Monday, April 13, 2026

Women are less likely to take heart medications after a cardiac event — and socioeconomics may be why

A new analysis of the TEXTMEDS trial reveals meaningful gaps in how men and women manage cardiovascular health after acute coronary syndromes.

After a heart attack or other acute coronary syndrome (ACS), sticking to medications is critical — but a new study shows women are doing so at notably lower rates than men. The finding, published in Open Heart, comes from a secondary analysis of TEXTMEDS, a randomized clinical trial that tested whether text-message reminders could improve medication adherence after ACS in Australian patients.

The numbers

Among 1,379 participants tracked for 12 months, just 46% of women reported taking all five recommended heart medications — compared to 54% of men. The gap held across a range of drugs, including statinsbeta-blockersaspirinACE inhibitors, and P2Y12 inhibitors.

Women fully adherent
46%
Men fully adherent
54%
Women reaching LDL target
39%

Women were also less likely to meet the recommended LDL-cholesterol target of under 70 mg/dL (39% vs. nearly 50% of men), and less likely to achieve regular physical activity goals (50% vs. 63%). On one measure, however, women came out ahead: they were more likely than men to maintain a healthy body mass index.

Socioeconomics as the hidden variable

One of the study's most important findings was what happened when researchers adjusted for socioeconomic factors like income and education: the adherence gap between men and women largely disappeared. The one exception was statins, where women remained significantly less likely to adhere even after full adjustment.

"When we accounted for socioeconomic factors like income and education, the difference between men and women largely disappeared, suggesting socioeconomic factors explain this relationship to some extent," said lead investigator Shiva Raj Mishra, PhD, of the University of Sydney.

As for the statin gap specifically, researchers point to several possible explanations: side-effect concerns, an underestimation of personal cardiac risk, and competing social priorities such as caregiving responsibilities.

A broader problem — for everyone

The study also underscores that medication adherence after ACS is low across the board. Overall, just over half of all patients — men and women combined — were consistently taking all five cardioprotective medications at 6 and 12 months. Patients with more comorbidities fared even worse, likely because managing multiple conditions simultaneously makes complex medication regimens harder to follow.

"Just knowing and having a serious cardiac event alone is clearly not sufficient as an intervention," said Mishra. "More is needed to address this."

"Medical adherence is important and difficult to achieve for many patients, and even more so for women compared to men. We should always be asking about medical adherence after ACS, especially among our patients with socioeconomic barriers to care."

— Clara Chow, MBBS, PhD, University of Sydney

Sources

Mishra SR et al. Open Heart, 2026. TEXTMEDS randomized clinical trial.

O'Riordan M. "Women Less Likely Than Men to Adhere to Post-ACS Medications: TEXTMEDS." TCTMD, April 13, 2026.

Sunday, April 12, 2026

CTO Intervention via PCI Leads to Better Symptom Relief and Quality of Life

A new meta‑analysis published in JACC provides strong evidence that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for a chronic total occlusion (CTO) significantly improves symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. By focusing exclusively on patients with a single CTO lesion, the analysis resolves longstanding uncertainty created by earlier trials with mixed designs and confounding from multivessel disease.

Why This Matters

CTO lesions are present in 15–20% of patients with chronic coronary syndrome, yet guideline recommendations for CTO PCI remain cautious. This hesitancy reflects:

  • Variability in earlier trial designs

  • Lower historical procedural success rates

  • Higher complication risks

  • Confounding from non‑CTO PCI in medical‑therapy arms of prior studies

The new meta‑analysis eliminates these issues by isolating patients with one CTO and no other significant coronary lesions, allowing a clearer assessment of the true therapeutic benefit of CTO PCI.

Key Findings From the Meta‑Analysis

The combined dataset included 518 patients with stable angina and a single CTO. Across all domains of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ)—including angina frequency, physical limitation, and quality of life—patients treated with CTO PCI experienced significantly greater improvements than those treated with OMT.

Additional highlights:

  • Benefits were consistent across age, sex, diabetes status, and lesion complexity

  • Patients with more severe baseline symptoms experienced the largest improvements

  • Procedural success exceeded 92% after a second attempt

  • Long‑term safety outcomes were similar between PCI and OMT

  • OMT‑treated patients were more likely to require subsequent revascularization

These findings align with earlier evidence from the ORBITA‑CTO, EUROCTO, and DECISION‑CTO trials.

Meta‑Analysis Summary Table

Included Trials and Key Characteristics

TrialDesignPopulation IncludedKey FeaturesOriginal Findings
EUROCTORandomized272 patients with single CTOCompared CTO PCI vs OMTPCI improved angina, physical limitations, and quality of life
DECISION‑CTORandomized246 patients with single CTO (multivessel disease excluded for this analysis)Original design allowed PCI of non‑CTO lesionsNo difference between PCI and OMT due to cross‑over PCI in OMT arm

Meta‑Analysis Findings (518 Patients)

OutcomePCI GroupOMT GroupKey Takeaway
Angina Frequency (SAQ)Significant improvementLess improvementPCI provides superior angina relief
Quality of Life (SAQ QoL)Significant improvementLess improvementPCI leads to better QoL gains
Physical Limitation (SAQ PL)Improved (P < 0.01)Less improvementPCI improves functional capacity
SAQ Summary ScoreLarger improvementSmaller improvementOverall health status benefit
Clinically meaningful improvementMore patients met thresholdsFewer met thresholdsPCI more likely to produce clinically important changes
CTO PCI Success Rate88.7% first attempt; 92.2% after secondN/AHigh procedural success
Cross‑over to PCIN/A6.7%Some OMT patients required PCI
ComplicationsLow (1% non‑Q‑wave MI; 0.7% silent cerebral ischemia)N/AAcceptable safety profile
Long‑term outcomes (3.1 years)Cardiac death or nonfatal MI: 2.7%5.1%No significant difference
RevascularizationLowerHigherOMT patients more likely to need later PCI

Guideline Implications

Current US guidelines assign CTO PCI a class IIb recommendation, while European guidelines provide a class IIa recommendation for patients with persistent angina despite OMT. The new findings suggest:

  • CTO PCI is effective

  • CTO PCI is safe

  • CTO PCI provides meaningful improvements in daily functioning and symptom burden

However, CTO PCI remains a technically demanding procedure, and outcomes depend heavily on operator experience, which likely explains the continued caution in guideline language.

Looking Ahead

Further clarity is expected from the ongoing ISCHEMIA‑CTO trial, which is evaluating PCI versus OMT in patients with varying degrees of ischemia, including those without symptoms. Results are anticipated in the coming years.

For now, the evidence is converging: In patients with a single CTO and persistent symptoms, PCI offers substantial improvements in quality of life, physical function, and angina relief.

Multifaceted Intervention Controls BP in Low‑income Hypertension Patients

 A new analysis from the IMPACTS‑BP trial shows that intensive blood pressure (BP) control is achievable even in resource‑limited primary‑care settings in the United States. Conducted across federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Louisiana and Mississippi, the study demonstrated that a systematic, team‑based intervention can significantly reduce systolic BP among low‑income adults.

A Real‑World Strategy With Real Impact

The intervention combined several coordinated components:

  • Protocol‑driven medication management
  • Team‑based care with regular auditing
  • Health coaching
  • Home BP monitoring

Among the 1,272 adults enrolled—most earning under $25,000 annually—those receiving the multifaceted intervention achieved a 6.4 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic BP at 18 months compared with usual care. Even modest reductions of this size are associated with meaningful decreases in long‑term cardiovascular risk, including stroke, coronary disease, heart failure, and mortality.

Nearly 22% of patients in the intervention arm reached a systolic BP below 120 mm Hg, and almost 48% achieved levels below 130 mm Hg—demonstrating that intensive BP targets can be met outside controlled research environments.

Why This Matters

Hypertension remains one of the most common and undertreated conditions in the United States, with low‑income communities facing disproportionate burdens. The IMPACTS‑BP findings show that structured, scalable care models can help close this gap.

While the results did not fully match the dramatic BP reductions seen in the landmark SPRINT trial, the comparison is limited by differences in setting. SPRINT operated under tightly controlled conditions, whereas IMPACTS‑BP took place in busy clinics serving patients with significant social and economic challenges. The fact that the intervention still produced substantial improvements underscores its real‑world value.

Looking Ahead

Experts agree that the next step is broader implementation. Success will require:

  • Policy support and reimbursement pathways for health coaching and home monitoring
  • System‑level commitment to team‑based care
  • Ensuring affordable access to antihypertensive medications

If scaled effectively, the IMPACTS‑BP model could transform hypertension control in underserved communities and bring intensive BP management into everyday practice.


References & Further Reading

  • Multifaceted strategies for hypertension control in low‑income patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 2026.
    https://www.nejm.org
  • SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood‑pressure control. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015.
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1511939 (nejm.org in Bing)
  • TCTMD Coverage of IMPACTS‑BP Trial
    https://www.tctmd.com

Wednesday, April 8, 2026

Beyond Quality of Life: Is TTVR Finally Moving the Needle on Mortality?

For years, the conversation around transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) has been defined by a significant caveat: we can make patients feel better, but can we help them live longer? Data from the TRISCEND II trial, recently presented at ACC 2026, suggests the tide may be turning.

While initial approvals for devices like Evoque were rooted in dramatic improvements in health status and KCCQ scores, the 2-year data now offers "provocative" hints of a survival benefit.

The 2-Year Snapshot: TRISCEND II

The trial randomized patients with symptomatic, severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) to TTVR plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone.

  • TR Reduction: The efficacy remains undisputed. At 2 years, approximately 95% of TTVR and crossover patients maintained TR grades of mild or less.

  • The Mortality Signal: In a landmark analysis at one year, patients who did not cross over to TTVR had a significantly higher rate of all-cause mortality (44.9%) compared to those in the TTVR group (19.1%).

  • Quality of Life: The KCCQ-OS improvement was sustained, showing a nearly 18-point jump in the TTVR group compared to negligible gains in the OMT-only cohort.

The "Pacemaker" Problem

It wasn't all clear skies. The data highlighted a cumulative pacemaker rate of 19.7% in the TTVR cohort at 2 years, compared to just 9.0% in the control group. For the "forgotten valve," the price of a dry annulus often remains a conduction disturbance—a factor that remains a critical part of the heart team discussion.

Clinical Takeaway

We are moving from a "symptom-relief" mindset to a "disease-modifying" one. While these 2-year results are hypothesis-generating due to small sample sizes and high crossover rates, they reinforce a fundamental surgical truth: TR is not a benign bystander. As we refine patient selection, the choice between repair and replacement will increasingly hinge on balancing the immediate safety of edge-to-edge repair against the definitive (and potentially life-extending) TR elimination provided by replacement.


What are your thoughts on the 20% pacemaker risk? Is it a fair trade for a 25% absolute reduction in mortality?

Article inspired by recent findings presented at the American College of Cardiology 2026 Scientific Session.

Monday, April 6, 2026

Lipoprotein(a): Why This Inherited Lipid Matters in Cardiovascular Prevention

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is an inherited, largely stable lipid particle that can increase cardiovascular risk beyond what is captured by a standard lipid panel. 

In modern preventive cardiology, it is best viewed as a risk-enhancing factor that can help refine treatment decisions, especially in patients with premature or unexplained ASCVD.

What Lp(a) is

Lp(a) is structurally similar to LDL but contains an added apolipoprotein(a) component attached to apoB-100. This unique structure appears to contribute to atherogenic, inflammatory, and possibly prothrombotic effects. 

Unlike LDL-C, Lp(a) is determined mainly by genetics and is usually established early in life, remaining relatively constant over time.

Why it matters

Elevated Lp(a) is associated with myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral arterial disease, and calcific aortic valve disease

Risk becomes especially relevant when Lp(a) is elevated in a patient who otherwise appears to have acceptable LDL-C control. 

In that setting, Lp(a) may explain residual risk and support a more intensive prevention strategy.

Who should be tested

Lp(a) measurement is particularly useful in patients with a family history of premature ASCVD, personal premature ASCVD, familial hypercholesterolemia, or a family history of elevated Lp(a). 

The 2026 ACC/AHA Dyslipidemia Guideline strongly recommends universal screening of adults for elevated Lp(a), with special considerations for children under 18. 

Because levels are generally stable, repeat testing is usually not needed unless there is a specific clinical reason.

How to interpret results

A commonly used threshold for elevated Lp(a) is 125 nmol/L, or 50 mg/dL. 

At or above this level, Lp(a) is considered a cardiovascular risk-enhancing factor

The key clinical point is not just the number itself, but how it changes overall risk assessment and treatment intensity.

Current management

There is no widely approved, outcome-proven therapy that specifically eliminates Lp(a) risk. 

Therefore, management focuses on aggressive control of modifiable factors, especially LDL-C reduction, blood pressure control, diabetes management, weight optimization, and tobacco cessation.

  Statins remain foundational for ASCVD prevention, even though they do not lower Lp(a), and PCSK9 inhibitors may modestly reduce Lp(a) while improving overall risk.

Emerging therapies

The field is moving quickly. Several RNA-targeting therapies are in late-stage clinical trials, including pelacarsen, olpasiran, and lepodisiran, with additional agents such as zerlasiran and muvalaplin in development. 

These studies are important because they may finally answer the central question: does directly lowering Lp(a) reduce cardiovascular events?

Clinical takeaway

Lp(a) should be treated as a marker of inherited risk, not a curiosity on a lipid report. 

For patients with elevated Lp(a), the practical response is to intensify overall cardiovascular prevention and use shared decision-making to explain why the risk is higher even when LDL-C looks controlled. 

That approach helps personalize care while we await definitive outcome data for Lp(a)-specific therapies.

References

  1. American Heart Association. Lipoprotein(a) information pageAHA-Lpa-Toolkit.pdf

  2. American Heart Association. Cholesterol overviewAHA-Lpa-Toolkit.pdf

  3. 2026 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Dyslipidemia: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001423ahajournals
  4. National Lipid Association. 2026 ACC/AHA Multisociety Dyslipidemia Guideline Releasedlipid

  5. Reyes-Soffer G, et al. Lp(a) AHA Scientific StatementAHA-Lpa-Toolkit.pdf

  6. Wilson DP, et al. NLA Statement on Lp(a)AHA-Lpa-Toolkit.pdf