BACKGROUNDThe appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODSUsing an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTSA total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONSIn this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.

BACKGROUNDThe appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODSUsing an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTSA total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONSIn this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.

Background: There are limited data regarding the outcome of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in COVID-19 patients. In this study, we compared the outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrests (IHCA) before and at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York, United States. We also identified the most common comorbidities associated with poor outcomes in our community. Methods: This was a multi-site, single-center, retrospective, observational study. Inclusion criteria for COVID patients were all confirmed positive cases who had in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) between 1 March 2020 and 30 June 2020. The non-COVID cohort included all cardiac arrest cases who had IHCA in 2019. We excluded all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We compared actual survival to that predicted by the GO-FAR score, a validated prediction model for determining survival following IHCA. Results: There were 334 cases in 2019 compared to 450 cases during the specified period in 2020. Patients who initially survived cardiac arrest but then had their code statuses changed to do not resuscitate (DNR) were excluded. Groups were similar in terms of sex distribution, and both had an average age of about 66 years. Seventy percent of COVID patients were of Black or Hispanic ethnicity. A shockable rhythm was present in 7% of COVID patients and 17% of non-COVID patients (p < 0.05). COVID patients had higher BMI (30.7 vs. 28.4, p < 0.05), higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (58% vs. 38%, p < 0.05), and lower incidence of coronary artery disease (22% vs. 35%, p < 0.05). Both groups had almost similar predicted average survival rates based on the GO-FAR score, but only 1.5% of COVID patients survived to discharge compared to 7% of non-COVID patients (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The rate of survival to hospital discharge in COVID-19 patients who suffer IHCA is worse than in non-COVID patients, and lower than that predicted by the GO-FAR score. This finding may help inform our patient population about risk factors associated with high mortality in COVID-19 infection, as well as educate hospitalized patients and healthcare proxies in the setting of code status designation.

Severe tricuspid regurgitation is relatively common, especially in the elderly, and portends poor survival. Neither medical therapy nor conventional surgery is efficacious for most patients. In contrast, transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions are showing promise to improve quality of life and mortality. Although there is more clinical experience with transcatheter tricuspid valve repair, there are many patients for which repair is either not possible or cannot optimally reduce the severity of tricuspid regurgitation. Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement is rapidly emerging and may ultimately become the preferred treatment option. In this review, we discuss transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement, analyze the devices in development and in clinical trials, and highlight the advantages and drawbacks of transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement vs. repair.