joseph A. HillJoseph A. Hill Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Internal Medicine, NB11.200, 6000 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-8573. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Originally published14 Jan 2019https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.039246Circulation. 2019;139:307–309Scientific sessions at the major cardiology meetings have long been important and attractive venues for investigators to present and disseminate scientific findings. At these meetings, the late-breaking forum is arguably the most exalted, particularly for the presentation of clinical trials and registries. These studies are typically relevant and topical for practicing clinicians and, not infrequently, result in changes to guidelines and the way we practice a particular aspect of cardiology.Among the numerous initiatives we launched in 2016 when we assumed leadership of Circulation is the publication of late-breaking science simultaneously with its presentation at major meetings. Indeed, we are committed to partnering with the research community to coordinate simultaneous publication of late-breaking science at the time of meeting presentation. This effort affords several value propositions for both investigators and readers. For investigators, it allows for a bigger splash at the meeting and wider dissemination of their findings (for instance, Circulation email blast, social media tags, podcasts). Investigators also receive valuable comments during the peer review process, which may inform their final meeting presentation. Readers have access to detailed, peer-reviewed information on the presented studies, even if they are unable to be physically present at the presentation or have trouble accessing the presentation slides. Studies published in Circulation are less susceptible to excessive positive spin given the mandatory requirement of adherence to CONSORT guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for published clinical trials.1,2 Furthermore, the top simultaneous publications are frequently accompanied by thoughtful editorials from key opinion leaders; these provide context and perspective and help outline the clinical utility of a given study's findings for practicing cardiologists.At American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2018, we published a record-breaking 21 articles simultaneously with their presentation at the meeting. In addition, there were several other articles simultaneously published in Circulation subspecialty journals and in other AHA family journals. At Circulation, this included 7 late-breaking clinical trials, 6 editorials, and 8 other featured research articles.Robinson and colleagues3 presented a phase I/II trial (ENCORE-VT [Phase I/II Study of EP-Guided Noninvasive Cardiac Radioablation for Treatment of Ventricular Tachycardia]) assessing electrophysiological-guided noninvasive cardiac radioablation using stereotactic body radiation therapy. Among the 19 patients enrolled, the median number of ventricular tachycardia episodes declined from 119 to 3, with an astonishing 75% reduction in overall ventricular tachycardia/premature ventricular contraction burden in the majority of patients. In an accompanying editorial, Drs Zei and Mak4 discuss the close partnerships needed for successful implementation of such an approach between 2 fields that seemingly have little in common: cardiac electrophysiology and radiation oncology. They also discuss next steps for this nascent, but highly intriguing and exciting, field.On the interventional front, we published 3 landmark trials during the meeting. Thiele and colleagues5 reported long-term follow-up of the IABP-SHOCK II trial (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II). This builds on earlier reports in which routine use of an intra-aortic balloon pump among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock post–myocardial infarction did not result in improved mortality at either 30 days or 1 year.6 In the present article, no difference was noted with either strategy for mortality or any of the secondary end points tested at 6 years. The overall mortality in this patient population remains high, with >50% of the patients dying by 1 year of follow-up, and an additional ≈15% dying between years 1 and 6. Based on the 1-year results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial and other similarly negative studies, the 2017 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction downgraded the routine use of intra-aortic balloon pump among patients with post–acute myocardial infarction shock to a class III recommendation (level of evidence, B)7; the current longer-term follow-up data corroborate this recommendation. These issues and the overall cardiogenic shock landscape are discussed in an accompanying editorial by Dr Katz and colleagues.8Kapur and colleagues9 reported the results of their Door-to-Unload in STEMI Pilot Trial. In this interesting study, 50 patients presenting with an anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction but without cardiogenic shock were randomly assigned to left ventricular unloading with immediate revascularization or left ventricular unloading followed by revascularization delayed by 30 minutes. Left ventricular unloading was achieved by means of the Impella-CP device. The trial was designed as a proof-of-concept study and, although small and likely underpowered, demonstrated the feasibility of the approach. Because the study did not include an arm that received only primary percutaneous coronary intervention (no unloading), it is challenging to draw direct inferences regarding safety and efficacy, but there was no difference in infarct size between strategies.9 In an accompanying editorial, Dr Patel10 discusses the need for the interventional community and funding agencies/industry to continue to support similar studies in this sick population, so that approaches such as this (unloading) and mechanical support devices (such as Impella) can be rigorously tested and validated.Kufner and colleagues11 presented 10-year clinical outcomes of the ISAR-TEST 4 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiography Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents). This trial compared a biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stent (Yukon Choice PC) with a first-generation permanent-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (Cypher) and a second-generation permanent-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (Xience). It is remarkable that 10-year follow-up information was available for 83% of the initial patient population. At 10 years, outcomes with the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent were similar to the permanent-polymer everolimus-eluting stent, with higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and stent thrombosis events in the permanent-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent arm.11 In an accompanying editorial, Dr Bangalore12 outlines the overall landscape of biodegradable-polymer platforms, noting that this important trial suggests that, although biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents may have similar outcomes in comparison with currently used durable-polymer drug-eluting stents, their outcomes are decidedly not better on long-term follow-up, as many had believed would be the case. For instance, it was felt that durable polymers result in persistent inflammation and thrombogenicity, thereby contributing to late adverse events.In the cardiometabolic space, McGuire and colleagues13 presented an important safety analysis of the CARMELINA trial (Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin). This trial compared linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and elevated cardiovascular and renal risk. Some dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, particularly saxagliptin, have been reported to confer higher risk of hospitalization for heart failure in their respective cardiovascular outcome trials.14 In the present subanalysis, the authors did not detect increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure or recurrent heart failure events among patients receiving linagliptin in comparison with placebo, including among patients with a history of heart failure. Thus, these data are reassuring to practitioners who prescribe this medication. Many important regulatory aspects are discussed in an accompanying editorial by Drs Zannad and Rossignol.15A subanalysis of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial (Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects of Lorcaserin in Overweight and Obese Patients-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 61) assessed the cardiovascular safety and efficacy of the antiobesity drug lorcaserin, a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist. In comparison with placebo, the drug did not increase cardiovascular events but triggered sustained weight loss and improvement in glycemic parameters. In the subanalysis, lorcaserin improved the primary renal outcome in comparison with placebo, primarily by reducing persistent new or worsening albuminuria and new or worsening chronic kidney disease. These effects were consistent across various subgroups of patients.16Prabhakaran and colleagues17 conducted a cluster-randomized trial (mWELLCARE [mWELLCARE: An Integrated mHealth System for the Prevention and Care of Chronic Disease]) among community health centers in India. At the end of 1 year, the use of an electronic health record storage system and electronic decision support did not result in greater reductions in systolic blood pressure or hemoglobin A1c, in comparison with controls. Although negative, this represents a monumental effort, and in an accompanying editorial, Dr Patel18 discusses the disproportionate burden of noncommunicable diseases in developing countries, and the urgent need to systematically evaluate strategies based on digital/mobile health such as this in resource-poor settings.Here, we highlight the articles emerging from large-scale clinical trials. However, we were pleased to publish 8 other articles reporting exciting late-breaking science.The articles we published simultaneously with presentation at AHA Scientific Sessions 2018, many of which are included in this issue, span multiple disciplines of cardiovascular medicine and science and represent some of the most important advances in their respective fields. Whether it relates to stereotactic radiation for recalcitrant tachyarrhythmia or mobile health in India, we look forward to close partnership with the investigative and research communities for simultaneous publication of their important findings at future meetings. In keeping with our commitment to this process, we have instituted several structural measures on our end specifically directed toward expedited processing of such fast-track submissions. Along those lines, special thanks go to the incredible staff at Circulation, in particular, Sara O'Brien, Molly Klemarczyk, and Karen Barry, who have worked tirelessly to orchestrate this complex and time-consuming task; we, as editors, and indeed the entire field, owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.DisclosuresDr Kumbhani has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology. Dr Hill reports no conflicts.Footnoteshttps://www.ahajournals.org/journal/circJoseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Internal Medicine, NB11.200, 6000 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-8573. Email joseph.[email protected]eduReferences1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.BMJ. 2010; 340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Pocock SJ, Collier TJ. Critical appraisal of the 2018 ACC Scientific Sessions late-breaking trials from a statistician's perspective.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71:2957–2969. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.015CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Robinson CG, Sampson PP, Moore KMS, Hugo GD, Knutson N, Mutic S, Goddu SM, Lang A, Cooper DH, Faddis M, Noheria A, Smith TW, Woodard PK, Gropler RJ, Hallahan DE, Rudy Y, Cuculich PS. Phase I/II trial of electrophysiology-guided noninvasive cardiac radioablation for ventricular tachycardia.Circulation. 2019; 139:313–321. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038261LinkGoogle Scholar4. Zei PC, Mak R. Noninvasive stereotactic radioablation for ventricular tachycardia ENCORE-VT (EP-Guided Noninvasive Cardiac Radioablation): is the sequel as good as the original?Circulation. 2019; 139:322–324. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038285LinkGoogle Scholar5. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Thelemann N, Neumann F-J, Hausleiter J, Abdel-Wahab M, Meyer-Saraei R, Fuernau G, Eitel I, Hambrecht R, Böhm M, Werdan K, Felix SB, Hennersdorf M, Schneider S, Ouarrak T, Desch S, de Waha-Thiele S; on behalf of the IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators. Intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: long-term 6-year outcome of the randomized IABP-SHOCK II Trial.Circulation. 2019; 139:395–403. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038201LinkGoogle Scholar6. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, Richardt G, Hennersdorf M, Empen K, Fuernau G, Desch S, Eitel I, Hambrecht R, Fuhrmann J, Bohm M, Ebelt H, Schneider S, Schuler G, Werdan K, Investigators I-SIT. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.N Engl J Med. 2012; 367:1287–1296. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208410CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, Caforio ALP, Crea F, Goudevenos JA, Halvorsen S, Hindricks G, Kastrati A, Lenzen MJ, Prescott E, Roffi M, Valgimigli M, Varenhorst C, Vranckx P, Widimský P; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the task force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).Eur Heart J. 2018; 39:119–177. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Katz S, Smilowitz NR, Hochman JS. Another nail in the coffin for intra-aortic balloon counterpulsion in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.Circulation. 2019; 139:404–406. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038279LinkGoogle Scholar9. Kapur NK, Alkhouli MA, DeMartini TJ, Faraz H, George ZH, Goodwin MJ, Hernandez-Montfort JA, Iyer VS, Josephy N, Kalra S, Kaki A, Karas RH, Kimmelstiel CD, Koeing GC, Lau E, Lotun K, Madder RD, Mannino SF, Meraj PM, Moreland JA, Moses JW, Kim RL, Schreiber TL, Udelson JE, Witzke C, Wohns DHW, O'Neill WW. Unloading the left ventricle before reperfusion in patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction: a pilot study using the Impella CP.Circulation. 2019; 139:337–346. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038269LinkGoogle Scholar10. Patel MR. Percutaneous support devices for percutaneous coronary intervention: having the science catch up with the technology.Circulation. 2019; 139:347–350. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038585LinkGoogle Scholar11. Kufner S, Joner M, Thannheimer A, Hoppmann P, Ibrahim T, Mayer K, Cassese S, Laugwitz K-L, Schunkert H, Kastrati A, Byrne RA; on behalf of the ISAR-TEST 4 Investigators. Ten-year clinical outcomes from a trial of three limus-eluting stents with different polymer coatings in patients with coronary artery disease: results from the ISAR-TEST 4 randomized trial.Circulation. 2019; 139:325–333. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038065LinkGoogle Scholar12. Bangalore S. The elusive late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents.Circulation. 2019; 139:334–336. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038378LinkGoogle Scholar13. McGuire DK, Alexander JH, Johansen OE, Perkovic V, Rosenstock J, Cooper ME, Wanner C, Kahn SE, Toto RD, Zinman B, Baanstra D, Pfarr E, Schnaidt S, Meinicke T, George JT, von Eynatten M, Marx N; on behalf of the CARMELINA Investigators. Linagliptin effects on heart failure and related outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus at high cardiovascular and renal risk in CARMELINA.Circulation. 2019; 139:351–361. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038352LinkGoogle Scholar14. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, Steg PG, Davidson J, Hirshberg B, Ohman P, Frederich R, Wiviott SD, Hoffman EB, Cavender MA, Udell JA, Desai NR, Mosenzon O, McGuire DK, Ray KK, Leiter LA, Raz I, Committee S-TS and Investigators. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.N Engl J Med. 2013; 369:1317–1326. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1307684CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Zannad F, Rossignol P. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure: regression to the truth?Circulation. 2019; 139:362–365. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038399LinkGoogle Scholar16. Scirica BM, Bohula EA, Dwyer JP, Qamar A, Inzucchi SE, McGuire DK, Keech AC, Smith SR, Murphy SA, Im K, Leiter LA, Gupta M, Patel T, Miao W, Perdomo C, Bonaca MP, Ruff CT, Sabatine MS, Wiviott SD; for the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 Steering Committee and Investigators. Lorcaserin and renal outcomes in obese and overweight patients in the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 Trial.Circulation. 2019; 139:366–375. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038341LinkGoogle Scholar17. Prabhakaran D, Jha D, Prieto-Merino D, Roy A, Singh K, Ajay VS, Jindal D, Gupta P, Kondal D, Goenka S, Jacob P, Singh R, Kumar BGP, Perel P, Tandon N, Patel V. Effectiveness of an mHealth-based electronic decision support system for integrated management of chronic conditions in primary care: the mWellcare cluster-randomized controlled trial.Circulation. 2019; 139:380–391. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038192LinkGoogle Scholar18. Patel AA. Developing and evaluating mHealth solutions for chronic disease prevention in primary care: a global health perspective.Circulation. 2019; 139:392–394. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038389LinkGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Schuler K, Kodukulla M, Rosenblum C, Meinhardt N, Sellnow R and Parker T (2022) Parallel publication of articles and congress presentations for industry-sponsored research: strategies for success, Current Medical Research and Opinion, 10.1080/03007995.2022.2078102, 38:6, (875-880), Online publication date: 3-Jun-2022. January 15, 2019Vol 139, Issue 3 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2019 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.039246PMID: 30640546 Originally publishedJanuary 14, 2019 PDF download Advertisement SubjectsBasic Science ResearchTreatment
Referência(s)