Episodes Archives - Cardionerds

By CardioNerdsMedicine Health & Fitness Mental Health Education

Episodes Archives - Cardionerds episodes

September 23467. ACS Guidelines Question #6 with Dr. Binita Shah
This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.
The following question refers to Section 4.4 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines.
The question is asked by Thomas Jefferson medical student and CardioNerds Academy Intern Dr. Grace Qiu, answered first by University of Miami cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Saahil Jumkhawala, and then by expert faculty Dr. Binita Shah.
Dr. Binita Shah is an associate professor of medicine, interventional cardiologist, Director for research in Interventional Cardiology, and Director of the Department of Medicine Clinical Investigator Track at NYU. She is also an associate director of interventional cardiology and director of the transcatheter valve program at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. She was a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee.

Question #6
A 64-year-old male with a history of hypertension and dyslipidemia presents to the emergency department with crescendo angina. His ECG shows ST-segment depression in leads V4–V6, and high-sensitivity troponin levels are significantly elevated. A diagnosis of NSTE-ACS is made, and the patient is scheduled for an early invasive strategy with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Which of the following parenteral anticoagulants is NOT recommended for use as a standalone agent during the PCI procedure itself?
A
Fondaparinux
B
Bivalirudin
C
Unfractionated Heparin
D
Enoxaparin
Answer #6
Explanation
The correct answer is A.
The choice of parenteral anticoagulation for a patient with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is governed by both efficacy in preventing ischemic events and the safety profile regarding bleeding.
The following are the recommended Agents for PCI:

Unfractionated Heparin (UFH): In patients with NSTE-ACS, intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) is useful to reduce ischemic events (Class 1, LOE C-EO).

Bivalirudin: This direct thrombin inhibitor is recommended as an alternative to UFH. In patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI, bivalirudin may be reasonable as an alternative to UFH to reduce bleeding and mortality (Class 2b, LOE B-R)

Enoxaparin: In patients with ACS, intravenous enoxaparin may be considered as an alternative to UFH at the time of PCI to reduce ischemic events (Class 2B, LOE B)

In patients with ACS, fondaparinux should not be used to support PCI because of the risk of catheter thrombosis (Class 3: Harm; LOE B-R). The primary reason is due to the risk of catheter thrombosis. Large-scale trials (notably the OASIS-5 trial) demonstrated that using fondaparinux alone during PCI led to a significantly higher rate of thrombus formation on the diagnostic and therapeutic catheters. In the OASIS-5 trial, an increase was observed in the rate of catheter-related thrombus with fondaparinux compared with enoxaparin (0.9% versus 0.4%). Similar results were observed in the OASIS-6 trial, in which a higher rate of guiding-catheter thrombosis and more coronary complications with fondaparinux were observed when used during PCI.
Main Takeaway
– Parenteral anticoagulation for a patient with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is governed by both efficacy in preventing ischemic events and the safety profile regarding bleeding.
Expert Suggestions
When to consider AC other than UFH prior to and during PCI.
Considerations around patients with HIT.
Guideline Loc.
Section 4.4
5 min
September 18 466. ACS Guidelines Question #5 with Dr. Binita Shah

This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.
The following question refers to Section 4.3 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines.
The question is asked by Thomas Jefferson medical student and CardioNerds Academy Intern Dr. Grace Qiu, answered first by Cleveland Clinic interventional and structural cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Eunice Dugan, and then by expert faculty Dr. Binita Shah.
Dr. Binita Shah is an associate professor of medicine, interventional cardiologist, Director for research in Interventional Cardiology, and Director of the Department of Medicine Clinical Investigator Track at NYU. She is also an associate director of interventional cardiology and director of the transcatheter valve program at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. She was a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee.

Question #5

A 64-year-old woman with NSTE-ACS is taken to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. She is P2Y12 inhibitor-naive as she was unable to tolerate oral intake due to severe nausea and vomiting. Coronary angiography reveals a high-grade, thrombotic lesion in the mid-Right Coronary Artery. The interventionalist decides to initiate an intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor before proceeding with PCI. Which of the following is the most appropriate management strategy?
A
Administer Cangrelor as a 30 mcg/kg IV bolus followed by a 4 mcg/kg/min infusion for at least 2 hours or the duration of PCI, whichever is longer.
B
Administer Eptifibatide (GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor) as a routine double-bolus followed by an infusion to replace the need for P2Y12 inhibition.
C
Delay the procedure for 2 hours to allow for the administration and absorption of 600 mg of oral Clopidogrel.
D
Administer Cangrelor as a 180 mcg/kg bolus followed by a 2 mcg/kg/min infusion for exactly 1 hour.
Answer #5

Explanation
The correct answer is A.

Cangrelor is the only intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor currently available. It is a direct-acting, intravenous antagonist of the P2Y12 receptor characterized by rapid and potent platelet inhibitory effects, with restoration of platelet function occurring within 1 hour of drug discontinuation. It also has a very short half-life (3–6 minutes).
Among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have not received a P2Y12 inhibitor, intravenous cangrelor may be reasonable to reduce periprocedural ischemic events (Class 2B; LOE B-R).

Dosing Strategy:
Bolus: 30mcg/kg IV bolus administered rapidly (under 1 minute) before PCI begins.
Infusion: 4 mcg/kg/min IV infusion.
Duration: The infusion must run for at least 2 hours or for the duration of the PCI, whichever is longer.

Transition to Oral Therapy:
Ticagrelor: 180mg can be given at any time (during or after the infusion).
Prasugrel/Clopidogrel: loading dose must be given immediately after the infusion is stopped. Giving these earlier can lead to a drug-drug interaction where the Cangrelor prevents the active metabolite from binding to the receptor.

In the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial, cangrelor was studied versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for acute or stable coronary syndromes. Cangrelor was administered as an intravenous bolus prior to PCI followed by an infusion for at least 2 hours or for the duration of the procedure, whichever was longer. In the control arm, clopidogrel was administered as a 600- or 300-mg loading dose immediately before or after PCI. At 48 hours, the primary endpoint of all- cause death, MI, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis was significantly reduced with cangrelor, with similar effects observed among those presenting with NSTE-ACS or STEMI.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors are parenterally administered drugs that block platelet aggregation by preventing platelet cross-linking via fibrinogen or von Willebrand factor binding to the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor. Routine administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors before PCI is not recommended and is associated with increased bleeding without improving ischemic outcomes. (Class 3 – No Benefit). In
current practice, the role of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors is largely limited to adjunctive use at the time of PCI in patients with large thrombus burden or as
“rescue” or “bailout” therapy in patients with PCI complications such as no-reflow or persistent or recurring thrombus at the lesion.

B is incorrect. Routine “upstream” or periprocedural use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is Class 3 (No Benefit) for most patients. Large trials (like EARLY-ACS) showed that routine GPI use significantly increases major bleeding without a proportional decrease in ischemic events compared to modern P2Y12 inhibitors.

C is incorrect. In patients with NSTE-ACS or STEMI who are already in the lab, delaying the procedure to wait for oral drug absorption is not recommended.

D is incorrect. The correct bolus is 30mcg/kg. Cangrelor must be infused for at least 2 hours or the duration of the PCI, whichever is longer. Stopping at 1 hour would leave a “gap” in platelet inhibition before an oral agent can take effect. Because Cangrelor’s half-life is only 3–6 minutes, a premature stop increases the risk of acute stent thrombosis.
Main Takeaway
Cangrelor may be reasonable among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have not received a P2Y12 inhibitor to reduce periprocedural ischemic events (Class 2b, LOE B-R).
Guideline Loc.
Section 4.3.3-4.3.4
7 min
September 17 465. ACS Guidelines Question #4 with Dr. Binita Shah

This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.
The following question refers to Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines.
The question is asked by Thomas Jefferson medical student and CardioNerds Academy Intern Dr. Grace Qiu, answered first by University of Miami cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Saahil Jumkhawala, and then by expert faculty Dr. Binita Shah.
Dr. Binita Shah is an associate professor of medicine, interventional cardiologist, Director for research in Interventional Cardiology, and Director of the Department of Medicine Clinical Investigator Track at NYU. She is also an associate director of interventional cardiology and director of the transcatheter valve program at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. She was a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee.

Question #4

A 78-year-old man with a history of hypertension and controlled type 2 diabetes presents to a rural emergency department with 90 minutes of persistent, crushing, substernal chest pain. His ECG reveals 3-mm STE in leads V1 through V4. The nearest PCI-capable center is approximately 140 minutes away by ground transport, and air transport is unavailable due to weather. The patient refuses transfer to another facility for the duration of this admission. The clinical team decides to proceed with fibrinolytic therapy using weight-based Tenecteplase (TNK). Which of the following is the most appropriate initial antithrombotic regimen to accompany the fibrinolytic agent?
A
Clopidogrel 300 mg loading dose; Enoxaparin 30 mg IV bolus followed by 1.0 mg/kg SC every 12 hours.
B
Clopidogrel 75 mg (no loading dose); Enoxaparin 0.75 mg/kg SC every 12 hours (no IV bolus).
C
Ticagrelor 180 mg loading dose; Unfractionated heparin (UFH) weight-based IV bolus and infusion.
D
Prasugrel 10mg (no loading dose); Fondaparinux 2.5 mg IV bolus followed by 2.5 mg SC daily.
Answer #4

Explanation
(3-8 min to read)
The correct answer is B.

Clopidogrel is the only P2Y12 inhibitor with a Class 1 recommendation for use alongside fibrinolytic therapy to reduce death and MACE (Class 1, LOE A). Of note, pharmacodynamic variability in response to clopidogrel has been well described, and hyporesponders may be at increased risk of MACE and stent thrombosis when treated with clopidogrel after PCI. Other P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are more potent than clopidogrel and achieve more rapid onset of inhibition of platelet activation but with increased risk of bleeding compared with clopidogrel.

When administered concurrently with fibrinolytic as the reperfusion strategy, clopidogrel is recommended to be administered with a loading dose (300 mg, then 75 mg daily) for patients <75 years of age and starting without a loading dose (75
mg daily) for patients ≥75 years of age. In patients treated with a fibrinolytic agent who are undergoing subsequent PCI, either clopidogrel or ticagrelor (age
<75 years, within 24 hours after a fibrinolytic agent) or prasugrel (>24 hours after a fibrinolytic agent) are alternatives to support PCI.

Parenteral anticoagulation is recommended for all patients with ACS, irrespective of the initial treatment strategy, to treat the underlying pathophysiologic process (coronary atherothrombosis) and reduce the risk of recurrent MACE. The choice of a parenteral anticoagulant can be complex because it is influenced by various factors, including vascular access site, renal function, and concomitant use of other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents. In patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytic
therapy, parenteral anticoagulation is recommended before and after fibrinolytic therapy to reduce ischemic events.

In patients with STEMI who received fibrinolytic therapy and who are not planned for an invasive approach (as with the patient in the question stem), enoxaparin is the preferred anticoagulant over UFH. In the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 study, enoxaparin until hospital discharge or for a maximum of 8 days (whichever came first) was compared with UFH administered for at least 48 hours. The primary endpoint of death or nonfatal recurrent MI through 30 days occurred in 12% in the UFH group compared with 9.9% in the enoxaparin group. In a meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials, UFH did not reduce reinfarction or death in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy. In contrast, low-molecular- weight heparin reduced the risk of reinfarction and death compared with placebo and the risk of reinfarction.

In patients >75 years of age, the dosing must be modified: Omit the initial 30 mg IV bolus. Reduce the subcutaneous dose to 0.75 mg/kg (instead of the standard 1.0 mg/kg). The first two SC doses should also be capped at a maximum of 75 mg each.

After receiving the fibrinolytic and adjusted antithrombotics, the patient should be transferred to a PCI center to facilitate immediate or early catheterization depending on the clinical circumstances, if this is in-line with the patient’s wishes. Hospitals should have transfer protocols in place to allow for a seamless transfer to the PCI-capable facility as soon as it is safe to do so. A detailed assessment of clinical status is critical to determine the timing of angiography.

A is incorrect: This is the standard dose for patients under 75 years of age. In a 78-year-old, the IV bolus of Enoxaparin and the Clopidogrel load significantly increase the risk of a fatal brain bleed.

B is incorrect: Ticagrelor is not recommended as an adjunct to fibrinolysis in the 2025 ACS guidelines.

D is incorrect: While fondaparinux may be used alongside lytic therapy when not planning an invasive strategy, prasugrel does not have a Class 1 recommendation for use with fibrinolytic therapy.
Main Takeaway
– Clopidogrel is the only P2Y12 inhibitor with a Class 1 recommendation for use alongside fibrinolytic therapy
Guideline Loc.
Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4
Table 10

6 min
September 16 464. ACS Guidelines Question #3 with Dr. Binita Shah

This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.
The following question refers to Section 3.2 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines.
The question is asked by Thomas Jefferson medical student and CardioNerds Academy Intern Dr. Grace Qiu, answered first by Cleveland Clinic interventional and structural cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Eunice Dugan, and then by expert faculty Dr. Binita Shah.
Dr. Binita Shah is an associate professor of medicine, interventional cardiologist, Director for research in Interventional Cardiology, and Director of the Department of Medicine Clinical Investigator Track at NYU. She is also an associate director of interventional cardiology and director of the transcatheter valve program at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. She was a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee.

Question #3

A 55-year-old woman is brought to the Emergency Department after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. She had a witnessed collapse with an initial shockable rhythm. Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) was achieved after 15 minutes of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS). Her post-resuscitation ECG shows diffuse ST-segment depression but no ST-segment elevation. She remains comatose.

Which of the following is the most appropriate next step in her management regarding coronary angiography?
A
Immediate emergency coronary angiography (within 2 hours) should be performed.
B
Routine emergency coronary angiography is not recommended in the absence of ST-segment elevation or hemodynamic instability.
C
Coronary angiography should be delayed for at least 72 hours to allow for neurological recovery.
D
Fibrinolytic therapy should be administered immediately if the patient cannot reach a cath lab within 90 minutes.
Answer #3

Explanation
The correct answer is B.
In resuscitated patients who are comatose after cardiac arrest, electrically and hemodynamically stable, and without evidence of STEMI, immediate angiography is not recommended due to lack of benefit (Class 3: No Benefit; LOE A)
Patients who have been resuscitated after cardiac arrest and are noncomatose or who are comatose with favorable prognostic features and with evidence of STEMI, should undergo PPCI to improve survival. (Class 1; LOE B-NR).
For patients such as this one, a delayed or selective approach should be taken once the patient is stabilized. Early angiography should not be denied solely based on a comatose state, but it should be deferred if there are clear non-cardiac causes for the arrest or if the patient’s overall prognosis is futile.
A is incorrect because recent evidence shows no benefit to “emergency” PPCI for stable patients without ST-elevation.
C is incorrect because while we wait for stability, we don’t necessarily have a fixed 72-hour “mandatory” delay for the heart if ischemia is suspected.
D is incorrect, as fibrinolysis is generally not indicated for post-arrest patients without clear STEMI and carries risks in a post-CPR setting due to potential trauma.
The MIRACLE2 Score is a tool for neuroprognostication. It helps clinicians estimate the likelihood of a poor neurological outcome at 6 months. A high score suggests that the benefit of an invasive procedure may be outweighed by the severity of the brain injury.
Components of MIRACLE2:
M – Missed (unwitnessed) arrest
I – Initial non-shockable rhythm
R – Reactive pupils at ROSC
A – Age (points increase significantly at >60 and >80)
C – Rhythm change (e.g., VF to PEA)
L – Low pH (pH < 7.20)
E – Epinephrine (any dose given)
Clinical Threshold: A score of >5 indicates a high risk of poor neurological recovery, which may lead a Heart Team to favor stabilization over immediate emergency angiography in patients without ST-elevation.
Early recognition of STEMI in resuscitated patients and direct transfer to a PCI-capable center is associated with improved survival. Survival-to-hospital discharge in the patient who is comatose with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is <10% regardless of etiology. Those with a witnessed arrest and a shockable rhythm have improved survival.
Outcomes for patients with STEMI who are awake after resuscitated cardiac arrest are comparable to patients with STEMI who were not in cardiac arrest. For this reason, patients with cardiac arrest who have achieved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and are awake with STEMI on ECG are candidates for PPCI. However, care should be individualized in the comatose patient with rapid assessment of the patient’s clinical features and cardiac arrest characteristics before proceeding with invasive angiography. In contrast, patients who are stable without ST-segment elevation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest do not require immediate coronary angiography. Coronary angiography in this setting can be deferred pending further risk stratification.
Main Takeaway
Patients with cardiac arrest and STEMI who have been resuscitated should preferentially be transferred by EMS to a PPCI-capable center. Certain prognostic scores can help risk stratify patients prior to catheterization.
Guideline Loc.
Section 3.2. Management of Patients Presenting With Cardiac Arrest
11 min
August 17463. Multimodality Imaging in Chronic Coronary Artery Disease with Dr. Panithaya Chareonthaitawee
CardioNerds (Drs. Dr. Natalie Marrero, Dr. Ritika Tuli, and Dr. Rafael Toro Manotas) discuss multimodality imaging for risk stratification, evaluation, and management of chronic coronary artery disease with Dr. Panithaya Chareonthaitawee. Audio editing by CardioNerds intern Iman Razeghian.
This episode was produced as part of the CardioNerds Academy curriculum by House Taussig under the guidance of House Chief, Dr. Natalie Marrero and Academy Program Director, Dr. Gurleen Kaur. A matching review article will be published in US Cardiology Review, the official journal of CardioNerds. This discussion was planned in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic Cardiovascular Board Review Course.
In this episode, we discuss the pathophysiology and risk stratification of chronic coronary artery disease (CAD), as well as the current landscape of non-invasive evaluation of this condition. CAD remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality despite advances in pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of atherosclerotic disease. The concept of chronic CAD has shifted from the traditional model of stable, obstructive, flow-limiting disease, toward the current understanding of a dynamic process that extends beyond obstructive epicardial lesions to include non-obstructive plaque, diffuse atherosclerosis, and microvascular disease. Similarly, the imaging modalities used to evaluate CAD have evolved, and clinicians now have an extensive menu of options, each with distinct advantages and limitations, that must be selected carefully to maximize diagnostic accuracy and optimize treatment guidance, while also considering resource availability, local expertise, and high-value care. By the end of the episode, listeners will understand the pathophysiology of chronic CAD, risk-stratify patients with suspected CAD, recognize the advantages and pitfalls of each non-invasive diagnostic modality, and select the most appropriate diagnostic tool for a given clinical scenario.
Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll
CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!
Pearls:
Chronic CAD is a complex process that extends beyond obstructive epicardial stenosis to include non-obstructive disease, dynamic plaque burden and ischemia, diffuse atherosclerosis, microvascular dysfunction, vasospasm, among others.
When evaluating patients with suspected CAD, the diagnostic process should be guided by a specific and appropriate clinical question before ordering any tests.
The current diagnostic tool arsenal is broadly divided into anatomic and functional imaging modalities. These are complementary, each with distinct properties and limitations, addressing different clinical questions and assessing different aspects of disease.
Local availability and expertise, along with patient-specific considerations and contraindications, determine the choice of diagnostic modality. No single test is best for every patient.
INOCA and coronary microvascular dysfunction represent a common and increasingly recognized entity that is diagnosable and treatable; initial evaluation includes non-invasive testing such as stress PET and stress CMR.
References
Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;144(22):e368-e454. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001029 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34709879/
Vrints C, Andreotti F, Koskinas KC, et al. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2024;45(36):3415-3537. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae177 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39210710/
Virani SS, Newby LK, Arnold SV, et al. 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2023;148(9):e9-e119. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001168 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37471501/
Edvardsen T, Asch FM, Davidson B, et al. Non-Invasive Imaging in Coronary Syndromes: Recommendations of The European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography, in Collaboration with The American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2022;35(4):329-354. doi:10.1016/j.echo.2021.12.012 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35379446/
Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291-1300. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1415516 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39210710/
Sharma A, Coles A, Sekaran NK, et al. Stress Testing Versus CT Angiography in Patients With Diabetes and Suspected Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(8):893-902. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.056 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30819356/
SCOT-HEART Investigators, Newby DE, Adamson PD, et al. Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(10):924-933. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1805971 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30145934/
Li Z, Xu T, Wang Z, et al. Prognostic Significance of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve for Long-Term Outcomes in Individuals With Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(2):e037988. doi:10.1161/JAHA.124.037988 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39791423/
Bateman TM, Al-Mallah MH, et al. Clinical indications for positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging and myocardial blood flow quantification: An American Society of Nuclear Cardiology position statement. J Nucl Cardiol. 2026;57:102619. doi:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2025.102619 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41482140/
Taqueti VR, Di Carli MF. Coronary Microvascular Disease Pathogenic Mechanisms and Therapeutic Options: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(21):2625-2641. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.042 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30466521/
Taqueti VR, Hachamovitch R, Murthy VL, et al. Global coronary flow reserve is associated with adverse cardiovascular events independently of luminal angiographic severity and modifies the effect of early revascularization. Circulation. 2015;131(1):19-27. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.011939 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25400060/
Mehta PK, Huang J, Levit RD, Malas W, Waheed N, Bairey Merz CN. Ischemia and no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA): A narrative review. Atherosclerosis. 2022;363:8-21. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2022.11.009 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36423427/
Kunadian V, Chieffo A, Camici PG, et al. An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group. EuroIntervention. 2021;16(13):1049-1069. doi:10.4244/EIJY20M07_01 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32624456/
40 min
August 13462. Tricuspid Regurgitation with Dr. Sunil Mankad
CardioNerds (Dr. Apoorva Gangavelli, Dr. Cory Sejo, and Dr. Joseph Kassab), discuss tricuspid regurgitation evaluation and management with Dr. Sunil Mankad.
This episode was produced as part of the CardioNerds Academy curriculum by House Einthoven under the guidance of House Chief, Dr. Apoorva Gangavelli and Academy Program Director, Dr. Gurleen Kaur. A matching review article will be published in US Cardiology Review, the official journal of CardioNerds. This discussion was planned in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic Cardiovascular Board Review Course.
Audio editing by CardioNerds intern Emma Winakur.
Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll
CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!
Key Points:
Tricuspid regurgitation is common and associated with increased mortality at every stage, regardless of etiology. Outcomes are worse with worsening severity, so accurate grading is critical.
Etiology is critical to guide treatment decisions. Etiology includes primary vs secondary (atrial or ventricular) vs CIED-related TR. 3D echocardiography can be very helpful in determining TR etiology, especially in CIED-related TR.
Diuresis with the goal of euvolemia is step one. Additionally, underlying contributory conditions (eg. pulmonary HTN, HFrEF, atrial fibrillation) should be addressed, if appropriate, and then TR severity reassessed.
The choice between T-TEER and TTVR hinges on anatomy, RV function, pulmonary hypertension, and the ability to tolerate anticoagulation. T-TEER is generally first line in atrial functional TR with appropriate anatomy, in patients with poor RV function who cannot tolerate a sudden increase in RV afterload, or in patients who cannot tolerate the necessary anticoagulation with TTVR. TTVR is preferred with wide coaptation gaps and CIED-related TR.
This is a team sport. Multidisciplinary discussions utilizing imaging (TTE/TEE, CT), risk scores (TRI-SCORE or TRIO), patient preference, and prior institutional experience are essential for the effective treatment of severe TR.
Notes:
What is the clinical importance of tricuspid regurgitation?
TR is very common with approximately 4% of people over 75 having moderate or greater severity.
TR (even mild) is associated with increased mortality. Those outcomes worsen as the TR severity worsens, and this phenomenon is independent of the mechanism of regurgitation.
What is unique about the tricuspid valve compared to the other cardiac valves?
It is at an anterior location which allows it to be imaged well with transthoracic echocardiography
It is the largest valve and composed generally of 3 leaflets (but very often can have 4+ leaflets).
Importantly, the RV is compliant and changes size and shape readily based on loading conditions. The TV annulus similarly changes size and shape based on hemodynamic conditions such as preload.
What is a good framework for approaching the causes of tricuspid regurgitation?
Determine the presence and define the severity of TR.
Using TTE, we want to measure the right atrial size, the RV size, and any other concomitant valvular lesions.
Use TTE (2D and 3D) to characterize leaflet anatomy and characteristics.
Subtypes of TR mechanisms (many times etiology is mixed).
Primary: primary leaflet abnormality, occurs in ~10% of cases. Look for prolapse, flail, endocarditis, etc.
Secondary/functional: leaflets normal but surrounding structures are abnormal.
Atrial: RA and tricuspid annular dilation but normal RV size/shape, and can be related to arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation.
Ventricular: RV dilated and/or dysfunctional with leaflet tethering. Can be related to pulmonary hypertension or primary RV disease.
Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED): Related to device (usually pacemakers or ICD) interaction with TV leaflets.
Includes perforation, entanglement in subvalvular apparatus, impingement, etc.
3D TTE particularly helpful to evaluate
How do we grade TR severity?
It is very important to grade the severity of TR, and this is generally done with echocardiography.
There are both quantitative and qualitative methods which use Doppler and various equations to estimate TR severity.
Current recommendations have expanded TR severity beyond mild/moderate/severe to include “massive” and “torrential” categories.
The most important parameters measured/calculated are vena contracta width, regurgitant volume, regurgitant fraction, and effective regurgitant orifice area. Helpful qualitative metrics include hepatic venous flow reversal.
When should additional studies beyond transthoracic echocardiography, such as transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), cardiac computed tomography (CT), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) be pursued?
TEE is particularly helpful if TTE views are poor. Since TEE is used during transcatheter intervention, a pre-procedure TEE to define anatomy, determine procedure candidacy, and plan for the procedure is critical.
CT is also helpful for procedure planning and has particular strengths in defining annulus size and geometry. A CT is required prior to transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR).
MRI is helpful for measuring RV volumes and function, but is not generally used to assess TR severity.
What is the approach to the treatment for severe tricuspid regurgitation?
The first step is to try to determine the etiology. For secondary TR, treating the underlying condition is indicated. For example, pulmonary vasodilators for pulmonary HTN or guideline therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Diuretics are the mainstay for treatment, with the goal to obtain euvolemia. This may require inpatient admission to optimize volume status and medication regimen.
Once reversible etiologies are addressed, if the patient is still symptomatic from TR, additional therapies can be considered.
What is the role of right heart catheterizations (RHC) in patients with severe TR?
RHC is very helpful for many reasons. We use it in TR to help determine volume status, cardiac output, and RV function. Additionally, identifying and characterizing pulmonary hypertension (with pulmonary artery pressures and calculating pulmonary vascular resistance) is an important factor when choosing future therapies.
With severe tricuspid regurgitation, when should we refer for intervention (either with surgery or transcatheter repair or replacement)?
Once reversible etiologies are addressed and euvolemia has been achieved, if the patient is still symptomatic from TR despite aggressive medical optimization, additional therapies can be considered.
Once euvolemic, a repeat TTE should be ordered to reassess the severity of the TR.
Use calculators (for example, either the TRI-SCORE or TRIO score) to predict operative mortality for isolated TR surgery.
What are our transcatheter treatment options in severe tricuspid regurgitation, and how do we choose between them?
The primary approved transcatheter treatment options for severe TR include transcatheter tricuspid edge-to-edge repair (T-TEER) and transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR), of which the Edwards EVOQUE valve is the only one currently approved by the FDA. There are other TTVR device under investigation.
These decisions should be made with a multi-disciplinary team including representation from cardiac imaging, interventional cardiology, and cardiothoracic surgery.
Factors that go into the decision between T-TEER and TTVR include anatomy (annulus width, coaptation gap, leaflet length), RV reserve, pulmonary hypertension presence, ability to tolerate anticoagulation, patient preference, and institutional experience.
T-TEER is generally the first line with atrial functional and suitable anatomy. It is successful at reducing TR but does not generally eliminate it.
TTVR with EVOQUE is preferred in certain anatomic considerations like a large coaptation gap or when there is CIED-related TR (as this was excluded in T-TEER trials).
Patients must be suitable for anticoagulation to receive TTVR as there is risk of leaflet thrombosis without it.
If moderate/severe pulmonary hypertension is present, or there is poor RV function, TTVR may be avoided as the sudden elimination of TR causes a sudden increase in RV afterload which may not be tolerated.
What is the role in advanced metrics for evaluating RV function?
Advanced metrics like RV/PA coupling are under investigation but have not made it into the guidelines. The clinical utility is not yet known.
Assessing the RV function is important as stated above. Dr. Mankad prefers using 3D TTE to calculate an RVEF, or tracking RV longitudinal free wall strain.
If you do encounter CIED-related TR, how do you treat it?
Evaluate with TTE or TEE. 3D is very helpful to identify relative anatomy and leaflet-device interactions.
There is no clear consensus about treatment if CIED-related TR is the primary mechanism of severe TR. If recently implanted, repositioning may be a valid option, but requires discussions with multiple teams including electrophysiology, advanced cardiac imaging, CT surgery, and interventional cardiology.
References
O’Gara PT, Lindenfeld J, Hahn RT, et al. 10 Issues for the Clinician in Tricuspid Regurgitation Evaluation and Management: 2025 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;S0735-1097(25)07047-0.
O’Gara PT, Little SH, Badhwar V, et al. Operator and Institutional Recommendations and Requirements for Tricuspid Interventions: 2026 ACC/AHA/ASE/HRS/STS Expert Consensus Systems of Care Document. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;S0735-1097(26)05481-1.
Hahn RT. Tricuspid Regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(20):1876-1891.
Davidson LJ, Tang GHL, Ho EC, et al. The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2024;149(22):e1223-e1238.
19 min
August 11461. Pre-Pregnancy Risk Stratification and Counseling with Dr. Katie Young
CardioNerds (Dr. Apoorva Gangavelli, Dr. Rebecca Garber, and Dr. Tina Reddy), discuss pre-pregnancy risk stratification and counseling with Dr. Katie Young across a range of risks.
This episode was produced as part of the CardioNerds Academy curriculum by House Einthoven under the guidance of House Chief, Dr. Apoorva Gangavelli and Academy Program Director, Dr. Gurleen Kaur. A matching review article will be published in US Cardiology Review, the official journal of CardioNerds. This discussion was planned in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic Cardiovascular Board Review Course.
Audio editing by CardioNerds intern, Dr. Patrick Pekyi-Boateng.
Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll
CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!
Notes:
Why is pregnancy considered a “physiologic stress test,” and why does risk extend beyond delivery?
Blood volume, heart rate, and cardiac output rise while systemic vascular resistance falls, peaking in the late second/early third trimester; underlying (even undiagnosed) heart disease can be unmasked or worsened.
Postpartum (“fourth trimester”) is a high-risk period, not a safe zone – fluid shifts, rising SVR, and bleeding risk can precipitate decompensation in patients with heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, valvular disease, or aortopathy.
Adverse pregnancy outcomes (hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, peripartum cardiomyopathy) are markers of future cardiovascular risk and warrant long-term preventive follow-up.
What is the practical framework for approaching pre-pregnancy cardiovascular risk?
Four broad categories: (1) patients who may need cardiac screening before pregnancy, (2) patients needing risk-factor/medication optimization, (3) known cardiovascular disease where pregnancy is reasonable with structured risk stratification, and (4) high-risk disease where pregnancy may need to be delayed, modified by intervention, or discouraged.
Testing should be targeted, not blanket – reserved for symptoms, abnormal exam, concerning family history, or reduced functional capacity.
How is risk stratified in patients with known cardiovascular disease?
Use a combination of tools per 2025 ESC guidelines: mWHO 2.0 (broad maternal risk category), CARPREG II (additional predictors of maternal cardiac events), and ZAHARA (useful in congenital heart disease).
Key lesion-specific factors: aortic size/growth, valve severity, ventricular function, symptoms, blood pressure, and family history of dissection.
Translate risk into practical terms for patients rather than leading with a numerical score.
Which cardiovascular medications require review before conception?
ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and ARNIs should be transitioned off before pregnancy; statins, MRAs, and SGLT2 inhibitors also need review.
DOACs are contraindicated in pregnancy and lactation; mechanical valve anticoagulation requires individualized shared decision-making, as no strategy is risk-free for mother and fetus.
Medication changes are best made proactively, before conception, rather than reactively.
This is not an exhaustive list! The medication list needs to be reviewed carefully.
Which conditions carry high or prohibitive risk in pregnancy?
Pulmonary arterial hypertension, Eisenmenger syndrome, severe ventricular dysfunction, prior peripartum cardiomyopathy with residual LV dysfunction, severe left-sided obstructive valve disease (e.g., severe mitral stenosis), mechanical valves, significant aortopathy, cyanotic congenital heart disease, and Fontan physiology.
Common theme: limited cardiovascular reserve and high risk of decompensation, thrombosis, arrhythmia, heart failure, aortic dissection, or death. These patients need expert multidisciplinary evaluation before pregnancy.
Severe mitral stenosis is poorly tolerated because tachycardia shortens diastolic filling time and raises left atrial pressure, risking pulmonary edema and decompensation.
When should genetic testing or counseling be offered?
Consider when a diagnosis may be inherited or affect the patient, pregnancy, or family members: inherited cardiomyopathies, aortopathies, channelopathies, select congenital heart disease, and some pulmonary hypertension syndromes.
Recurrence risk of congenital heart disease in offspring is roughly 6-10% when the mother has CHD; fetal echocardiography should be offered.
How should contraception be approached in high-risk cardiac patients?
Frame contraception as part of the cardiac care and reproductive safety plan to prevent unplanned high-risk pregnancy.
Long-acting reversible contraception is often preferred; progestin-only methods are generally safer than estrogen-containing options with thrombosis risk, pulmonary hypertension, or mechanical valves.
What are key delivery-planning considerations for cardiac patients?
Vaginal delivery is preferred unless there is an obstetric indication for cesarean or a specific cardiac reason (e.g., unstable maternal status, therapeutic INR) to avoid labor.
Planning should address delivery location, anesthesia involvement, telemetry needs, fluid management, and postpartum monitoring, clearly communicated across the multidisciplinary team in advance.
How should clinicians counsel patients when pregnancy is discouraged but strongly desired?
Acknowledge the patient’s goals and the emotional weight of the conversation; separate the goal (family building) from the timeline (safety now vs. after optimization).
If pregnancy remains prohibitively risky, discuss alternatives for family building and ensure adequate patient support.
What are the key gaps and future directions in cardio-obstetric risk stratification?
Current risk tools (mWHO, CARPREG II, ZAHARA) provide common language but do not fully capture functional status, prior pregnancy history, or how risk evolves over time.
Future direction: individualized, dynamic risk prediction incorporating imaging, biomarkers, exercise capacity, and social drivers of health, with better long-term links between pregnancy complications and cardiovascular prevention.
References
1. European Society of Cardiology. 2025 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease and pregnancy.
2. Mehta LS, et al. Cardiovascular Considerations in Caring for Pregnant Patients: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e884-e903. PMID: 32362133. doi:https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000772
3. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 212. Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(5):e320-e356. PMID: 31022123. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003243
53 min
July 29460. Approach to HFpEF and the Metabolic Syndrome with Dr. John Ostrominski
CardioNerds Dr. Rohit Nathani, Dr. Atefeh Ghorbanzadeh, and Dr. Mariam Riad, discuss Obesity-related Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) with Dr. John Ostrominski.
This episode was produced as part of the CardioNerds Academy curriculum by House Jones under the guidance of House Chief, Dr. Mariam Riad and Academy Program Director, Dr. Gurleen Kaur. A matching review article will be published in US Cardiology Review, the official journal of CardioNerds.
This episode highlights the diverse clinical phenotypes and complex, multifaceted pathophysiology of HFpEF. We take a deep dive into the therapeutic advances that represent paradigm shift in metabolic modulation aimed at improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF and metabolic syndrome.
Audio editing by CardioNerds intern Pacey Wetstein.
Enjoy this Circulation Paths to Discovery article to learn more about the CardioNerds mission and journey.
US Cardiology Review is now the official journal of CardioNerds! Submit your manuscripts here.
CardioNerds Heart Success Series Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll
CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!
Pearls
HFpEF is a constellation of symptoms often with different underlying pathophenotypes; cardiometabolic type is rising in incidence.
Diagnosis is predominantly based on the clinical scenario along with supporting evidence from imaging modalities such as echocardiogram, cardiac MRI, and right heart catheterization.
Cardiometabolic HFpEF is a complex syndrome characterized by dysregulated lipid metabolism, systemic inflammation, and hemodynamic abnormalities, all of which contribute to exercise intolerance and frailty.
Lifestyle interventions, comorbidities management, and HFpEF therapeutics go hand in hand for comprehensive HFpEF care and offer opportunities for multispecialty collaboration to achieve optimal patient outcomes.
References
Ostrominski, J, Højbjerg Lassen, M, Butt, J. et al. Adiposity-Related Anthropometrics and Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Participant-Level Pooled Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. JACC. 2025 Nov, 86 (20) 1760–1777.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.08.012
Packer, M. The Adipokine Hypothesis of Heart Failure With a Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Novel Framework to Explain Pathogenesis and Guide Treatment. JACC. 2025 Oct, 86 (16) 1269–1373.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.06.055
Ahmed, N., Dalmasso, C., Turner, M.B. et al. From fat to filter: the effect of adipose tissue-derived signals on kidney function. Nat Rev Nephrol 21, 417–434 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-025-00950-5
Alicic, R.Z., Neumiller, J.J. & Tuttle, K.R. GLP-1 receptor agonists and next-generation metabolic hormone therapies in chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 22, 265–282 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-025-01036-y
Ostrominski, J, Harrington, J, Claggett, B. et al. Anthropometric Measures, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Treatment Effects of Finerenone in Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Disease: Pooled Participant-Level Analysis of 3 Global Trials. JACC. 2025 Nov, 86 (20) 1781–1801.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.08.039
23 min
July 23459. The Continuum of Prevention and Heart Failure with Dr. Anu Lala and Dr. Martha Gulati
CardioNerds (Drs. Apoorva Gangavelli, Jenna Skowronski, and Hannah Every) discuss the continuum of prevention and heart failure with Drs. Anu Lala and Martha Gulati. Grounded in a clinical case of a 55-year-old woman with uncontrolled hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and obesity who is on the trajectory toward heart failure, this episode unpacks a paradigm-shifting framework from a joint HFSA/ASPC Scientific Statement. The discussion explores how prevention should not be siloed from heart failure management but rather integrated across a patient’s lifespan—from primary prevention in at-risk individuals, to secondary prevention in those with established heart failure, to tertiary prevention in patients with advanced therapies such as LVADs and heart transplantation. The experts highlight the importance of aggressive risk factor management, biomarker-guided screening, the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8, and the need for multidisciplinary collaboration and systems-level change to shift heart failure care from reactive to proactive. Audio editing for this episode was performed by CardioNerds Intern, Dr. Julia Marques Fernandes.
Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.
US Cardiology Review is now the official journal of CardioNerds! Submit your manuscript here.
CardioNerds Prevention Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll
CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!
Pearls
Systemic inflammatory diseases are associated with an elevated CVD risk that has significant implications for early detection, risk Heart failure prevention is a continuum, not a checkpoint. Prevention applies at every stage—from at-risk (Stage A) through advanced/post-transplant care—and every clinical encounter is an opportunity to intervene. The AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 (diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, sleep, BMI, blood lipids, blood glucose, blood pressure) forms the foundation at every stage.
Hypertension carries the highest population-attributable risk for heart failure of any modifiable risk factor. In the Framingham Heart Study, 91% of patients with newly diagnosed HF had pre-existing hypertension. The SPRINT trial demonstrated a 38% reduction in HF incidence with intensive blood pressure targets (<120 mm Hg systolic). Agent selection matters: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and thiazide diuretics should be prioritized for HF prevention.
Overlapping risk factors should prompt parallel, not sequential, intervention. Pharmacotherapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists target multiple pathways simultaneously (diabetes, obesity, CKD, HF risk), making them ideal for patients with cardiometabolic multimorbidity. The cardio-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome framework reinforces this integrated approach.
Biomarker screening with BNP/NT-proBNP should be used proactively in high-risk populations, not just reactively in the emergency department. Even modestly elevated natriuretic peptide levels (e.g., BNP >30 ng/L or NT-proBNP >125 ng/L) identify individuals at heightened risk for progression to symptomatic HF. The ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines give a Class IIa recommendation for natriuretic peptide screening in at-risk patients. Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) is an underutilized screening tool that provides additional insight into CKM risk.
The heart failure label does not close the prevention window—it accentuates it. Secondary prevention through GDMT optimization (quadruple therapy in HFrEF) and continued risk factor management remains critical. Tertiary prevention extends to post-LVAD and post-transplant patients, where hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and CKD management remain essential to long-term outcomes.
Show notes
For a comprehensive review, please review the full HFSA/ASPC Joint Scientific Statement: Lala A, Beavers C, Blumer V, et al. The Continuum of Prevention and Heart Failure in Cardiovascular Medicine. J Card Fail. 2026;32:75-105. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.06.013
1. What is the “continuum of prevention” framework, and how does it differ from traditional approaches to heart failure prevention?
Historically, prevention and heart failure management have been treated as separate disciplines—primary prevention handled by preventive cardiologists and treatment managed by heart failure specialists. This joint HFSA/ASPC Scientific Statement reframes prevention as a dynamic, continuous process that spans a patient’s entire lifespan, regardless of HF stage or ejection fraction.
The framework maps onto the ACC/AHA HF staging system:
Primary prevention targets Stage A (“at risk”) and Stage B (“pre-HF”) patients to reduce the burden of incident HF.
Secondary prevention targets Stage C (symptomatic) and Stage D (advanced) patients to reduce the impact of established HF through GDMT optimization and ongoing risk factor management.
Tertiary prevention encompasses risk factor management in patients with LVADs or heart transplants—populations where hypertension, diabetes, and obesity still drive outcomes.
The Central Figure of the statement illustrates that Life’s Essential 8 (blood pressure and lipid control, diabetes management, exercise, sleep, smoking cessation, weight management, and diet/nutrition counseling) forms the foundation at every stage, with pharmacologic and device-based therapies layered on top as disease progresses (Figure)
2. How do traditional risk factors drive heart failure, and what should clinicians prioritize?
Hypertension carries the greatest population-attributable risk for HF. In the Framingham Heart Study (N=5,143), HTN was associated with a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of HF, with a population-attributable risk of 39% in men and 59% in women. The SPRINT trial showed a 38% reduction in HF incidence and 25% reduction in the primary composite outcome with intensive BP targets (<120 mm Hg). Not all antihypertensives are equal for HF prevention: the ALLHAT trial showed that amlodipine carried a 38% higher risk and lisinopril a 19% higher risk of incident HF compared with chlorthalidone. The statement recommends prioritizing ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or thiazide diuretics as first-line agents when HF prevention is a goal.
Type 2 diabetes confers a 5-fold risk of HF in women and 2-fold in men. Each 5-year increment in diabetes duration is associated with a 17% increased risk of incident HF. SGLT2 inhibitors have a Class 1 recommendation for HF prevention in patients with T2DM and established CVD or high cardiovascular risk. Finerenone (nonsteroidal MRA) reduced new-onset HF by 32% in the FIGARO-DKD trial among patients with T2DM and CKD. GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce CV events in patients with T2DM and ASCVD and are recommended in current guidelines.
Obesity independently leads to myocardial dysfunction through the leptin-aldosterone-neprilysin framework, ectopic fat deposition, and neurohormonal dysregulation. The SELECT trial demonstrated that semaglutide reduced HF composite endpoint events (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.97) in patients with obesity and established CVD without T2DM. Women with obesity are at highest risk for HFpEF, while men with obesity are at highest risk for HFrEF.
Chronic kidney disease with albuminuria is deliberately included as a traditional risk factor in this statement. Albuminuria confers a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of incident HF. UACR screening is recommended for patients with T2DM and those at risk for CKD.
3. How can risk stratification tools and biomarkers be used to identify patients on the trajectory toward heart failure?
Natriuretic peptides (BNP/NT-proBNP): The ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines give a Class IIa recommendation for BNP or NT-proBNP screening in patients at risk for HF. Even modestly elevated levels (BNP >30 ng/L or NT-proBNP >125 ng/L) are associated with heightened risk for progression to symptomatic HF. In the ARIC study, incorporating NT-proBNP reclassified 20% of older adults without HF into Stage B. Factors that affect interpretation include age, sex, obesity (lower values), and CKD (higher values).
High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn): Concentrations above the 99th percentile are now included in the definition of Stage B HF. Troponin testing may complement natriuretic peptides, particularly when BNP/NT-proBNP values are ambiguous.
Risk scores: The PCP-HF equation predicts 10-year HF risk using traditional risk factors plus QRS duration. The AHA PREVENT score incorporates HF risk calculation and includes markers of kidney function (albuminuria, eGFR), though it may underestimate risk in men and Black adults. The CKM syndrome staging framework (Stages 0–4) provides a holistic approach to assessing systemic cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic risk.
4. What are the key nontraditional risk factors and cross-cutting themes in heart failure prevention?
Genetics: Pathogenic cardiomyopathy variants exist in ~1 in 200 individuals in the general population. The HFSA and ACMG recommend cascade testing to identify at-risk family members. Polygenic risk scores for dilated cardiomyopathy show a 3.8-fold risk for DCM in the top 10th percentile compared with the median.
Sex-specific considerations: Women have 2.8 times the odds of developing HFpEF, while men have similarly increased odds of HFrEF. A complete obstetric/gynecologic history is essential—preeclampsia is associated with a 4-fold increased risk of HF. Peripartum cardiomyopathy requires intentional screening in high-risk populations.
Cardiotoxic exposures: Clinicians should be aware of medications that cause direct myocardial toxicity (e.g., anthracyclines, trastuzumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors). A team-based approach with pharmacists can help optimize medication selection and risk factor modification.
Social determinants of health: Environmental exposures (air pollution, arsenic, lead, cadmium), food insecurity, financial instability, and limited healthcare access contribute to HF risk and progression. Equity-focused, risk-based prevention strategies are needed.
Psychological health: Depression is common in HF and independently associated with worse outcomes. Screening with brief questionnaires (e.g., PHQ-2) is recommended. Meditation, spirituality, and holistic wellness approaches remain underutilized.
5. What systems-level and policy changes are needed to move the needle on heart failure prevention?
Multidisciplinary HF prevention clinics that bring together preventive cardiologists, HF specialists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, dietitians, pharmacists, exercise physiologists, and genetic counselors are advocated by the statement.
EHR-embedded risk stratification could proactively flag patients on a trajectory toward HF—analogous to sepsis alerts or fall risk flags—enabling earlier intervention, particularly for patients who may not reach a cardiologist.
Cardiac rehabilitation remains underutilized, particularly in HFrEF (Class 2b recommendation) and HFpEF (not yet covered by Medicare). The HF-ACTION trial showed quality-of-life benefits, and the REHAB-HF trial showed particular benefit in older patients with HFpEF.
Policy priorities include expanding insurance coverage for preventive screening and novel therapies (SGLT2i, GLP-1 RAs, nsMRAs), reducing clinical inertia through team-based care models with closer follow-up intervals, and ensuring equitable access to evidence-based therapies across diverse populations.
Digital health and AI hold promise for personalized risk prediction, remote monitoring (e.g., wearable devices, implantable PA pressure monitors), and virtual cardiac rehabilitation to overcome access barriers.
Figure
Lala A, Beavers C, Blumer V, et al. The continuum of prevention and heart failure in cardiovascular medicine: a joint scientific statement from the Heart Failure Society of America and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology. J Card Fail. 2026;32(1):75-105. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.06.013)
References
Key references are bolded.
Lala A, Beavers C, Blumer V, et al. The continuum of prevention and heart failure in cardiovascular medicine: a joint scientific statement from the Heart Failure Society of America and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology. J Card Fail. 2026;32(1):75-105. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.06.013
Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895-e1032. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063
Lloyd-Jones DM, Allen NB, Anderson CAM, et al. Life’s Essential 8: updating and enhancing the American Heart Association’s construct of cardiovascular health: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;146(5):e18-e43. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001078
SPRINT Research Group, Wright JT Jr, Williamson JD, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2103-2116. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1511939
Levy D, Larson MG, Vasan RS, Kannel WB, Ho KK. The progression from hypertension to congestive heart failure. JAMA. 1996;275(20):1557-1562. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530440037034
Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288(23):2981-2997. doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.2981
Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, et al. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(3):145-153. doi:10.1056/NEJM200001203420301
Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2117-2128. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1504720
Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(16):1451-1461. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107038
Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Claggett B, et al. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(12):1089-1098. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206286
Filippatos G, Anker SD, Agarwal R, et al. Finerenone reduces risk of incident heart failure in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes: analyses from the FIGARO-DKD trial. Circulation. 2022;145(6):437-447. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057983
Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Vaduganathan M, et al. Finerenone in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(16):1475-1485. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2407107
Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(24):2221-2232. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2307563
Deanfield J, Verma S, Scirica BM, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with obesity and prevalent heart failure: a prespecified analysis of the SELECT trial. Lancet. 2024;404(10454):773-786. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01498-3
Kosiborod MN, Abildstrøm SZ, Borlaug BA, et al. Semaglutide in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(12):1069-1084. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2306963
Ndumele CE, Neeland IJ, Tuttle KR, et al. A synopsis of the evidence for the science and clinical management of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023;148(20):1636-1664. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001175
Khan SS, Matsushita K, Sang Y, et al. Development and validation of the American Heart Association’s PREVENT equations. Circulation. 2024;149(6):430-449. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
Khan SS, Ning H, Shah SJ, et al. 10-year risk equations for incident heart failure in the general population. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(19):2388-2397. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.057
Bozkurt B, Fonarow GC, Goldberg LR, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure: JACC expert panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(11):1454-1469. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.030
Packer M. Leptin-aldosterone-neprilysin axis: identification of its distinctive role in the pathogenesis of the three phenotypes of heart failure in people with obesity. Circulation. 2018;137(15):1614-1631. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032474
Lala A, Tayal U, Hamo CE, et al. Sex differences in heart failure. J Card Fail. 2022;28(3):477-498. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.10.006
Bozkurt B, Coats AJS, Tsutsui H, et al. Universal definition and classification of heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2021;23(3):352-380. doi:10.1002/ejhf.2115
Hershberger RE, Givertz MM, Ho CY, et al. Genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy—a Heart Failure Society of America practice guideline. J Card Fail. 2018;24(5):281-302. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2018.03.004
Levine GN, Cohen BE, Commodore-Mensah Y, et al. Psychological health, well-being, and the mind-heart-body connection: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2021;143(10):e763-e783. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000947
Ezekowitz JA, Colin-Ramirez E, Ross H, et al. Reduction of dietary sodium to less than 100 mmol in heart failure (SODIUM-HF): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2022;399(10333):1391-1400. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00369-5
27 min
July 10458. The Golden Age of Pulmonary Embolism Randomized Controlled Trials with Dr. Jay Giri
CardioNerds co-chairs Dr. Dinu Balanescu and Dr. Billy Joe Mullinax, along with FIT lead Dr. Shiavax Rao, discuss the evolving landscape of randomized controlled trials in pulmonary embolism with Dr. Jay Giri, interventional cardiologist, Associate Professor of Medicine, and Director of the Cardiovascular Catheterization Laboratories at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. This episode examines the historical evidence behind systemic thrombolysis, the emergence of catheter-directed therapies and mechanical thrombectomy, and the landmark RCTs – STORM-PE, PEERLESS, HI-PEITHO, and PEERLESS II – that are reshaping intermediate-risk PE management. The discussion highlights challenges in PE trial design, the critical importance of clinical deterioration as an endpoint, and why this era represents an unprecedented wave of evidence generation in PE. Audio editing for this episode was performed by CardioNerds Intern, Dr. Julia Marques Fernandes.
Dr. Dinu Balanescu and Dr. Billy-Joe Mullinax are Co-chairs for the CardioNerds PE Series, developed in collaboration with the PERT Consortium.
Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.
CardioNerds Pulmonary Embolism Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll
CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!
Pearls:
Systemic thrombolysis in intermediate-risk PE reduces hemodynamic decompensation but at the cost of ~1.5–2% intracranial hemorrhage risk – a near-zero net benefit that has driven the search for safer catheter-based alternatives.
“Focus on clinical deterioration, not mortality” – Due to crossover design in contemporary PE RCTs, control-arm patients who decompensate are rescued with advanced therapies, biasing mortality toward the null. Clinical deterioration is the most informative endpoint to watch in HI-PEITHO, PRAGUE-26, and PEERLESS II.
HI-PEITHO is the first large RCT to demonstrate that catheter-directed fibrinolysis plus anticoagulation significantly reduces the composite of PE-related death, cardiorespiratory decompensation, or PE recurrence versus anticoagulation alone (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.20–0.77; P=0.005), with no intracranial hemorrhage in either arm.
The four major upcoming/recently reported PE RCTs (HI-PEITHO, PRAGUE-26, PEERLESS II, PE-TRACT) enroll progressively different risk populations – from the most enriched (HI-PEITHO) to the most permissive (PE-TRACT, which includes intermediate-low risk patients) – enabling a nuanced understanding of which patients benefit most from intervention.
PE device clearance follows a fundamentally different FDA pathway than structural heart devices (single-arm safety/efficacy studies vs. mandated RCTs), yet market forces and clinical need have ultimately driven industry and government to sponsor large-scale RCTs – a lesson in how evidence development can evolve organically alongside regulatory frameworks.
Notes:
Notes drafted by Dr. Shiavax Rao.
Question #1: What is the current evidence behind advanced PE therapies?
Systemic thrombolysis: Sixteen RCTs over 40 years (1972–2014) enrolling nearly 2,000 patients have studied systemic thrombolysis in intermediate-risk PE. The landmark PEITHO trial (n=1,006) showed that tenecteplase reduced the composite of death or hemodynamic collapse (2.6% vs. 5.6%; P=0.015), driven primarily by reduced hemodynamic decompensation (1.6% vs. 5.0%; P=0.002). However, this came at the cost of increased major bleeding (6.3% vs. 1.5%; P<0.001) and a ~2% rate of intracranial hemorrhage. Meta-analyses of systemic thrombolysis trials show a small absolute mortality benefit (~1–2%) that is closely offset by bleeding risk, explaining why guidelines have not broadly recommended systemic thrombolysis for intermediate-risk PE.
Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT): The ULTIMA trial (n=59) was the first RCT of ultrasound-assisted CDT (EkoSonic/EKOS system) vs. anticoagulation alone in intermediate-risk PE. CDT showed superior RV/LV ratio improvement at 24 hours (decrease of 0.30 ± 0.20 vs. 0.03 ± 0.16; P<0.001), but this difference was no longer significant at 90 days. The CANARY trial, initiated in Iran in 2019, was halted prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic but largely verified ULTIMA’s findings, with a signal that RV benefits may persist at 90 days.
Mechanical thrombectomy – single-arm data: The FLARE trial demonstrated a 25% reduction in RV/LV ratio at 48 hours with large-bore aspiration thrombectomy (FlowTriever). The EXTRACT-PE trial showed significant RV/LV ratio reduction with the Indigo aspiration system with a low major adverse event rate. The FLASH registry (FlowTriever) reported a mean 7.6 mmHg drop in mean PA pressure and RV/LV ratio decrease from 1.23 to 0.98 at 48 hours.
STORM-PE (2025): The first RCT of mechanical thrombectomy (computer-assisted vacuum thrombectomy [CAVT] with the Indigo/Penumbra system) vs. anticoagulation alone. One hundred patients were randomized across 22 sites. CAVT was superior for the primary endpoint of 48-hour RV/LV ratio reduction (0.52 vs. 0.24; difference 0.27; P<0.001), with earlier normalization of vital signs and comparable major adverse event rates (4.3% vs. 7.5%; P=0.681). Two PE-related deaths occurred in the CAVT arm. The trial was not powered for mortality or longer-term outcomes.
PEERLESS (2025): The first RCT comparing two interventional strategies head-to-head – large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (FlowTriever) vs. CDT – in 550 patients with intermediate-risk PE. The primary hierarchical win ratio composite favored LBMT (win ratio 5.01; 95% CI 3.68–6.97; P<0.001), driven primarily by fewer clinical deterioration/bailout events (1.8% vs. 5.4%; P=0.04) and substantially less post-procedural ICU use (41.6% vs. 98.6% admission rates). No significant differences in mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or major bleeding were observed. RV/LV ratio reduction was similar between arms. LBMT was associated with shorter hospital stays and fewer 30-day readmissions.
Question #2: What are the challenges with conducting RCTs in PE?
Crossover and rescue therapy: Unlike early TAVR trials where control-arm patients could not cross over to the device arm, contemporary PE trials allow crossover upon clinical deterioration. This is ethically necessary given available therapies but biases mortality toward the null, making it unlikely that any individual trial – or even a meta-analysis of the four major trials (~2,400–3,000 patients combined) – will demonstrate a mortality difference.
Heterogeneity of intermediate-risk PE: Two patients meeting ESC intermediate-high risk criteria (RV dysfunction + elevated troponin) can look clinically very different – one may be tachypneic on 5 liters of oxygen, while another is comfortable on room air. This heterogeneity complicates enrollment, endpoint detection, and generalizability.
Endpoint selection: Early PE trials relied on surrogate imaging endpoints (RV/LV ratio, PA pressure reduction, Miller score). While these demonstrate proof-of-concept, they have not moved guidelines. Clinically relevant endpoints – mortality, clinical deterioration, functional status, quality of life – are needed but require larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.
Funding and maturation of the field: Trials require buy-in from government or industry funders. It took time for the field to mature enough to estimate effect sizes for trial powering, accumulate sufficient operator experience to ensure internal validity, and for industry to recognize that market adoption required randomized evidence despite existing FDA clearance.
FDA regulatory pathway: PE devices are cleared via a 510(k) pathway requiring single-arm studies (~100–150 patients) demonstrating safety and RV/LV ratio improvement – a much lower bar than the pre-market approval pathway requiring RCTs mandated for structural heart devices (e.g., TAVR, MitraClip). While this has enabled rapid innovation and market competition, it initially reduced the incentive for industry-sponsored RCTs.
Question #3: What are the upcoming/recently reported RCT trials in PE?
HI-PEITHO (published 2026, NEJM): Multinational adaptive-design RCT of ultrasound-facilitated CDT (EkoSonic system, alteplase 2 mg bolus + 1 mg/hr/catheter × 7 hours) plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone in 544 patients with enriched intermediate-high risk PE (RV/LV ≥1.0, elevated troponin, plus ≥2 of: SBP ≤110, HR ≥100, RR >20). Primary composite of PE-related death, cardiorespiratory decompensation/collapse, or symptomatic PE recurrence within 7 days: 4.0% intervention vs. 10.3% control (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.20–0.77; P=0.005). Effect driven by reduced cardiorespiratory decompensation. Major bleeding at 7 days: 4.1% vs. 2.2% (P=0.32). No intracranial hemorrhage in either arm. Clinical deterioration measured using the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), a validated ordinal scoring system incorporating vital signs – more sensitive at detecting decompensation than binary clinical criteria.
PRAGUE-26: Czech Republic government-sponsored RCT with a design essentially identical to HI-PEITHO in terms of sample size and primary endpoint, but using standard (non-ultrasound-assisted) CDT catheters in the interventional arm. Enrolling well; results anticipated in the near term.
PEERLESS II: Industry-sponsored (Inari/Boston Scientific) RCT of large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (FlowTriever) plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone in up to 1,200 patients with enriched intermediate-high risk PE (enrichment criteria slightly less stringent than HI-PEITHO). Five-component hierarchical primary endpoint assessed via win ratio: (1) mortality, (2) clinical deterioration (defined by binary clinical criteria – pressor initiation, SBP <90 for sustained period, mechanical circulatory support, or significant respiratory decompensation/intubation – a less sensitive measure than NEWS), (3) recurrent PE admission, (4) non-deterioration-based bailout crossover at day 3, and (5) 48-hour dyspnea score. The larger sample size compensates for the less sensitive clinical deterioration definition.
PE-TRACT: NIH-sponsored, open-label, assessor-blinded RCT of CDT (any FDA-cleared device – CDT or mechanical thrombectomy, strategy trial) plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone in 500 patients with intermediate-risk PE (most permissive enrollment – includes intermediate-low risk patients). Co-primary endpoints at 3 months (peak VO₂ on cardiopulmonary exercise testing) and 12 months (NYHA functional class), analyzed sequentially. Designed to answer the longer-term functional question rather than early clinical deterioration.
Question #4: What does the future of PE research look like?
Unprecedented evidence generation: Across STORM-PE, PEERLESS, HI-PEITHO, PEERLESS II, PE-TRACT, PRAGUE-26, PEITHO-3, and high-risk PE trials (PERSEVERE, TORPEDO-NL), approximately 8–9 RCTs are enrolling or recently completed – an unparalleled volume of comparative evidence in any cardiovascular subspecialty over such a short period.
Guideline impact: The 2026 AHA/ACC PE Guideline already reflects the evolving evidence landscape, with Class 2a–2b recommendations for CDT and MT in select PE categories. Results from HI-PEITHO, PEERLESS II, PRAGUE-26, and PE-TRACT have the potential to substantially strengthen these recommendations, particularly if clinical deterioration endpoints are positive.
PERT evolution: As evidence clarifies which patients benefit from intervention, PERT programs may transition from primarily clinical decision-making bodies to systems-of-care delivery engines – analogous to STEMI systems – focused on efficient, protocol-driven care and real-world evidence generation for quality improvement.
Innovation ecosystem: The relatively permissive FDA clearance pathway has fostered a competitive device landscape with multiple manufacturers and device types, contrasting with the prolonged duopoly in the TAVR space. This competition may drive technological improvement and more favorable economics.
Caution with real-world evidence: While real-world evidence is valuable for quality improvement and systems-of-care assessment, it should be used cautiously for comparative effectiveness analyses due to irreconcilable confounding and limitations in causal inference. RCTs remain the gold standard for comparative questions.
References:
★ Rosenfield K, Klok FA, Piazza G, et al. Ultrasound-facilitated, catheter-directed fibrinolysis for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2026;394(22):2131-2141. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2503539
★ Lookstein RA, Konstantinides SV, Weinberg I, et al. Randomized controlled trial of mechanical thrombectomy with anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone for acute intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism: primary outcomes from the STORM-PE trial. Circulation. 2026;153(1):21-34. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.077232
★ Jaber WA, Gonsalves CF, Stortecky S, et al. Large-bore mechanical thrombectomy versus catheter-directed thrombolysis in the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: primary results of the PEERLESS randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2025;151(5):260-273. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364
★ Gonsalves CF, Gibson CM, Stortecky S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of mechanical thrombectomy vs catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism: rationale and design of the PEERLESS study. Am Heart J. 2023;266:128-137. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2023.09.002
★ Sista AK, Troxel AB, Tarpey T, et al. Rationale and design of the PE-TRACT trial: a multicenter randomized trial to evaluate catheter-directed therapy for the treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Am Heart J. 2025;281:112-122. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2024.11.016
★ Giri J, Sista AK, Weinberg I, et al. Interventional therapies for acute pulmonary embolism: current status and principles for the development of novel evidence: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;140(20):e774-e801. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000707
★ Zhang RS, Maqsood MH, Sharp ASP, et al. Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis, or systemic thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16(22):2781-2793. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2023.09.014

Additional References
Rosovsky RP, Konstantinides SV, Moriarty JM, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluating anticoagulation alone vs anticoagulation plus computer assisted vacuum thrombectomy for the treatment of intermediate-high-risk acute pulmonary embolism: rationale and design of the STORM-PE study. Am Heart J. 2025;288:1-14. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2025.03.018
Klok FA, Piazza G, Sharp ASP, et al. Ultrasound-facilitated, catheter-directed thrombolysis vs anticoagulation alone for acute intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism: rationale and design of the HI-PEITHO study. Am Heart J. 2022;251:43-53. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2022.05.011
Creager MA, Barnes GD, Giri J, et al. 2026 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ACEP/CHEST/SCAI/SHM/SIR/SVM/SVN guideline for the evaluation and management of acute pulmonary embolism in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87(7):e77-e206. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.11.027
Piazza G. Advanced management of intermediate- and high-risk pulmonary embolism: JACC focus seminar. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(18):2117-2127. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.028
Zuo Z, Yue J, Dong BR, et al. Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;4(4):CD004437. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004437.pub6
Kroupa J, Buk M, Weichet J, et al. A pilot randomised trial of catheter-directed thrombolysis or standard anticoagulation for patients with intermediate-high risk acute pulmonary embolism (CANARY). EuroIntervention. 2022;18(8):e657-e665. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00194
Zuin M, Lang I, Chopard R, et al. Innovation in catheter-directed therapy for intermediate-high-risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024;17(20):2390-2408. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.07.037
Harvey JJ, Huang S, Uberoi R. Catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high risk (massive) and intermediate risk (submassive) acute pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;8(8):CD013083. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013083.pub2
Kim JM, Horbal SR, Mewaldt C, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism: trends and practice patterns in the PERT Consortium Registry (2016-2024). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87(13):1271-1283. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.12.044
Planer D, Yanko S, Matok I, et al. Catheter-directed thrombolysis compared with systemic thrombolysis and anticoagulation in patients with intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2023;195(24):E833-E843. doi:10.1503/cmaj.221655
Farmakis IT, Binder H, Chopard R, et al. Reperfusion strategies for acute pulmonary embolism: design and rationale of RECONNECT-PE – a living systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2026;295:107365. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2026.107365
Rashedi S, Leyva H, Hamade N, et al. Fibrinolytic therapy for thromboembolic diseases: approved indications and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;86(14):1395-1416. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.07.048
Creager MA, Barnes GD, Giri J. A field in transition: catheter-based therapy in the 2026 AHA/ACC acute pulmonary embolism guideline. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87(13):1284-1288. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2026.01.024
30 min

About Episodes Archives - Cardionerds

From the publisher's feed

A cardiology platform that aims to democratized cardiovascular education

Share Episodes Archives - Cardionerds

Sign up to save your podcasts

Episodes Archives - Cardionerds

Episodes Archives - Cardionerds episodes

About Episodes Archives - Cardionerds