In the recent years, there has been significant transformation in the management of valvular heart disease (VHD), as a result of new minimally invasive technologies, such as the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Conventionally, mechanical heart valves require anticoagulation with warfarin to prevent thrombogenic events. Lately, there has been an uptrend in the usage of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in both mechanical and bioprosthetic heart valves. In clinical practice, there has shown to be notable heterogeneity in the antithrombotic regimen for patients. Recommendations from clinical guidelines and emerging data on DOAC use in these settings will be critically reviewed here. Future large, randomized-controlled trials are warranted to delineate the role of DOACs in patients receiving a bioprosthetic valve/TAVI or mechanical heart valve, with and without a baseline indication for anticoagulation or antiplatelets. Until clinical trial data from well-designed studies are available, providers must remain vigilant about DOAC use in patients with VHD, especially in patients with a bioprosthetic or mechanical heart valve.

Vasopressors and inotropes (Vs/Is) are widely used in the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite improvements in hemodynamic variables and end-organ perfusion, these agents have been associated with an increase in mortality, potentially due to the increased risk of tachyarrhythmias—which we hypothesize may be mitigated by beta-blockers (BBs). We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received a V/I (dobutamine, milrinone, dopamine, and norepinephrine) for CS. The primary objective was to assess the effect of BB in patients receiving Vs/Is for CS. In our final analysis of 227 patients, those in the BB group were younger, were more likely to have acute coronary syndrome as the reason for admission, had more reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, were more likely to have coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation as pre-existing co-morbidities, and had a lower rate of in-hospital mortality. Nevertheless, in our multivariable logistic regression analysis, concurrent BB usage with a V/I was not associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality. Our present study sheds light on the importance and urgency of large, carefully designed clinical studies to optimize inpatient medical therapy, particularly evaluating the combination of V/I and BB, in this high-risk patient population.

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan was approved for New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–IV heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in 2015, based on the results of the PARADIGM-HF trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization, compared with enalapril. A subsequent subgroup analysis of the trial showed glycemic improvement for patients on sacubitril/valsartan compared with those on enalapril. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study at the Loma Linda University (LLU) International Heart Institute (IHI). The aim was to evaluate the association of sacubitril/valsartan with glycemic index and other metabolic parameters, including change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), blood pressure (BP), ejection fraction (EF), body weight, and lipid profile from baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. The rates of CV-related hospitalizations and total hospitalizations were also assessed. Results: The change in mean HbA1C from baseline was not significantly different at 1 year ( P = 0.993). The mean EF was significantly higher and the mean diastolic BP was significantly lowered. Body weight and lipid parameters remained unchanged. Both the rates of CV-related hospitalizations and total hospitalizations were significantly lowered. For the prespecified subgroup analysis of diabetic HFrEF patients, the mean HbA1C was nonsignificant at 12 months (mean difference −0.48, P = 0.993). Conclusion: A non-significant reduction in HbA1C was associated in HFrEF patients with diabetes mellitus. Large randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings regarding the potential metabolic benefits of sacubitril/valsartan.

To the Editor It is with great pleasure that we read the retrospective study by Doege et al,¹ which found a reduced incidence of epilepsy in patients with hypertension receiving angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) compared with other antihypertensives. The risk was highest among patients receiving β-blockers and calcium channel blockers (CCBs). The authors applied the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension hypertension guidelines, wherein any of the 5 drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs], ARBs, β-blockers, CCBs, and diuretics) can be used. However, the guidelines suggest the preferential use of β-blockers in atrial fibrillation (AF), symptomatic angina, postmyocardial infarction, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction—which is consistent with major US hypertension guidelines.^2,3 In fact, US guidelines advise against the use of first-line β-blockers outside of these settings (due to lower efficacy at preventing major cardiovascular events when compared with other antihypertensives).^2,3 The presence of these comorbid conditions was not reported in the main publication. As such, we wonder if there were any differences in baseline characteristics, particularly AF—as the annual rate of stroke can be up to 20% in patients with AF,⁴ and it is known that stroke can predispose patients to poststroke epilepsy.