Patients with heart failure (HF) syndromes have been categorized as those with reduced ejection fraction (EF; HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF), and ischemia plays a key role in both types. HF remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and with the aging of our population this burden continues to rise, predominantly as a result of hospitalizations for HFpEF. Patients with obstructive coronary artery disease more likely have HFrEF, rather than HFpEF, secondary to acute ischemic injury resulting in myocardial infarction, and large outcomes trials of treatments with neurohumoral inhibition have documented reduced adverse outcomes. In contrast, similar treatments in patients with HFpEF have not proven beneficial. This therapeutic dilemma may be attributed, in part, to heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology with different systemic and myocardial signaling pathways, despite similar clinical presentations and findings, in patients with HFpEF. Also, emerging evidence indicates that impaired myocardial perfusion and inflammation secondary to multiple comorbidities are key mechanisms in HFpEF. We will thoroughly review the role of ischemic heart disease in the pathogenesis of HFrEF and HFpEF, and discuss the medical management strategies available for these conditions.

Women presenting with AMI and SCAD appear to be at higher risk of in-hospital mortality. Lower rates of PCI were associated with improved survival, with evidence of worse outcomes when PCI was performed for SCAD in the setting of non with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE There is mounting evidence regarding the cardiovascular benefits of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There is paucity of data assessing real-world practice patterns for these drug classes. We aimed to assess utilization rates of these drug classes and facility-level variation in their use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used the nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system data set from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 and included patients with established ASCVD and T2DM. Among these patients, we assessed the use of SGLT2-I and GLP-1 RA and the facility-level variation in their use. Facility-level variation was computed using median rate ratios (MRR), a measure of likelihood that two random facilities differ in use of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in patients with ASCVD and T2DM. RESULTS Among 537,980 patients with ASCVD and T2DM across 130 VA facilities, 11.2% of patients received an SGLT2i while 8.0% of patients received a GLP-1 RA. Patients receiving these cardioprotective glucose-lowering drug classes were on average younger and had a higher proportion of non-Hispanic Whites. Overall, median (10th–90th percentile) facility-level rates were 14.92% (9.31–22.50) for SGLT2i and 10.88% (4.44–17.07) for GLP-1 RA. There was significant facility-level variation among SGLT2-Is use—MRRunadjusted: 1.41 (95% CI 1.35–1.47) and MRRadjusted: 1.55 (95% CI 1.46 –1.63). Similar facility-level variation was observed for use of GLP-1 RA—MRRunadjusted: 1.34 (95% CI 1.29–1.38) and MRRadjusted: 1.78 (95% CI1.65–1.90). CONCLUSIONS Overall utilization rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA among eligible patients are low, with significantly higher residual facility-level variation in the use of these drug classes. Our results suggest opportunities to optimize their use to prevent future adverse cardiovascular events among these patients.