Warfarin has been utilized for decades as an effective anticoagulant in patients with a history of strong risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Established adverse effects include bleeding, skin necrosis, teratogenicity during pregnancy, cholesterol embolization, and nephropathy. One of the lesser-known long-term side effects of warfarin is an increase in systemic arterial calcification. This is significant due to the association between vascular calcification and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have gained prominence in recent years, as they require less frequent monitoring and have a superior side effect profile to warfarin, specifically in relation to major bleeding. The cost and lack of data for DOACs in some disease processes have precluded universal use. Within the last four years, retrospective cohort studies, observational studies, and randomized trials have shown, through different imaging modalities, that multiple DOACs are associated with slower progression of vascular calcification than warfarin. This review highlights the pathophysiology and mechanisms behind vascular calcification due to warfarin and compares the effect of warfarin and DOACs on systemic vasculature.

Aims Previous studies have shown that patients with stress (Takotsubo) cardiomyopathy (SC) and cancer have higher in-hospital mortality than patients with SC alone. No studies have examined outcomes in patients with active cancer and SC compared to patients with active cancer without SC. We aimed to assess the potential association between primary malignancy type and SC and their shared interaction with inpatient mortality. Methods and results We analysed SC by primary malignancy type with propensity score adjusted multivariable regression and machine learning analysis using the 2016 United States National Inpatient Sample. Of 30 195 722 adult hospitalized patients, 4 719 591 had active cancer, of whom 568 239 had SC. The mean age of patients with cancer and SC was 69.1, of which 74.7% were women. Among patients with cancer, those with SC were more likely to be female and have white race, Medicare insurance, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, obesity, cerebrovascular disease, anaemia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P < 0.003 for all). In machine learning-augmented, propensity score multivariable regression adjusted for age, race, and income, only lung cancer [OR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.08–1.46; P = 0.003] and breast cancer [OR 1.81; 95% CI: 1.62–2.02; P < 0.001] were associated with a significantly increased likelihood of SC. Neither SC alone nor having both SC and cancer was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. The presence of concomitant SC and breast cancer was significantly associated with reduced mortality (OR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.25–0.94; P = 0.032). Conclusions This analysis demonstrates that primary malignancy type influences the likelihood of developing SC. Further studies will be necessary to delineate characteristics in patients with lung cancer and breast cancer which contribute to development of SC. Additional investigation should confirm lower mortality in patients with SC and breast cancer and determine possible explanations and protective factors.

Background and Objectives: Cancer and coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexist. Compared to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), fractional flow reserve (FFR) has emerged as a more reliable method of identifying significant coronary stenoses. We aimed to assess the specific management, safety and outcomes of FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cancer patients with stable CAD. Materials and Methods: FFR was used to assess cancer patients that underwent coronary angiography for stable CAD between September 2008 and May 2016, and were found to have ≥50% stenosis by QCA. Patients with lesions with an FFR > 0.75 received medical therapy alone, while those with FFR ≤ 0.75 were revascularized. Procedure-related complications, all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularizations were analyzed. Results: Fifty-seven patients with stable CAD underwent FFR on 57 lesions. Out of 31 patients with ≥70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 14 (45.1%) had an FFR ≥ 0.75 and lesions were reclassified as moderate and did not receive PCI nor DAPT. Out of 26 patients with <70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 6 (23%) had an FFR < 0.75 and were reclassified as severe and were treated with PCI and associated DAPT. No periprocedural complications, urgent revascularization, acute coronary syndromes, or cardiovascular deaths were noted. There was a 22.8% mortality at 1 year, all cancer related. Patients who received a stent by FFR assessment showed a significant association with decreased risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.15–0.90, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Further studies are needed to define the optimal therapeutic approach for cancer patients with CAD. Using an FFR cut-off point of 0.75 to guide PCI translates into fewer interventions and can facilitate cancer care. There was an overall reduction in mortality in patients that received a stent, suggesting increased resilience to cancer therapy and progression.

Internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis may lead to a wide range of clinical symptoms. We describe the case of a 66-year-old female who experienced a transient ischemic attack (TIA) with episodes of limb shaking caused by ICA stenosis. After epilepsy had been suspected and ruled out, studies of her left ICA showed extensive blockage as a result of atherosclerosis. Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) revealed total occlusion of the left ICA and the patient was eventually medically managed due to the strong possibility of surgical complications. We reported this patient’s clinical course to shed light on a rare manifestation of carotid stenosis that may be confused with other diagnoses if not closely scrutinized.

Background: Previous studies have compared Impella use to intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI‐CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with AMI‐CS undergoing PCI who received Impella (percutaneous left ventricular assist device) without vasopressors, IABP without vasopressors, and vasopressors without mechanical circulatory support (MCS).Methods: We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD‐10 codes (2015–2018) to identify patients with AMI‐CS undergoing PCI. We created three propensity‐matched cohorts to examine clinical outcomes in patients receiving Impella versus IABP, Impella versus vasopressors without MCS, and IABP versus vasopressors without MCS.Results: Among 17,762 patients, Impella use was associated with significantly higher in‐hospital major bleeding (31.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001) and hospital charges (p < 0.001) compared to IABP use, with no benefit in mortality (34.1% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.06). Impella use was associated with significantly higher mortality (42.3% vs. 35.7%; p = 0.02), major bleeding (33.9% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.001), and hospital charges (p < 0.001), when compared to the use of vasopressors without MCS. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between IABP use and the use of vasopressor without MCS.Conclusions: In this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI‐CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in‐hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in‐hospital charges. A vasopressor‐only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI‐CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.

Acute chest pain is a common presentation in patients with COVID-19. Although noninvasive cardiac imaging modalities continue to be important cornerstones of management, the pandemic has brought forth difficult and unprecedented challenges in the provision of timely care while ensuring the safety of patients and providers. Clinical practice has adapted to these challenges, with several recommendations and societal guidelines emerging on the appropriate use of imaging modalities. In this review, we summarize the current evidence base on the use of noninvasive cardiac imaging modalities in COVID-19 patients with acute chest pain, with a focus on acute coronary syndromes.