The Ultimate Stress Test: Artemis II Through a Cardiologist’s Lens

As the world watches the Artemis II mission prepare to carry four astronauts around the Moon, most eyes are on the trajectory and the tech. But as a cardiologist, I’m looking at a different set of instruments: the four human hearts beating inside the Orion spacecraft.

For the first time in over 50 years, humans are leaving the protective "bubble" of Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This isn't just a leap for exploration; it’s the ultimate cardiovascular stress test. Here is how deep space challenges the most vital muscle in the body.

1. The Great Fluid Shift: "Puffy Head, Bird Legs"

In Earth’s gravity, our cardiovascular system works tirelessly to pump blood upward against gravity. The moment the Artemis II crew hits microgravity, that workload vanishes.

Without gravity to pull fluids down, blood and interstitial fluid migrate toward the chest and head. This cephalad fluid shift creates what we call the "puffy face, bird legs" look. For a cardiologist, this is a fascinating acute volume overload scenario. The heart initially perceives this as "too much fluid" and responds by increasing stroke volume, but over time, the body adjusts by reducing overall plasma volume by about 10% to 15%.

2. Cardiac Atrophy: Use It or Lose It

The heart is a muscle, and like any muscle, it adapts to its workload. In space, the heart doesn't have to work as hard to circulate blood. Research from the International Space Station has shown that the heart can actually change shape, becoming more spherical and losing muscle mass (atrophy) during extended missions.

While Artemis II is a relatively short 10-day mission, it serves as a critical baseline for the longer lunar stays to come. We are watching to see how the heart handles the rapid transition from the high-G forces of launch to the "lazy" pumping requirements of deep space.

3. The Wild Card: Deep Space Radiation

This is where Artemis II differs from missions to the ISS. Once the crew leaves the Van Allen radiation belts, they are exposed to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) and solar particle events.

From a clinical perspective, space radiation is a known "accelerator" of cardiovascular aging. It can damage the endothelial lining of blood vessels, potentially speeding up atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and causing oxidative stress. Artemis II is a vital data-gathering mission to help us understand how to protect future Mars-bound travelers from radiation-induced heart disease.

4. Heart Health on a Chip

One of the most exciting aspects of this mission is the AVATAR (A Virtual Astronaut Tissue Analog Response) investigation. NASA is using "organ-on-a-chip" technology—essentially tiny 3D cultures of the astronauts' own cells—to monitor how their specific heart tissue reacts to the unique stressors of deep space in real-time.

> Cardiologist’s Note: This isn't just for space. Understanding how hearts "age" or stiffen in microgravity helps us treat sedentary patients and those with heart failure right here on Earth.

> 

The Return: Orthostatic Intolerance

The mission doesn't end when the capsule splashes down. When the crew returns to Earth’s 1G environment, gravity immediately pulls that blood back down to their legs. Because their hearts have spent 10 days "slacking off" and their blood volume is lower, many astronauts experience orthostatic intolerance—the inability to stand without feeling faint.

Final Thoughts

Artemis II is more than a lunar flyby; it’s a clinical trial for the future of humanity. As we push further into the cosmos, our understanding of the heart must evolve. We aren't just sending pilots and scientists to the Moon; we are sending the most complex, adaptive, and vulnerable biological pump ever designed.

Stay tuned as we follow the vitals of the Artemis II crew. The heartbeat of exploration has never been louder.

For more updates on the intersection of medicine and space, visit NASA’s Human Research Program.

Foundayo: A New Oral GLP-1 Option for Obesity

Foundayo (orforglipron), from Eli Lilly, is the first FDA-approved daily oral GLP-1 receptor agonist pill for adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) or overweight (BMI ≥27) with weight-related conditions like hypertension or type 2 diabetes. 

Unlike injections or food-restricted orals, it offers flexible dosing anytime, boosting potential adherence in long-term weight management.

FDA Approval Highlights

Approved on April 1, 2026, Foundayo earned the fastest new molecular entity nod under the National Priority Voucher program—see FDA announcement and Eli Lilly press release. It's indicated with diet/exercise; shipping starts April 6 via LillyDirect.

Dosing and Titration Schedule

Foundayo starts low to minimize gastrointestinal side effects, titrating over weeks based on tolerance and response (max 17.2 mg daily).

Week	Dose (mg)	Notes
1-2	0.8	Starting dose; take once daily
3-4	2.2	Increase if tolerated
5-6	4.9	Monitor for nausea
7-8	8.1	Flexible timing
9+	10.6-17.2	Target/maintenance; adjust per response

Clinical Efficacy

Phase 3 ATTAIN-1 trial (n>4,500) showed 12.4% body weight loss (27 lbs average) on highest dose vs. 2% placebo at 72 weeks—detailed in NEJM publication. 

Improvements persisted; 65% achieved ≥10% loss.

Cardiometabolic Benefits

Foundayo reduced waist circumference, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and hsCRP. TRIUMPH outcomes trial assesses MACE in ASCVD patients, aligning with GLP-1 class CV protection.

Safety Profile

GI effects (nausea 20-30%, diarrhea, vomiting) peak early and wane; similar to injectables. Warnings: thyroid C-cell tumors, pancreatitis, gallbladder issues. Avoid with other GLP-1s; monitor hypoglycemia with insulin.

Pricing and Access

Option	Monthly Cost	Details
Commercial Insurance + Savings Card	$25	Most pay this via Lilly
Self-Pay (LillyDirect)	$149 (0.8 mg) to $349 (17.2 mg)	Tiered by dose
Medicare Part D	~$50 by July 2026	Expected post-negotiation

Clinical Implications

For cardiologists, Foundayo offers a patient-friendly GLP-1 to tackle obesity-driven CV risk. Its pill form may widen access beyond Zepbound users, with scalable manufacturing aiding global reach. Monitor adherence and titrate carefully.

Cardiologist’s Quick Guide to Today’s New GLP‑1 Pill: Foundayo

By Bishnu Subedi, MD, FACC

If you followed the morning headlines today, you already know: April 1, 2026, is not April Fool’s Day for GLP‑1 lovers. The FDA just approved Foundayo (orforglipron), Eli Lilly’s first oral GLP‑1 receptor agonist for obesity and overweight. As a cardiologist, I’m excited—because this is another tool in our kit to treat the real cardiovascular risk factor: excess weight.

What Foundayo Is (And Why Cardiologists Care)

Foundayo is a small‑molecule, once‑daily oral GLP‑1 agonist without a water or fasting requirement, which is a big deal for adherence. In trials, the highest dose (36 mg) drove roughly 11% average weight loss, with clinically meaningful weight reduction even at 6–12 mg. For patients with obesity, ASCVD, diabetes, or metabolic syndrome, that kind of change can meaningfully shift blood pressure, lipids, and long‑term risk.

Snapshot of Key GLP‑1 Agents (Including Today’s New Kid)

For cardiology practice, here’s a super‑short table of the main GLP‑1–based players you’ll see in clinic, including Foundayo:

Drug (Brand)	Generic	Route	Frequency	Company	Main Use
Ozempic	semaglutide	SC	Weekly	Novo Nordisk	T2D ± CV risk reduction
Wegovy	semaglutide	SC or oral	Weekly or daily	Novo Nordisk	Weight ± CV risk
Mounjaro	tirzepatide	SC	Weekly	Eli Lilly	T2D
Zepbound	tirzepatide	SC	Weekly	Eli Lilly	Weight
Foundayo	orforglipron	Oral	Daily	Eli Lilly	Weight (newly FDA‑approved April 1, 2026)

Foundayo joins the increasingly crowded GLP‑1 space, but as the first oral GLP‑1 pill for obesity, it offers a unique option for patients who hate injections or struggle with morning‑only fasting doses.

Side Effects and Black Box: The Usual Suspects

Unsurprisingly, the side‑effect profile is classic GLP‑1: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and dyspepsia. As with all GLP‑1 agents, watch for dehydration, hypoglycemia when combined with insulin or sulfonylureas, and gallbladder disease.

The Black Box warning is also standard across the class: risk of thyroid C‑cell tumors in rodents. Foundayo is contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or MEN 2, and patients should be taught to report any new neck mass, hoarseness, or dysphagia.

Take‑Home for the Busy Cardiologist

Foundayo is not a “magic” pill, but it is another lever we can pull for patients with obesity who are ready to partner with us on lifestyle, diet, and long‑term cardiovascular health. For many, an oral, once‑daily GLP‑1 with no food or water restrictions may be the difference between this regimen and no regimen at all.

As cardiologists, our job is not just to manage stents and EF; it’s to help patients live healthier, leaner, and longer. Foundayo is one more small, cute, but potentially powerful tool in that mission.

Will AI Replace Physicians? A Clinical Perspective

The discourse around AI and physician obsolescence has intensified — but a closer look at the clinical realities reveals a far more nuanced picture.

The conversation about artificial intelligence in medicine has reached a fever pitch. Venture capitalists predict algorithmic physicians by 2035. Headlines tout AI outperforming radiologists. And a growing number of clinicians report fielding questions from patients who genuinely wonder whether their next visit will be with a machine. Against this backdrop, it is worth examining what the evidence actually supports — and what it does not.

The short answer: AI will not replace physicians. But it will increasingly differentiate those who use it effectively from those who do not.

What AI Can Legitimately Do in Clinical Settings

Current AI applications in healthcare fall into a few well-defined categories where the technology has demonstrated genuine clinical utility:

∙ Diagnostic imaging analysis: Deep learning models have shown performance comparable to — and in narrow tasks, exceeding — radiologists in detecting specific findings such as diabetic retinopathy, pulmonary nodules, and certain dermatologic conditions.

∙ Clinical decision support: NLP tools can surface relevant differential diagnoses, flag drug interactions, and synthesize literature in real time — functioning as an evidence-based second opinion.

∙ Predictive analytics: Machine learning models analyzing EHR data can identify patients at elevated risk for sepsis, readmission, or clinical deterioration, enabling earlier intervention.

∙ Administrative automation: AI scribes, coding assistants, and scheduling tools are already reducing documentation burden — a meaningful gain given that physician burnout is substantially driven by administrative load.

These are real, measurable contributions. They should be understood as augmentation of clinical capacity, not substitution for it.

Where AI Falls Short: The Clinical Case for Irreplaceability

The Limits of Pattern Recognition

AI excels at identifying patterns within the distribution of its training data. It struggles — often silently — when cases fall outside that distribution. Rare presentations, atypical symptom clusters, and patients with multiple interacting comorbidities are precisely where experienced clinical judgment is most valuable and where algorithmic medicine is most likely to err. The algorithm does not know what it does not know.

Physical Examination and Embodied Assessment

No current AI system can perform a physical exam, observe a patient’s affect and gait, or integrate the subtle non-verbal cues that inform a seasoned clinician’s gestalt. These inputs remain foundational to diagnosis and cannot be reduced to structured data fields. The “clinical sixth sense” that experienced physicians describe reflects the integration of embodied, contextual, and interpersonal information that lies well beyond current AI capability.

Surgical and Procedural Adaptability

Operative medicine illustrates this limitation acutely. Aberrant anatomy, adhesions, intraoperative bleeding, and unexpected findings require adaptive decision-making that cannot be fully scripted. A surgeon adjusting an approach in real time — integrating tactile feedback, visual field, patient hemodynamics, and prior experience — is performing a form of reasoning that algorithmic systems are far from replicating safely.

Legal Accountability and the Liability Framework

From a medicolegal standpoint, clinical responsibility requires a qualified human professional. Liability frameworks, regulatory requirements, and the current standards of care all presuppose physician-led decision-making. While AI may inform the differential or support a recommendation, the accountability structure of medicine will continue to require physician sign-off for the foreseeable future.

Individual Patient Complexity

Standardized treatment algorithms function well at the population level. They break down in patients whose genetics, physiology, social circumstances, and comorbidities place them outside the modal case. Precision medicine, by definition, requires individualization — a task that demands clinical synthesis, not just data processing.

Specialty-Specific Exposure: Where the Impact Will Be Greatest

Not all specialties face equivalent disruption:

∙ High exposure: Radiology, pathology, and dermatology — where AI pattern recognition maps most directly onto core clinical tasks.

∙ Moderate exposure: Cardiology (ECG interpretation, echo analysis), ophthalmology (retinal imaging), and oncology (treatment matching from genomic data).

∙ Lower exposure: Primary care, psychiatry, emergency medicine, and surgical subspecialties — where relational complexity, adaptability, and procedural skill remain central.

Even in high-exposure specialties, human oversight of AI outputs remains essential. AI-assisted radiology reduces miss rates and flags incidentals — but the interpreting physician retains responsibility for the final read and the clinical integration of findings.

The Physician Response: Practical Implications for Your Practice

The AMA has framed this well: physicians who learn to use AI effectively will not be replaced by AI — but they may be replaced by physicians who use AI better. This reframes the question from existential threat to professional development imperative.

Practically, this means:

∙ Maintaining the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients derive measurable benefit from trust, continuity, and therapeutic alliance — none of which AI provides.

∙ Developing AI literacy. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and failure modes of the tools you use is now a clinical competency, not an elective interest.

∙ Leveraging AI for cognitive offloading. Use decision-support tools to reduce load on high-volume, high-frequency decisions — freeing attention for the complex cases that most require it.

∙ Engaging with your institution’s AI governance. How AI tools are selected, validated, and monitored matters enormously to patient safety. Physician input in these processes is not optional.

Clinical Bottom Line: AI will reshape the practice of medicine — but the clinical, legal, interpersonal, and adaptive demands of physician work are not amenable to algorithmic substitution. The physicians best positioned for the next decade are those who approach AI as a clinical tool to be understood and wielded with the same rigor applied to any other evidence-based intervention.

Exercise is medicine — and the science backs it up

For millions of people living with chronic illness, the most powerful treatment might not come in a pill bottle.

A single MET improvement in fitness is linked to a 10–25% reduction in premature mortality — comparable to many pharmaceutical interventions.

Physical inactivity is one of the biggest drivers of chronic disease worldwide. Yet a growing body of evidence makes a compelling case that regular, well-tailored exercise isn't just prevention — it's treatment. From heart disease to depression, movement can improve outcomes, enhance quality of life, and in some cases reduce the need for medication.

What conditions does exercise actually help?

♥

Heart disease

Lowers risk, slows progression

◈

Diabetes

Improves insulin sensitivity & HbA1c

⬡

Obesity

Reduces visceral fat & waist size

◎

Mental health

Eases depression & anxiety

Exercise works through multiple pathways at once — improving insulin sensitivity, reducing inflammation, supporting cardiovascular function, and enhancing mood and sleep. That makes it uniquely effective for conditions that affect both the body and the mind.

It needs to be prescribed, not just suggested

The key insight emerging from recent research is that exercise should be treated like a medication: individualized, specific, and realistic. That means tailoring frequency, intensity, duration, and type to the patient's diagnosis, fitness level, and preferences. A brisk 30-minute walk might be exactly right for one person; a combination of aerobic and resistance training might be better for another.

The WHO recommends at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise for people with chronic conditions — roughly 20 minutes a day. That's a low bar with a high payoff.

The takeaway for patients

Movement can be part of your prescription. If you're managing a chronic condition, ask your doctor not just what you should take — but what you should do.

ACC 2026 — Major Trials and Presentations by Subspecialty

New Orleans, Louisiana | March 28–30, 2026 | 75th Anniversary Meeting 7 LBCT Sessions · 27 Late-Breaking Trials · 4,730 Abstracts from 82 Countries

---

1. Electrophysiology & Arrhythmia

CHAMPION-AF (LBCT I, Mar 28) WATCHMAN FLX vs. NOACs in 3,000 NVAF patients eligible for anticoagulation. Non-inferior for stroke/CV death/systemic embolism (5.7% vs. 4.8%); superior for non-procedural bleeding (10.9% vs. 17.2%). Published in NEJM. Practice: WATCHMAN FLX is now a valid first-line option via shared decision-making, even in NOAC-eligible patients. Superior bleeding profile is clinically meaningful — but this is not a blanket NOAC replacement. Individualize.

HI-PEITHO (LBCT I, Mar 28) EKOS ultrasound-facilitated catheter-directed thrombolysis vs. anticoagulation alone in 544 intermediate-to-high-risk PE patients. Met primary composite (PE death, hemodynamic collapse, recurrent PE ≤7 days). No increase in major bleeding. Published in NEJM. Practice: USCDT now has RCT-level evidence as first-line for intermediate-high-risk PE with imminent hemodynamic decompensation.

PREVUE-VALVE (Investigative Horizons, Mar 30) AI-based 12-lead ECG algorithm detected significant AS and MR at the population level with high sensitivity. Practice: Could be integrated into routine ECG platforms to reduce the burden of missed, asymptomatic severe valve disease in primary care.

PKP2 Gene Therapy — LX2020 (Investigative Horizons III, Mar 30) First-in-human safety and preliminary efficacy data for AAVrh.10hPKP2 gene replacement in PKP2-arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. Early feasibility signal in a disease with no current disease-modifying therapy. Practice: Relevant for young patients with PKP2-ACM at high SCD risk. Enroll patients in genetic testing/counseling programs now.

---

2. Interventional Cardiology — Coronary

STEMI Door-to-Unload (STEMI-DTU) (LBCT I, Mar 28) Impella CP with deliberate 40-minute delay to reperfusion vs. immediate PCI in anterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock. Neutral — no reduction in infarct size. Higher bleeding and vascular complications in treatment arm. Published in JACC. Practice: Routine Impella use before PCI in non-shock STEMI is not supported. Reserve for hemodynamic compromise.

CHIP-BCIS3 (LBCT III, Mar 29) Elective Impella CP during high-risk PCI (LVEF ≤35%, complex CAD) vs. standard care (n=300, UK). No benefit on composite outcome; numerically higher CV death in the Impella arm. Published in NEJM. Practice: Routine "protected PCI" in stabilized high-risk patients without active hemodynamic instability is not recommended.

ORBITA-CTO (LBCT III, Mar 29) Sham-controlled RCT of CTO-PCI vs. placebo in symptomatic single-vessel CTO without bystander CAD. CTO-PCI significantly improved angina symptom score vs. placebo. Published in JACC. Practice: First sham-controlled evidence that CTO-PCI delivers genuine angina relief. Strengthens its role in carefully selected, symptomatic single-vessel CTO — not for all-comers.

ALL-RISE & FAST III (LBCT III, Mar 29) Both trials confirmed angiography-derived physiology (vFFR/QFR) non-inferior to invasive pressure-wire FFR for guiding PCI revascularization decisions. Practice: Supports guideline-level adoption of angiography-derived physiological indices — reduces cost and procedural complexity.

IVUS-CHIP (LBCT VII, Mar 30) IVUS-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in complex/high-risk procedures. Routine IVUS not superior — TVF 14% vs. 11%, non-significant. Published in NEJM. Practice: Challenges mandatory IVUS in all complex PCI. A selective, operator-driven approach appears appropriate.

OPTIMAL (LBCT VII, Mar 30) IVUS vs. angiography-guided PCI for unprotected left main CAD (n=806). IVUS not superior — primary composite 34% vs. 31%, HR 1.11. Published in NEJM. Practice: May challenge the current mandate for intravascular imaging in all left main PCI. Note a possible higher stroke signal with IVUS that warrants further investigation.

DKCRUSH-VIII (LBCT VII, Mar 30) IVUS-guided DK-crush PCI significantly superior to angiography-guidance for complex bifurcation lesions — significantly lower TVF in IVUS arm. Practice: IVUS benefit is lesion-complexity-dependent. Use it for bifurcation stenting; contrast with IVUS-CHIP/OPTIMAL results.

SMART-DECISION (LBCT VI, Mar 30) Beta-blocker discontinuation vs. continuation ≥1 year post-MI in stable patients (LVEF ≥40%, no HF). Discontinuation non-inferior — primary composite 7.2% vs. 9.0%, HR 0.80. Published in NEJM. Practice: Deprescribing beta-blockers is safe in appropriately selected, stable post-MI patients. Challenges the "lifelong beta-blocker" reflex.

SirPAD (LBCT VII, Mar 30) Phase III RCT of sirolimus-coated balloons vs. uncoated balloons for infra-inguinal PAD. Assessed primary patency and limb outcomes in symptomatic claudication and CLI. Practice: Sirolimus-coated balloons may offer improved vessel patency in infra-inguinal PAD — relevant for all interventionalists managing peripheral disease.

---

3. Heart Failure & Cardiomyopathy

SPIRIT-HF (LBCT IV, Mar 29) Spironolactone vs. placebo in HFpEF/HFmrEF (LVEF ≥40%). Inconclusive — primary endpoint non-significant (10.9 vs. 8.2/100 patient-years). Trial severely underpowered due to COVID-19 impact (only ~50% of planned enrollment). Practice: Does not exclude benefit. Finerenone (FINEARTS-HF) remains the preferred MRA for HFpEF. The SPIRRIT trial is ongoing for a definitive answer.

CADENCE (LBCT IV, Mar 29) Phase 2 RCT of sotatercept (Winrevair) in combined pre/postcapillary pulmonary hypertension (CpcPH) associated with HFpEF. Significant reduction in PVR and improvement in functional endpoints vs. placebo. Practice: Sotatercept now extends into CpcPH-HFpEF — a phenotype previously without targeted therapy. Refer to PH centers for phenotyping and eligibility.

Impedance-HFpEF (LBCT IV, Mar 29) Noninvasive lung impedance-guided fluid management significantly reduced death and HF hospitalization in HFpEF patients. Practice: Remote monitoring-guided diuretic titration is effective in HFpEF — adds to the management toolkit beyond CardioMEMS, which is primarily HFrEF-focused.

SCOUT-HCM (LBCT IV, Mar 29) Phase 3 RCT of mavacamten (Camzyos) in symptomatic adolescents (12–18 years) with obstructive HCM. Significant reduction in LVOT gradient and symptom class vs. placebo. Practice: Mavacamten is now effective in adolescents with obHCM. Extends prescribing consideration to younger patients — maintain close LVEF monitoring per REMS program.

Acoramidis (Attruby) — ATTRIBUTE-CM Long-Term Data (Investigative Horizons III, Mar 30) Sustained reduction in CV mortality and HF hospitalization with acoramidis in ATTR-CM over extended follow-up. Practice: Confirms durable benefit. Reinforce early ATTR-CM diagnosis — baseline 6MWT, NT-proBNP, Tc-99m PYP scintigraphy — and initiate TTR stabilizer therapy early.

---

4. Structural Heart Disease

SURVIV (LBCT V, Mar 29) Redo mitral surgery vs. transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (TMViV) for failing bioprosthetic mitral valves. TMViV non-inferior with significantly lower procedural risk. Published simultaneously. Practice: TMViV is the preferred strategy for failing mitral bioprostheses, particularly in high-surgical-risk patients. Confirm via Heart Team discussion.

PRO-TAVI (LBCT V, Mar 29) Routine pre-TAVI PCI vs. deferred approach for concomitant CAD. Deferred (selective) PCI equivalent to routine revascularization on clinical outcomes. Practice: Avoid routine PCI of non-hemodynamically significant lesions before TAVI — individualize based on lesion significance.

ProtectH2H (LBCT V, Mar 29) Head-to-head RCT of Emboliner vs. Sentinel cerebral protection devices in TAVR — compared embolic debris capture and DW-MRI stroke lesion burden. Practice: Both systems remain valid; results guide institutional device selection based on anatomy and operator experience.

Tri.fr — 2-Year Outcomes (LBCT V, Mar 29) Sustained 2-year benefit of tricuspid TEER over medical therapy in severe TR — durable improvement in QoL and functional class. Practice: Do not dismiss severe TR as benign. Refer symptomatic patients early for structural heart evaluation.

TRISCEND II — 2-Year Data (Featured Research V, Mar 30) Extended follow-up confirms durable TR reduction and sustained functional improvement with transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement. Practice: TTVR is an effective, durable option for severe TR in high-surgical-risk patients — expands the toolkit beyond TEER.

ALERT Trial (Featured Research, Mar 29) EHR-integrated automated alerts for severe AS and MR significantly improved guideline-appropriate referral and intervention rates. Practice: Implement clinical decision support for valvular disease in your EHR system — particularly for primary care and non-cardiology inpatient settings.

---

5. Preventive Cardiology — Lipids & Hypertension

VESALIUS-CV Substudy (LBCT II) Evolocumab (Repatha) reduced MACE by ~25% in high-risk primary prevention patients without prior MI or stroke — including those with diabetes, FH, or elevated Lp(a). Practice: Expands PCSK9 inhibition beyond secondary prevention. Justified in high-risk primary prevention patients who remain above LDL target on maximum statin/ezetimibe.

Ez-PAVE (LBCT II) Intensive LDL lowering to <55 mg/dL in ASCVD patients was safe, with no cognitive harm signal, and demonstrated residual risk reduction. Practice: Supports ESC/ACC-aligned LDL targets in very high-risk patients. Justifies combination therapy to achieve <55 mg/dL in secondary prevention.

KARDINAL (LBCT II) Tonlamarsen (Kardigan), an antisense oligonucleotide targeting angiotensinogen — substantial and sustained SBP reduction over 24 weeks in uncontrolled hypertension. Phase 2. Practice: A once-monthly subcutaneous RNA-targeted antihypertensive. Highly promising for resistant hypertension. Watch for Phase 3 development.

GoFreshRx (LBCT II) & THRIVE (LBCT VI) DASH-patterned grocery delivery and culturally targeted food-is-medicine interventions significantly reduced systolic BP in hypertensive, food-insecure adults. Practice: Food access is a modifiable antihypertensive target. Integrate SDOH screening and food pharmacy programs into hypertension management protocols.

CORALreef AddOn — Enlicitide Decanoate (Investigative Horizons II) Phase 3 data for an oral macrocyclic peptide PCSK9 inhibitor — non-injection-based LDL lowering in statin-intolerant and inadequately treated patients. Practice: An oral PCSK9 inhibitor could dramatically expand access. Monitor for FDA filing and payer coverage.

ACC/AHA 2026 Dyslipidemia Guidelines Key updates: lower LDL targets initiated earlier in life, broader PCSK9 inhibitor indications, and a strengthened primary prevention framework. Featured across 20 dedicated guideline sessions.

---

6. Cardiometabolic Disease & GLP-1 Agents

SURPASS-CVOT — Tirzepatide Extended Analysis All-cause mortality significantly lower with tirzepatide vs. dulaglutide. Expanded 6-point MACE — including kidney and HF hospitalization endpoints — also significantly reduced. Practice: Tirzepatide is the preferred agent when GLP-1/GIP dual agonism is indicated in high-CV-risk T2DM and obesity. Superior cardiometabolic signal vs. older GLP-1 monotherapy.

SURPASS-CVOT Substudy — Obese HFpEF Sustained QoL, 6MWT, and NT-proBNP improvement in obese HFpEF patients at extended follow-up — builds on STEP-HFpEF data. Practice: GLP-1 agonists (semaglutide, tirzepatide) are increasingly central to HFpEF management in obese patients. Screen all obese HFpEF patients for eligibility.

---

7. Cardiovascular Imaging & Diagnostics

GPS-CAD (Featured Research) CAC=0 reliability to exclude coronary plaque varies across ethnic groups — reduced negative predictive value demonstrated in South Asian populations. Practice: CAC=0 is not a universal rule-out across all ethnicities. Supplement with Lp(a), family history, and clinical context in South Asian patients.

CLAiR — AI Retinal Imaging (Investigative Horizons I) AI-based fundus photography analysis reliably stratified 10-year ASCVD risk — scalable, non-invasive, and deployable in non-cardiology settings. Practice: Potential future integration into optometry and primary care for opportunistic CV risk screening.

DISCOVER INOCA (Featured Research) Comprehensive INOCA phenotyping using coronary physiology and intravascular imaging — defined the burden of myocardial bridging and microvascular dysfunction across phenotypes. Practice: Physiological testing (CFR, IMR) and intravascular imaging are essential in INOCA workup. Phenotyping guides targeted therapy.

MINOCA Studies (Featured Research) Registry and cohort data highlighting sex differences in pathophysiology and significant underuse of guideline-directed diagnostics in MINOCA patients. Practice: MINOCA patients — particularly women — require comprehensive evaluation: CMR, OCT/IVUS, vasoreactivity testing. Antiplatelet benefit is less established than ACE inhibitor/statin therapy.

---

8. Pulmonary Hypertension

CADENCE — Sotatercept in CpcPH-HFpEF (LBCT IV, Mar 29) Phase 2 RCT of sotatercept in combined pre/postcapillary PH associated with HFpEF. Significant improvement in PVR, 6MWT, and NT-proBNP vs. placebo. Practice: First targeted therapy with signal in this notoriously difficult phenotype. Refer to PH centers for formal hemodynamic characterization and trial eligibility.

---

9. Rheumatic Heart Disease

Dig-RHD (LBCT VI, Mar 30) RCT of digoxin in rheumatic heart disease with AF/HF in low-middle income country settings — assessed whether this inexpensive, globally available agent reduces death and hospitalization. Practice: Relevant for managing patients from RHD-endemic regions and for global cardiology practice where modern GDMT access is limited.

---

10. Cardiac Devices & Resynchronization

Atrial Pacing Support in CRT — Non-Inferiority RCT (Featured Research V) Assessed optimal pacing configuration in CRT-eligible patients — whether atrial pacing support is non-inferior to standard programming for biventricular pacing outcomes. Practice: Clarifies CRT programming strategy for EP and HF implanters managing device optimization.

---

11. Guideline Updates

• ACC/AHA 2026 Dyslipidemia Guidelines — Lower LDL targets earlier in life; expanded PCSK9 inhibitor indications; stronger primary prevention framework.
• ACC/AHA Pulmonary Embolism Guidelines (New) — Risk-stratified PE management incorporating catheter-directed therapy and PERT team frameworks.
• ACC Expert Consensus on AI in Cardiovascular Medicine — Framework for implementing, validating, and governing AI-based tools in clinical cardiology practice.

---

12. Artificial Intelligence & Innovation

PREVUE-VALVE — AI-ECG detects significant AS and MR at population scale. Integration into routine ECG analysis platforms could close the asymptomatic valve disease detection gap.

CLAiR — Retinal AI — Fundus photography + AI predicts 10-year ASCVD risk. Scalable for non-cardiology screening settings.

AI Cardiac Surgeon Evaluation — Intraoperative video-based AI objectively assesses surgical technique quality and predicts outcomes. Future applications in credentialing and quality improvement.

Eugene Braunwald Keynote: The Future of AI in Cardiovascular Medicine — Delivered by Paul Friedman, MD (Mayo Clinic). Explored how deep learning will transform diagnostics, risk prediction, arrhythmia management, and imaging across cardiovascular medicine.

---

Full session recordings and abstracts available at accscientificsession.acc.org. Content compiled from ACC News, TCTMD, NEJM, JACC, and official press releases. For educational use only.

Essence‑CTA: Does Olezarsen Reduce Noncalcified Coronary Plaque Volume?

In patients with moderate hypertriglyceridemia, the antisense oligonucleotide olezarsen—given on top of standard‑of‑care lipid‑lowering therapy—produced substantial drops in triglycerides and remnant cholesterol, but did not significantly change noncalcified coronary plaque volume (NCPV), according to the Essence‑CTA imaging substudy of Essence‑TIMI 73b, presented at ACC.26 and published in Circulation.

The substudy analyzed 468 patients (median age 63, one‑third women) with serial coronary CT angiography (CCTA) over 12 months, of whom 349 received olezarsen and 119 received placebo; nearly all were on guideline‑directed lipid‑lowering therapy, with about 43% having known coronary artery disease and 57% diabetes. 

Olezarsen cut triglycerides by 64%, remnant cholesterol by 72%, and apolipoprotein B by 16% at 6 months, with no effect on LDL‑C.

Despite these profound lipid‑profile changes, there was no significant difference in the percent change in NCPV: the placebo‑adjusted least‑squares mean difference was +2.98% (p = 0.36), with median reductions of −3.91% (placebo) versus −5.35% (olezarsen). 

There were no differences in low‑attenuation plaque, calcified plaque, or total plaque volume, and the neutral effect of olezarsen was consistent across patient subgroups.

The lead investigator underscores that Essence‑CTA does not rule out clinical benefit; instead, it underscores the need for a large cardiovascular outcomes trial to test whether long‑term ApoC3 inhibition with olezarsen, alone or added to other lipid‑lowering regimens, reduces MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death, even if CCTA‑measured coronary plaque volume shifts only modestly.

SMART‑DECISION: Discontinuing Beta‑Blockers After MI in Low‑Risk Patients

Discontinuing beta‑blocker therapy was noninferior to continuing it among stable, low‑risk patients who had taken the drugs for at least one year after a myocardial infarction (MI), according to the SMART‑DECISION trial, presented at ACC.26 and published in NEJM. 

In this open‑label, noninferiority study from 25 centers in South Korea, 2,540 patients with an LVEF ≥40%, no heart failure (HF), and at least one year of post‑MI beta‑blocker use were randomized 1:1 to discontinuation (n=1,246) or continuation (n=1,294). 

The cohort had a mean age of 63 years and 87% men.

At a median follow‑up of 3.1 years, the primary composite of death from any cause, recurrent MI, or HF hospitalization occurred in 7.2% of the discontinuation group versus 9.0% of the continuation group (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.57–1.13; p=0.001 for noninferiority).

 Secondary endpoints—including individual components of the composite, new‑onset atrial fibrillation, LV‑function changes, quality‑of‑life scores, and serious adverse events—were similar between groups.

The senior investigator concludes that for appropriately selected MI survivors without HF or left‑ventricular systolic dysfunction, routine lifelong beta‑blocker continuation may not be necessary, and that discontinuation can be considered through shared decision‑making, with close monitoring of blood pressure and heart rate. 

The case is particularly strong for patients who experience beta‑blocker‑related side effects (fatigue, dizziness, bradycardia, hypotension). 

For cardiology practice, SMART‑DECISION supports a more individualized, risk‑based approach to beta‑blocker duration after MI in low‑risk, stable patients.

IVUS‑CHIP and OPTIMAL: IVUS‑Guided vs. Angiography‑Guided PCI

Two new randomized trials presented at ACC.26 and published in NEJM found that routine IVUS‑guided PCI was not superior to angiography‑guided PCI in either complex coronary artery disease or unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LM‑CAD). 

In IVUS‑CHIP, among 2,020 patients with complex lesions, target‑vessel failure was similar with IVUS guidance and angiography alone. In OPTIMAL, among 806 patients with unprotected LM‑CAD, the patient‑oriented composite of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization was also comparable between strategies.

In IVUS‑CHIP, the IVUS approach took longer and required more post‑stent balloon optimization, but did not lower target‑vessel failure at a mean 19 months (14% vs. 11%; HR 1.25). 

In OPTIMAL, event rates for death, MI, and revascularization were likewise similar at a median 2.09 years, with no clear safety advantage for IVUS guidance. The trials suggest that while intracoronary imaging remains valuable, routine use of IVUS for all complex or left‑main PCI may not be necessary, especially when procedures are performed by experienced operators at high‑volume centers.

CLAiR System: Can AI Reliably Assess CV Risk From Retinal Images?

A new artificial‑intelligence (AI) system called CLAiR, which analyzes retinal images to estimate cardiovascular risk, showed strong agreement with standard atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk‑score calculators, according to findings presented during an Investigative Horizons session at ACC.26. 

The prospective U.S. study enrolled 874 participants aged 40–75 without known atherosclerosis or lipid‑lowering therapy at 10 eye care and primary‑care sites.

Using standard retinal‑camera images, the CLAiR AI model assessed cardiovascular risk in 94% of captured images and achieved 91.1% sensitivity and 86.2% specificity compared with conventional 10‑year ASCVD risk estimates; about 26% of participants had an ASCVD risk ≥7.5%. 

The system is not intended to replace formal risk assessment, but may serve as a noninvasive, opportunistic screen during routine eye exams to flag patients who would benefit from preventive cardiology evaluation.

Investigators emphasize that for CLAiR to have real‑world impact, health systems will need structured referral pathways linking elevated AI‑predicted risk from the eye clinic to primary‑care and cardiovascular‑prevention visits, ideally with guideline‑directed therapy for those at higher risk. 

Retinal imaging is already widely available in U.S. eye clinics, though coverage and access vary, and CLAiR is not designed for use in pregnant individuals or those with advanced ocular disease.

CORALreef AddOn: Novel PCSK9 Inhibitor Reduces LDL‑C in Patients Not Meeting Goals

The novel oral PCSK9 inhibitor enlicitide produced substantial reductions in LDL‑cholesterol (LDL‑C) in statin‑treated adults who were not meeting LDL targets, according to the CORALreef AddOn trial, presented during an Investigative Horizons session at ACC.26 and published in JACC. 

In this phase 3 study across eight countries, 301 patients on background statin therapy were randomized to enlicitide 20 mg, bempedoic acid 180 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg, or bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe, all given for 56 days. 

The cohort had a mean age of 64 years, 37% women, and hypercholesterolemia with either established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or intermediate‑ to high‑risk primary‑prevention profiles.

At day 56, enlicitide cut LDL‑C by 65%, far exceeding the reductions seen with bempedoic acid (6%), ezetimibe (28%), and bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe (37%). 

Enlicitide also drove larger declines in apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and non–HDL‑C, with consistent effects across subgroups. 

Safety events and discontinuations (2–4%) were similar across arms. 

The authors conclude that enlicitide is a potent, well‑tolerated add‑on option for patients who need more aggressive LDL‑C lowering beyond statins plus current oral nonstatin therapies.

Two on‑treatment post hoc analyses from the broader CORALreef program found that patients remaining on enlicitide for up to 52 weeks sustained mean LDL‑C reductions of about 60–65% compared with placebo, with adverse‑event rates similar to placebo. 

Taken together, these data support enlicitide as a promising new once‑daily oral PCSK9‑targeted agent for high‑risk and difficult‑to‑treat hypercholesterolemia, pending regulatory review and guideline incorporation.

IMPEDANCE‑HFPEF: Early Noninvasive Detection of Lung Fluid Reduces Death, Hospitalization

A novel noninvasive lung‑impedance monitoring device significantly reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and mortality in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the IMPEDANCE‑HFPEF trial presented at ACC.26. 

The study evaluated the CardioSet Edema Guard Monitor, which isolates lung‑specific electrical‑impedance signals to detect early pulmonary fluid accumulation before symptoms appear, allowing clinicians to adjust therapy earlier than with standard clinical assessment alone.

Conducted at a single center in Israel, the single‑blind trial enrolled 150 HFpEF patients (median age ~75, 62% women, LVEF ~60%). Half were randomized to lung‑impedance‑guided care, where clinicians used impedance trends to guide medication changes, and half received standard care; both groups had the same number of clinic visits.

 Over a median follow‑up of 38.4 months, the impedance‑guided group had an 81% reduction in recurrent HF hospitalizations, with a median time to first HF hospitalization of 602 days versus 83 days in the standard‑care arm. 

The impedance group also saw a 65% lower rate of all‑cause death and an 81% lower rate of HF‑related death, with no device‑related adverse events.

The investigators attribute much of the benefit to earlier, more frequent medication adjustments once subclinical lung congestion was detected. They emphasize that the device enables intervention at the “preclinical” stage of congestion, when the response to diuretics and other HF therapies appears most powerful. 

For cardiology practice, IMPEDANCE‑HFPEF suggests that routine lung‑fluid monitoring could become a key tool for proactive, personalized HFpEF management, though multi‑center trials and broader implementation data will be needed before widespread adoption.

DKCRUSH VIII: IVUS‑Guided PCI Superior to Angiography‑Guided PCI in Complex Coronary Lesions

In patients undergoing two‑stent double‑kissing (DK) crush PCI for complex coronary bifurcation lesions, IVUS‑guided PCI significantly reduced target‑vessel failure compared with angiography‑guided PCI, according to the DKCRUSH VIII trial presented at ACC.26 and published in JACC. 

Conducted at 24 centers in China, the open‑label superiority trial randomized 555 patients (median age 67, 78% men) with DEFINITION‑defined complex bifurcation lesions to either IVUS‑guided or angiography‑guided DK‑crush stenting, with nearly all treated using the DK crush technique.

At one year, the composite of cardiac death, target‑vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or clinically driven target‑vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 6.0% of the IVUS‑guided group versus 14.7% of the angiography‑guided group (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23–0.71; p = 0.002), driven mainly by fewer TVMI and TVR events. The benefit was consistent across all 12 prespecified subgroups and IVUS‑guided procedures had fewer procedural complications. 

The authors emphasize that the advantage came from achieving IVUS‑defined optimization targets—such as proper stent expansion, apposition, and bifurcation‑side‑branch coverage—rather than IVUS use alone.

In an accompanying editorial, experts argue that intravascular imaging guidance should now be considered as routine in coronary stenting as cineangiography itself, and that the key question is no longer whether to use imaging, but which modality (IVUS or optical coherence tomography) and how best to integrate it into practice. 

For interventional cardiologists, DKCRUSH VIII supports routine IVUS‑guided DK crush for complex bifurcation lesions, particularly when precise optimization is critical to long‑term outcomes.

FUND‑HF: Financial Support Improves Medication Adherence in Vulnerable Patients

A small pilot trial called FUND‑HF, presented at ACC.26 and published in JACC, shows that a one‑time $500 financial payment given soon after hospital discharge significantly improves medication adherence in economically vulnerable patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). 

The randomized, 1:1 study enrolled 153 adults within two weeks of HF hospitalization at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, all with incomes below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level, difficulty paying bills, and at least one additional social determinant of health (SDOH) risk factor.

Those in the early financial support group received a prepaid ClinCard with no spending restrictions, while the control group received usual care without financial assistance. At one month, mean medication adherence was 0.74 in the financial‑support arm versus 0.54 in controls (p = 0.001); patients with financial support had a 42% higher probability of full adherence and better adherence to key HF guideline‑directed therapies like metoprolol and spironolactone. 

Adherence‑related metrics such as Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores and all‑cause hospitalization rates did not differ significantly, likely because of the short follow‑up and pilot scale.

The investigators describe FUND‑HF as an “upstream” intervention that directly addresses adverse SDOH during a critical transition period, rather than relying only on traditional health‑system‑based support programs. 

They argue that these findings support larger, longer‑term trials testing whether sustained financial assistance can not only maintain better adherence but also improve quality of life, HF‑related outcomes, and health‑equity metrics in economically vulnerable populations.

THRIVE: Culturally Tailored Food‑Is‑Medicine Lowers BP in Black and Hispanic Adults

 A culturally tailored “food‑is‑medicine” intervention significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) in Black and Hispanic adults with hypertension, compared with individuals who received an equivalent amount of fresh produce without added support, according to the THRIVE trial presented during a Late‑Breaking Clinical Trial session at ACC.26 in New Orleans.

The pilot study randomized 80 adults with hypertension from Maryland communities where access to fresh produce is limited, half to a community‑co‑designed, multipronged intervention that included culturally aligned dietitian coaching, artificial intelligence optimized feedback and encouragement, and flexible produce selection from a mobile farm stand. 

The other half received a weekly bag of fresh produce of equivalent value along with basic nutrition messages. The cohort had a mean age of 55 years, with about two‑thirds Black and one‑third Hispanic participants.

At 24 weeks, participants in the intervention group saw a 6.8 mm Hg reduction in SBP, while the control group saw a reduction of only 0.3 mm Hg. 

Among those who adhered most closely to a DASH‑style diet—rich in fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains, and lean proteins, and low in sodium, added sugars, and saturated fat—SBP dropped by 13.3 mm Hg, a decrease that exceeds improvements seen with some hypertensive medications in comparable settings.

The study’s lead author emphasized that nutrition advice alone is not enough; THRIVE demonstrates that embedding food‑is‑medicine supports within clinic workflows and community structures can make heart‑healthy eating more attainable. As a small, geographically limited pilot, the trial is underpowered to define long‑term durability or broad scalability, but the findings support larger trials to explore the cost‑effectiveness, duration, and applicability of such programs across diverse populations. The investigators also caution that food‑based interventions should be used as complements to, not replacements for, guideline‑directed antihypertensive therapy when clinically indicated.

ALERT: Electronic Notifications Improve Management of AS, MR

The ALERT trial shows that automated electronic clinician notification alerts in the electronic health record (EHR) can meaningfully speed up the evaluation and treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) or severe mitral regurgitation (MR). 

Conducted across 35 U.S. hospitals and published in JACC, the cluster‑randomized study found that clinicians who received EHR‑based alerts for significant AS or MR were more likely to schedule multidisciplinary heart‑team evaluation and valve intervention within 90 days than those receiving usual care.

Using a hierarchical win‑ratio analysis, the alert group had a win ratio of 1.27 (p = 0.007), with higher rates of valve intervention (13% vs. 10%) and multidisciplinary evaluation (23% vs. 18%), and shorter times to both endpoints. 

The benefit was similar for both AS and MR and across patient subgroups. The authors conclude that EHR‑integrated alerts are a practical, scalable way to reduce undertreatment of valvular heart disease and improve timely access to specialized valve‑disease care in routine clinical practice.

T-TEER Cuts Heart Failure Hospitalizations by 40%

The ALERT trial, presented at ACC.26 and published in JACC, shows that automated electronic clinician notification alerts in the electronic health record (EHR) can meaningfully speed up the evaluation and treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) or severe mitral regurgitation (MR). 

In this cluster‑randomized study across 35 U.S. hospitals, 765 clinicians and 2,016 echocardiograms were randomized to an Alert or No Alert group.

Using a hierarchical win‑ratio analysis, the alert group showed superior outcomes (win ratio 1.27; p = 0.007), with higher rates of valve intervention (13% vs. 10%) and multidisciplinary heart‑team evaluation (23% vs. 18%), and shorter times to both endpoints. 

The effect was consistent for AS and MR and across subgroups. 

The authors conclude that EHR‑integrated alerts are a practical, scalable way to reduce undertreatment of valvular heart disease and improve timely access to specialized valve‑disease care in routine clinical practice.

PRO‑TAVI: Should High‑Risk Patients Undergo PCI Before TAVI?

The PRO‑TAVI trial, presented at ACC.26 and published in The Lancet, shows that in high‑risk older adults with severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary artery disease (CAD), performing PCI before TAVI yields similar 1‑year outcomes to a strategy of TAVI first, with PCI deferred if needed afterward. 

In this Netherlands‑based, open‑label trial, 466 patients (median age 81, 36% women) were randomized 1:1 to PCI‑first (n=233) or deferred‑PCI (n=233), with many carrying substantial CAD burden.

At one year, the composite of death, MI, stroke, or moderate‑to‑severe bleeding occurred in 24% of the deferral group versus 26% of the PCI‑first group (HR 0.89), meeting the prespecified noninferiority threshold with no evidence of superiority for either approach. 

The key difference was in major bleeding, which occurred in 15% of the PCI‑first arm versus 6% of the deferred‑PCI arm, largely because of dual‑antiplatelet therapy after PCI. 

The editorialists note that, in this elderly population, reducing hemorrhagic events is clinically meaningful, but emphasize that PRO‑TAVI should not be read as proof that PCI is unnecessary in all TAVI candidates. 

Instead, the trial supports a more selective, TAVI‑first, PCI‑deferred strategy in intermediate‑ to high‑risk older patients, while reserving upfront PCI for truly high‑risk coronary lesions.

---

Checklists for the practicing cardiologist

• For intermediate‑ to high‑risk TAVI patients ≥80 years with hemodynamically significant CAD, a TAVI‑first, PCI‑deferred strategy is noninferior and reduces early bleeding risk; reserve upfront PCI for truly high‑risk lesions or unprotected left‑main disease.

• Use stress testing or invasive FFR/IMR when feasible to triage which obstructive lesions actually need PCI before or after TAVI, rather than treating anatomy alone.

• For patients randomized to PCI‑first, plan PCI before TAVI in a single‑stage fashion if possible, balance ischemic risk against bleed risk, and minimize dual antiplatelet duration when appropriate.

• For defer‑then‑PCI patients, monitor for recurring or worsening angina post‑TAVI and reserve PCI for symptomatic, high‑risk lesions; maintain single antiplatelet therapy in most.

• For younger, low‑risk TAVI patients, recognize that PRO‑TAVI does not apply, and let individual‑level anatomy, ischemia burden, and multidisciplinary discussion guide the timing of PCI versus TAVI rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all algorithm.