Cardionerds: A Cardiology Podcast

Join CardioNerds Co-Founder Dr. Dan Ambinder, Dr. Nino Isakadze (EP Fellow at Johns Hopkins Hospital), Dr. Karan Desai (Cardiology Faculty at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Bayview) and student Dr. Shivani Reddy (Medical Student at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker SOM), as they discuss how digital health in changing the landscape of CV Disease Management with Dr. Dipti Itchhaporia (Past President of the ACC). The overall goal of this episode is to broadly describe the current landscape of digital health for cardiovascular disease, define “digital health tools” and describe their role in cardiovascular disease management. Episode audio was edited by student Dr. Shivani Reddy and show notes were developed by Dr. Nino Isakadze. In this series, supported by an ACC Chapter Grant and in collaboration with Corrie Health, we hope to provide all CardioNerds out there a primer on the role of digital heath in cardiovascular medicine. Use of versatile hardware and software devices is skyrocketing in everyday life. This provides unique platforms to support healthcare management outside the walls of the hospital for patients with or at risk for cardiovascular disease. In addition, evolution of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and telemedicine is augmenting clinical decision making at a new level fueling a revolution in cardiovascular disease care delivery. Digital health has the potential to bridge the gap in healthcare access, lower costs of healthcare and promote equitable delivery of evidence-based care to patients. This CardioNerds Digital Health series is made possible by contributions of stellar fellow leads and expert faculty from several programs, led by series co-chairs, Dr. Nino Isakadze and Dr. Karan Desai.   Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. CardioNerds Digital Health Series PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls and Quotes COVID 19 pandemic accelerated the digital transformation of healthcare. Digital health tools exist for disease prediction, diagnosis and management. Digital health can increase access to care and lower overall cost expenditure. Clinicians, policy makers, and insurance providers should be involved to facilitate rapid and effective adoption of digital health interventions to better patient and population health. Notes 1. How did the COVID-19 pandemic accelerate the process of adopting digital health tools in healthcare including cardiovascular disease management? Although technological advances and technological transformation have been implemented in many aspects of our lives, their adoption in healthcare, including cardiovascular disease management has lagged behind. The COVID-19 pandemic was a force that led to the Tech-celeration as we adopted telemedicine and remote patient monitoring platforms in a short time to preserve access to healthcare. Technology became essential not to replace but to support face to face interactions. Reimbursement models were rapidly created that fit digital healthcare delivery; however it remains unclear whether these models will continue to be in effect in the post pandemic era. 2.  Can you discuss broadly the current landscape of evidence-based digital health tools available for cardiovascular disease management? Three components of digital health landscape can be broken down as follows:Virtual care/telehealth platformsRemote patient monitoring systems including implanted devices, patches, wearables, smartphone applications and more Artificial intelligence to allow meaningful use of the big data obtained from remote patient monitoring systems in therapeutic and disease management pathways    3.

It’s another session of CardioNerds Rounds! In these rounds, Dr. Karan Desai (Formerly FIT at University of Maryland Medical Center and currently faculty at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine) joins Dr. Dan Burkhoff (Director of Heart Failure, Hemodynamics and MCS Research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation) to discuss mechanical circulatory support options through the lens of pressure-volume loops! Dr. Burkhoff is the author of Harvi, an interactive simulation-based application for teaching and researching many aspects of ventricular hemodynamics. Don’t miss this wonderfully nerdy episode with a world-renowned expert in hemodynamics and MCS! Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, student doctor Chelsea Amo Tweneboah. This episode is supported with unrestricted funding from Zoll LifeVest. A special thank you to Mitzy Applegate and Ivan Chevere for their production skills that help make CardioNerds Rounds such an amazing success. All CardioNerds content is planned, produced, and reviewed solely by CardioNerds. Case details are altered to protect patient health information. CardioNerds Rounds is co-chaired by Dr. Karan Desai and Dr. Natalie Stokes.  Challenging Cases - Atrial Fibrillation with Dr. Hugh Calkins CardioNerds Rounds PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Show notes - Hemodynamics and Mechanical Circulatory Support Case Synopsis: Case SynopsisWe focused on one case during these rounds. A man in his mid-50s presented to his local community hospital with 3 days of chest pain, nausea, and vomiting. He appeared ill in the emergency room with HR in the 150s, BP 90/70s and ECG demonstrating inferior ST elevations. He was taken emergently to the catheterization lab and received overlapping stents to his right coronary artery. Over the next 24 hours, he developed a new harsh systolic murmur heard throughout his precordium and progressed to cardiogenic shock. Echocardiogram demonstrated a large basal inferoseptum ventricular septal rupture. From this point, we discussed the hemodynamics of VSR and MCS options. Case Takeaways Dr. Burkhoff took us through the hemodynamics of VSR with pressure-volume loops to better understand the pathology and impact of various MCS options. Of note, there are no MCS devices specifically approved to treat acute ventricular septal rupture. In regards to the acute hemodynamic effects of a VSR (an abrupt left to right shunt), there are several aspects to note. First, the effective LV afterload is reduced; however, there is less “forward flow” as well and as a consequence, decreased left-sided cardiac output (“Qs”) and blood pressure. At the same time, flow through the pulmonary artery increases (the “Qp”). Additionally, due to the abrupt shunt flow, there is increased RV “loading” with increasing central venous pressure and pulmonary artery pressure. The hemodynamic priorities in treating patients with cardiogenic shock and VSR are to normalize blood pressure, cardiac output, and oxygen delivery, while attempting to minimize shunt flow to allow healing. However, medications and MCS are unlikely to completely normalize hemodynamics. For instance, if the patient was placed on peripheral VA ECMO, while total CO and BP may increase, flow across the VSR could also increase at high ECMO flows (e.g., by introducing more LV afterload). In patients with persistent cardiogenic shock and VSR, short-term MCS to divert flow away from the shunt can be an effective strategy. LV-to-aorta or LA-to-arterial MCS may provide the best single-device hemodynamic profiles by decreasing shunt flow, reducing pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and improving blood pressure. Surgical and percutaneous VSD repair are the definitive treatment options. If able to stabilize patients and pursue delayed repair,

The following question refers to Section 9.5 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.  The question is asked by Western Michigan University medical student & CardioNerds Intern Shivani Reddy, answered first by Brigham & Women’s medicine resident and Director of CardioNerds Internship Dr. Gurleen Kaur, and then by expert faculty Dr. Shashank Sinha. Dr. Sinha is an Assistant Professor of Medical Education at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and an advanced heart failure, MCS, and transplant cardiologist at Inova Fairfax Medical Campus. He currently serves as both the Director of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit and Cardiovascular Critical Care Research Program at Inova Fairfax. He is also a Steering Committee member for the multicenter Cardiogenic Shock Working Group and Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network and an Associate Editor for the Journal of Cardiac Failure, the official Journal of the Heart Failure Society of America. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #12 Mr. Shock is a 65-year-old man with a history of hypertension and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (LVEF 25%) who is admitted with acute decompensated heart failure. He is currently being diuresed with a bumetanide drip, but is only making 20 cc/hour of urine. On exam, blood pressure is 85/68 mmHg and heart rate is 110 bpm. His JVP is at 12 cm and extremities are cool with thready pulses. Bloodwork is notable for a lactate of 3.5 mmol/L and creatinine of 2.5 mg/dL (baseline Cr 1.2 mg/dL). What is the most appropriate next step? A Augment diuresis with metolazone B Start sodium nitroprusside C Start dobutamine D Start oral metoprolol E None of the above Answer #12 Explanation The correct answer is C – start dobutamine.   In this scenario, the patient is in cardiogenic shock given hypotension and evidence of end-organ hypoperfusion on exam and labs. The patient’s cool extremities, low urine output, elevated lactate, and elevated creatinine all point towards hypoperfusion.   In patients with cardiogenic shock, intravenous inotropic support should be used to maintain systemic perfusion and preserve end-organ function (Class 1, LOE B-NR). Further, in patients with cardiogenic shock whose end-organ function cannot be maintained by pharmacologic means, temporary MCS is reasonable to support cardiac function (Class 2a, LOE B-NR).   The SCAI Cardiogenic Shock Criteria can be used to divide patients into stages. Stage A is a patient at risk for cardiogenic shock but currently not with any signs or symptoms, for example, a patient presenting with a myocardial infarction without present evidence of shock. Stage B is “pre-shock” – this may be a patient who has volume overload, tachycardia, and hypotension but does not have hypoperfusion based on exam and lab evaluation. Stage C is classic cardiogenic shock – the cold and wet profile. Bedside findings for Stage C shock include cool extremities, weak pulses, altered mental status, decreased urine output, and/or respiratory distress. Lab findings include impaired renal function, increased lactate, increased hepatic enzymes, and/or acidosis. Stage D is deteriorating with worsening hypotension and hypoperfusion with escalating use of pressors or mechanical circulatory support.

The following question refers to Section 8.1 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.  The question is asked by Western Michigan University medical student & CardioNerds Intern Shivani Reddy, answered first by Brigham & Women’s medicine resident and Director of CardioNerds Internship Dr. Gurleen Kaur, and then by expert faculty Dr. Prateeti Khazanie. Dr. Khazanie is an Associate Professor and Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiologist at the University of Colorado. She was an undergraduate at Duke University as a B.N. Duke Scholar. She spent two years at the NIH in the lab of Dr. Anthony Fauci and completed a dual MD-MPH program at Duke Medical School. When she started residency, she thought she was going to be an ID doctor, but she fell in love with cardiology at Stanford where she was an intern, resident, and then chief resident. She went back to Duke for her general cardiology and advanced heart failure/transplant fellowships as well as research training at the DCRI. Dr. Khazanie joined the University of Colorado in 2015 as a health services clinician researcher with a focus on improving health equity and bioethics in advanced heart failure care. She mentors medical students, residents, and fellows and is a faculty mentor for the University of Colorado Cardiology Fellows “House of Cards” mentoring group. She has research funding from the NIH/NHLBI K23, NIH Ethics Grant, and Ludeman Center for Women’s Health Research. Dr. Khazanie is an author on the 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA HF Guidelines, the 2021 HFSA Universal Definition of Heart Failure, and multiple scientific statements. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #11 A 64-year-old woman with a history of chronic systolic heart failure secondary to NICM (LVEF 15-20%) s/p dual chamber ICD presents for routine follow-up. She reports several months of progressive fatigue, dyspnea, and peripheral edema. She has been hospitalized twice in the past year with acute decompensated heart failure. Efforts to optimize guideline directed medical therapy have been tempered by episodes of lightheadedness and hypotension. Her exam is notable for an elevated JVP, an S3 heart sound, and a III/VI holosystolic murmur best heard at the apex with radiation to the axilla. Labs show Na 130 mmol/L, Cr 1.8 mg/dL (from 1.1 mg/dL 6 months prior), and NT-proBNP 1,200 pg/mL. ECG in clinic shows sinus rhythm and a nonspecific IVCD with QRS 116 ms. Her most recent TTE shows biventricular dilation with LVEF 15-20%, moderate functional MR, moderate functional TR and estimated RVSP of 40mmHg. What is the most appropriate next step in management? A Refer to electrophysiology for upgrade to CRT-D B Increase sacubitril-valsartan dose C Refer for advanced therapies evaluation D Start treatment with milrinone infusion Answer #11 Explanation The correct answer is C – refer for advanced therapies evaluation. Our patient has multiple signs and symptoms of advanced heart failure including NYHA Class III-IV functional status, persistently elevated natriuretic peptides, severely reduced LVEF, evidence of end organ dysfunction, multiple hospitalizations for ADHF, edema despite escalating doses of diuretics, and progressive intolerance to GDMT. Importantly, the 2018 European Society of Cardiology revised definition of advanced HF focuses...

The following question refers to Section 7.7 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by St. George's University medical student and CardioNerds Intern Chelsea Tweneboah, answered first by Baylor College of Medicine Cardiology Fellow and CardioNerds Ambassador Dr. Jamal Mahar, and then by expert faculty Dr. Michelle Kittleson.Dr. Kittleson is Director of Education in Heart Failure and Transplantation, Director of Heart Failure Research, and Professor of Medicine at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai. She is Deputy Editor of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, on Guideline Writing Committees for the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association, is the Co Editor-in-Chief for the ACC Heart Failure Self-Assessment Program, and on the Board of Directors for the Heart Failure Society of America. Her Clinician’s Guide to the 2022 Heart Failure guidelines, published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure, are a must-read for everyone!The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #10 Ms. Heffpefner is a 54-year-old woman who comes to your office for a routine visit. She does report increased fatigue and dyspnea on exertion without new orthopnea or extremity edema. She was previously diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, morbid obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, and TIA. She is currently prescribed metformin 1000mg twice daily, aspirin 81mg daily, rosuvastatin 40mg nightly, and furosemide 40mg daily. In clinic, her BP is 140/85 mmHg, HR is 110/min (rhythm irregularly irregular, found to be atrial fibrillation on ECG), and BMI is 43 kg/m2. Transthoracic echo shows an LVEF of 60%, moderate LV hypertrophy, moderate LA enlargement, and grade 2 diastolic dysfunction with no significant valvulopathy. What is the best next step? A Provide reassurance B Refer for gastric bypass C Refer for atrial fibrillation ablation D Start metoprolol and apixaban Answer #10 ExplanationThe correct answer is D – start metoprolol and apixaban.Ms. Hefpeffner has a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) and has a significantly elevated risk for embolic stroke based on her CHA2DS2-VASc score of 6 (hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, prior TIA, and female sex). The relationship between AF and HF is complex and the presence of either worsens the status of the other. Managing AF in patients with HFpEF can lead to symptom improvement (Class 2a, LOR C-EO). However, large, randomized trial data are unavailable to specifically guide therapy in patients with AF and HFpEF. Generally, management of AF involves stroke prevention, rate and/or rhythm control, and lifestyle / risk-factor modification. With regards to stroke prevention, patients with chronic HF with permanent-persistent-paroxysmal AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 (for men) and ≥3 (for women) should receive chronic anticoagulant therapy (Class 1, LOE A). When anticoagulation is used in chronic HF patients with AF, a DOAC is recommended over warfarin in eligible patients (Class 1, LOE A).The decision for rate versus rhythm control should be individualized and reflects both patient symptoms and the likelihood of better ventricular function with sinus rhythm. For patients with HF and symptoms caused by AF,

The following question refers to Section 7.6 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.  The question is asked by premedical student and CardioNerds Intern Pacey Wetstein, answered first by Baylor College of Medicine Cardiology Fellow and CardioNerds Ambassador Dr. Jamal Mahar, and then by expert faculty Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. Dr. Sweitzer is Professor of Medicine, Vice Chair of Clinical Research for the Department of Medicine, and Director of Clinical Research for the Division of Cardiology at Washington University School of Medicine. She is the editor-in-chief of Circulation: Heart Failure. Dr. Sweitzer is a faculty mentor for this Decipher the HF Guidelines series. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #9 Mr. Flo Zin is a 64-year-old man who comes to discuss persistent lower extremity edema and dyspnea with mild exertion. He takes amlodipine for hypertension but has no other known comorbidities. In the clinic, his heart rate is 52 bpm and blood pressure is 120/70 mmHg. Physical exam reveals mildly elevated jugular venous pulsations and 1+ bilateral lower extremity edema. Labs show an unremarkable CBC, normal renal function and electrolytes, a Hb A1c of 6.1%, and an NT-proBNP of 750 (no prior baseline available). On echocardiogram, his LVEF is 44% and nuclear stress testing was negative for inducible ischemia. What is the best next step in management? A Add furosemide BID and daily metolazone B Start empagliflozin and furosemide as needed C Start metoprolol succinate D No change to medical therapy Answer #9 Explanation The correct answer is B – start empagliflozin and furosemide as needed. The patient described here has heart failure with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), given LVEF in the range of 41-49%. In patients with HF who have fluid retention, diuretics are recommended to relieve congestion, improve symptoms, and prevent worsening HF (Class 1, LOE B-NR). For patients with HF and congestive symptoms, addition of a thiazide (eg, metolazone) to treatment with a loop diuretic should be reserved for patients who do not respond to moderate or high-dose loop diuretics to minimize electrolyte abnormalities (Class 1, LOE B-NR). Therefore, option A is not correct as he is only mildly congested on examination, and likely would not require such aggressive decongestive therapy, particularly with normal renal function. Adding a thiazide diuretic without first optimizing loop diuretic dosing would be premature. The EMPEROR-Preserved trial showed a significant benefit of the SGLT2i, empagliflozin, in patients with symptomatic HF, with LVEF >40% and elevated natriuretic peptides. The 21% reduction in the primary composite endpoint of time to HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death was driven mostly by a significant 29% reduction in time to HF hospitalization, with no benefit on all-cause mortality. Empagliflozin also resulted in a significant reduction in total HF hospitalizations, decrease in the slope of the eGFR decline, and a modest improvement in QOL at 52 weeks. Of note, the benefit was similar irrespective of the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline. In a subgroup of 1983 patients with LVEF 41% to 49% in EMPEROR-Preserved, empagliflozin, an SGLT2i, reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization f...

The following question refers to Section 7.3 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by Palisades Medical Center medicine resident & CardioNerds Intern Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian, answered first by MedStar Washington Hospital Center cardiology hospitalist & CardioNerds Academy Graduate Dr. Luis Calderon, and then by expert faculty Dr. Gregg Fonarow.Dr. Fonarow is the Professor of Medicine and Interim Chief of UCLA's Division of Cardiology, Director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, and Co-director of UCLA's Preventative Cardiology Program.The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #8 Ms. Flo Zinn is a 60-year-old woman seen in cardiology clinic for follow up of her chronic HFrEF management. She has a history of stable coronary artery disease, hypertension, hypothyroidism, and recurrent urinary tract infections. She does not have a history of diabetes and recent hemoglobin A1c is 5.0%. Her current medications include carvedilol, sacubitril-valsartan, eplerenone, and atorvastatin. Her friend was recently placed on an SGLT2 inhibitor and asks if she should be considered for one as well. Which of the following is the most important consideration when deciding to start this patient on an SGLT2 inhibitor? A The patient does not have a history of type 2 diabetes and so does not qualify for SGLT2 inhibitor therapy B While SGLT2 inhibitors improve hospitalization rates for HFrEF, there is no evidence that they improve cardiovascular mortality C Patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors tend to suffer a more rapid decline in renal function than patients not taking SGLT2 inhibitor therapy D Patients may be at a higher risk for genitourinary infections if an SGLT2 inhibitor is started Answer #8 Explanation   The correct answer is D – SGLT2 inhibitors have been associated with increased risk of genitourinary infections. Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have gathered a lot of press recently as the new kid on the block with respect to heart failure management. While they were initially developed as antihyperglycemic medications for treating diabetes, early cardiovascular outcomes trials showed reduced rates of heart failure hospitalization amongst study participants independent of glucose-lowering effects and irrespective of baseline heart failure status – only 10-14% of patients carried a heart failure diagnosis at baseline. This prompted trials to study the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with symptomatic chronic HFrEF who were already on guideline directed medical therapy irrespective of the presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced trials showed that dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively, both conferred statistically significant improvements in a composite of heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (Option B). Most interestingly, these effects were seen irrespective of diabetes history. In light of these findings, the 2022 HF guidelines recommend SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with chronic, symptomatic HFrEF with or without diabetes to reduce hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular mortality (Class I, LOE A). The benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors extend beyond cardiovascular health.

The following question refers to Section 7.3.1 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.  The question is asked by Palisades Medical Center medicine resident & CardioNerds Intern Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian, answered first by MedStar Washington Hospital Center cardiology hospitalist & CardioNerds Academy Graduate Dr. Luis Calderon, and then by expert faculty Dr. Robert Mentz.  Dr. Mentz is associate professor of medicine and section chief for Heart Failure at Duke University, a clinical researcher at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Dr. Mentz is a mentor for the CardioNerds Clinical Trials Network as lead principal investigator for PARAGLIDE-HF and is a series mentor for this very 2022 heart failure Decipher the Guidelines Series. For these reasons and many more, he was awarded the Master CardioNerd Award during ACC22. Welcome Dr. Mentz!  The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #7 Ms. Valarie Sartan is a 55-year-old woman with a history of HFrEF (EF 35%) and well controlled, non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus who presents to heart failure clinic for routine follow up. She is currently being treated with metoprolol succinate 200mg daily, lisinopril 10mg daily, empagliflozin 10mg daily, and spironolactone 50mg daily. She notes stable dyspnea with moderate exertion, making it difficult to do her yardwork. On exam she is well appearing, and blood pressure is 115/70 mmHg with normal jugular venous pulsations and trace bilateral lower extremity edema. On labs, her potassium is 4.0 mmol/L and creatinine is 0.7 mg/dL with an eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73m2. Which of the following options would be the most appropriate next step in heart failure therapy?  A  Increase lisinopril to 40mg daily  B  Increase spironolactone to 100mg daily  C  Add sacubitril-valsartan to her regimen  D  Discontinue lisinopril and start sacubitril-valsartan in 36 hours  E  No change  Answer #7 Explanation   The correct answer is D – transitioning from an ACEi to an ARNi is the most appropriate next step in management.   The renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) is upregulated in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Blockade of the RAAS system with ACE inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) have proven mortality benefit in these patients.   The PARADIGM-HF trial compared sacubitril-valsartan (an ARNi) with enalapril in symptomatic patients with HFrEF. Patients receiving ARNi incurred a 20% relative risk reduction in the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Based on these results, the 2022 heart failure guidelines recommend replacing an ACEi or ARB for an ARNi in patients with chronic symptomatic HFrEF with NYHA class II or III symptoms to further reduce morbidity and mortality (Option D). This is a class I recommendation with level of evidence of B-R and is also of high economic value. Making no changes at this time would be inappropriate (Option E).  While it would be reasonable to increase the dose of lisinopril to 40mg (Option A), this should be pursued only if ARNi therapy is not tolerated.   Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have a class I (LOE A...

CardioNerds co-founder Daniel Ambinder joins Cleveland Clinic cardiology fellows, Dr. Essa Hariri, Dr. Anna Scandinaro, and Dr. Beka Bekhdatze, Clinical pharmacist at Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Ashley Kasper, and Dr. Craig Parris from Ohio State University Medical Center for a walk at Edgewater Park in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Andrew Higgins (Crtitical Care Cardiology and Advanced HF / Transplant Cardiology at Cleveland Clinic) provides the ECPR for this episode. They discuss the following case involving a rare cause of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. A young African American male was admitted for cardiogenic shock following an admission a month earlier for treatment resistant psychosis. He was diagnosed with medication-induced non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, which resolved with a remarkable recovery of his systolic function after discontinuation of the culprit medication, Clozapine. Episode notes were drafted by Dr. Essa Hariri. Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, student doctor Shivani Reddy. Enjoy this case report co-published in US Cardiology Review: Clozapine-induced Cardiomyopathy: A Case Report CardioNerds is collaborating with Radcliffe Cardiology and US Cardiology Review journal (USC) for a ‘call for cases’, with the intention to co-publish high impact cardiovascular case reports, subject to double-blind peer review. Case Reports that are accepted in USC journal and published as the version of record (VOR), will also be indexed in Scopus and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). CardioNerds Case Reports PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls - An Unusual Case of Non-ischemic Cardiomyopathy The diagnosis of drug-induced non-ischemic cardiomyopathy is usually one of exclusion. High clinical suspicion is needed to diagnose drug-induced cardiomyopathy. Missing the culprit medication causing drug-induced cardiomyopathy could be detrimental as there is a high probability of reversing a systolic dysfunction after stopping the offending medication. Clozapine is an effective medication for the treatment-resistant schizophrenia and is associated with reduced suicide risk. Clozapine is reported to cause drug-induced cardiomyopathy and is more common with rapid drug titration. Clozapine is more commonly associated with myocarditis. Close monitoring and vigilance are critical to preventing cardiac complications associated with initiating clozapine. The management of clozapine-associated cardiomyopathy includes clozapine cessation and heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy. Show Notes - An Unusual Case of Non-ischemic Cardiomyopathy We treated a case of clozapine-associated cardiomyopathy presenting in cardiogenic shock. Drug-induced cardiomyopathy is a common yet under-recognized etiology of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Clozapine is an FDA-approved atypical antipsychotic medication frequently prescribed for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and the only antipsychotic agent that has been proven to significantly reduce suicide among this patient population. However, Clozapine is reported to be associated with several forms of cardiotoxicity, including myocarditis (most common), subclinical clozapine associated cardiotoxicity, and least commonly, drug-induced cardiomyopathy. Clozapine-associated cardiomyopathy should be considered as a differential diagnosis in schizophrenic patients presenting with signs of acute heart failure.  Rapid titration of clozapine is a risk factor for clozapine-associated cardiomyopathy and clozapine-associated myocarditis. To date, there is no evidence or consensus supporting preemptive screening. According to the American Psychiatric Association, whenever clozapine-induced myocarditis or cardiomyopathy is suspected, a cardiology consult is warranted.

Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is routinely utilized in the CICU. Series co-chairs Dr. Eunice Dugan and Dr Karan Desai along with CardioNerds Co-founder Dr. Daniel Ambinder were joined by FIT lead and CardioNerds Ambassador from University of Washington, Dr. Tomio Tran. Our episode expert is world-renowned nephrologist Dr. Joel Topf. Dr. Topf is Medical Director of Research at St. Clair Nephrology, and editor of the Handbook of Critical Care Nephrology. In this episode, we describe a case of cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction resulting in renal failure, ultimately requiring continuous RRT (CRRT). We discuss the most common causes of AKI within the cardiac ICU, indications for initiating RRT, evidence on the timing of RRT, different modes of RRT, basic management of the RRT circuit, and how to transition patients off of RRT during renal recovery. Episode notes were drafted by Dr. Tomio Tran. Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian. The CardioNerds Cardiac Critical Care Series is a multi-institutional collaboration made possible by contributions of stellar fellow leads and expert faculty from several programs, led by series co-chairs, Dr. Mark Belkin, Dr. Eunice Dugan, Dr. Karan Desai, and Dr. Yoav Karpenshif. Pearls • Notes • References • Production Team CardioNerds Cardiac Critical Care PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls and Quotes - Approach to Renal Replacement Therapy in the CICU Do not commit “Renalism” - withholding lifesaving treatments from patients with renal impairment due to fear of causing renal injury. Shared decision making is key. In the ICU, most of the time, AKI is caused by ATN due to adverse hemodynamics. Nephrologists can help determine the cause if the patient has an atypical presentation. Late dialysis initiation is non-inferior to early dialysis initiation. Early initiation may lead to higher rates of prolonged time on dialysis. Slow low efficiency daily diafiltration (SLEDD) vs CRRT are equivalent in terms of outcomes and are the preferred methods among patients with hypotension. Intermittent Hemodialysis (iHD) can be used once patients are hemodynamically stable. A “Furosemide Stress Test” can be used to test intact renal function or renal recovery by challenging the nephron to make urine. Show notes - Approach to Renal Replacement Therapy in the CICU What are the risk factors and differential for AKI in the CICU? Start by using the pre-renal vs intrinsic renal vs post-renal framework. Additional considerations in cardiac patients include contrast induced nephropathy, pigment nephropathy, cardiorenal syndrome. Enjoy Episode 262. Management of Cardiorenal Syndrome in the CICU. In the ICU setting, intrinsic renal injury due to ATN is among the most common etiology of AKI. Many risk factors for AKI are not modifiable in the ICU. Optimize renal function by avoiding nephrotoxins, minimizing contrast usage, and keeping the MAP >65-75 mmHg. Contrast nephropathy as an etiology is questionable and may be a marker of a sicker patient population. Avoid “Renalism” - providing substandard care to patients with renal disease due to fear of worsening renal function. Most etiologies are treated with supportive care. What is the approach to timing of renal replacement therapy initiation? Definitions for early vs late vs very late initiation of RRT:Early – Worsening AKI without indications for RRTLate – Worsening AKI with relative indications for RRT Very late – Worsening AKI with strict indications for RRT Late initiation is noninferior in terms of mortality; early initiation is associated with higher rates of prolonged/permanent RRT.1,2,3 Very late initiation associated with worse outcomes.4 In general,