Publications by Year: 2024

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening medical condition caused by the thrombotic occlusion of one or more branches of the lung vasculature, which represents the third most common cause of cardiovascular mortality after myocardial infarction and stroke. PE treatment requires a tailored approach based on accurate risk stratification and personalized treatment decision-making. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of PE management, yet patients at higher clinical risk may require more rapid reperfusion therapies. In recent years, transcatheter treatment has emerged as a valuable option for patients with intermediate-high or high-risk PE who have contraindications to systemic thrombolysis. Recent advancements in catheter-directed therapies, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and catheter-directed mechanical thrombectomy (CDMT), provide minimally invasive options for swift symptom relief and hemodynamic stabilization. This review aims to provide a practical approach for optimal patient selection and management for PE percutaneous therapies, supported by a thorough evaluation of the current evidence base supporting these procedures. A focus on post-procedural management, the prevention of recurrence, and monitoring for long-term complications such as chronic pulmonary hypertension and post-PE syndrome is also specifically tackled.

The clinical presentation and epidemiology of infective endocarditis (IE) have evolved over time. While the cornerstones of IE treatment remain antimicrobial therapy and surgery, percutaneous mechanical aspiration (PMA) has emerged as an option for carefully selected patients as a complementary modality, based on retrospective data, case series, and expert experience. In this comprehensive review, we summarize the proceedings from an inaugural summit dedicated to the discussion of PMA in the global management of IE, consisting of experts across multiple disciplines from diverse geographic regions and care environments. After conceptualizing the 3 major roles of PMA as a bridge to decision, destination therapy, and adjunctive therapy, we then review the clinical scenarios in which PMA might be considered by IE subtype. We discuss patient selection, the rationale for intervention, and the most recent evidence for each. Next, we consider PMA for IE in the larger context of our health care system across 3 domains: clinical collaboration, financial considerations, and academic innovation, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary teams and cross-organizational partnerships, reimbursement models, and the need for high-quality research. Finally, we outline what we determined to be the most pressing outstanding questions in this space. In doing so, we propose a national consortium to help organize efforts to move this field forward and share our progress in these endeavors to date. PMA for IE has great promise, but significant work remains if we are to fully realize its potential to safely and effectively improve outcomes for modern endocarditis patients.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of transradial access for peripheral vascular interventions.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase.

REVIEW METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to June 2023 to identify studies investigating the outcomes of lower extremity, carotid, and visceral artery vascular interventions via transradial vs. transfemoral access. The primary outcome was procedural failure rate. Secondary outcomes were total access site complications, minor and major bleeding, stroke, access vessel occlusion, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume.

RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials and 29 observational studies yielded a total of 70 882 patients treated via transradial (n = 2 616) vs. transfemoral access (n = 68 338). The overall failure rate was 2.3 ± 0.7%, and the transradial approach was associated with a statistically significantly higher procedural failure rate than the transfemoral approach (3.9 ± 0.7% vs. 1.0 ± 0.3%; odds ratio [OR] 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84 - 5.12; I2 = 32%; p < .001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest failure rate in lower extremity interventions with 12.4 ± 4.9% for transradial vs. 4.0 ± 1.2% for transfemoral access. Conversely, procedural complications were statistically significantly fewer with transradial access for total access site complications (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.91; I2 = 36%; p = .010). Minor bleeding was statistically significantly less with the transradial approach (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.86; I2 = 30%; p = .010), whereas major bleeding and stroke rates were similar. Transradial access had more access vessel occlusion than transfemoral access (1.9% ± 0.5% vs. < 0.1% ± 0.0%; p = .004), although most remained asymptomatic. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were all comparable. GRADE certainty was low to moderate in most outcomes.

CONCLUSION: The transradial approach was associated with a higher procedural failure rate. Total access site complications and minor bleeding were lower with the transradial approach, albeit with more frequent access vessel occlusion. Transradial access may be a feasible and safe approach; however, appropriate patient selection is imperative.

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who undergo lower extremity revascularization (LER) are at high risk for cardiovascular and limb-related ischemic events. The role of antithrombotic therapy is to prevent thrombotic complications, but this requires balancing increased risk of bleeding events. The dual pathway inhibition (DPI) strategy including aspirin and low-dose rivaroxaban after LER has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiovascular and limb-related events without significant differences in major bleeding. There is now a need to implement the broad adoption of DPI therapy in PAD patients who have undergone LER in routine practice.

Recent advances in therapy and the promulgation of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism teams show great promise to improve management and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the absence of randomized evidence and lack of consensus leads to tremendous variations in treatment and compromises the wide implementation of new innovations. Moreover, the changing landscape of health care, where quality, cost, and accountability are increasingly relevant, dictates that a broad spectrum of outcomes of care must be routinely monitored to fully capture the impact of modern PE treatment. We set out to standardize data collection in patients with PE undergoing evaluation and treatment, and thus establish the foundation for an expanding evidence base that will address gaps in evidence and inform future care for acute PE. To do so, >100 international PE thought leaders convened in Washington, DC, in April 2022 to form the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative. Participants included physician experts, key members of the US Food and Drug Administration, patient representatives, and industry leaders. Recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of PE care, the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative was created with representative experts from stakeholder medical subspecialties, including cardiology, pulmonology, vascular medicine, critical care, hematology, cardiac surgery, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, and pharmacology. A list of critical evidence gaps was composed with a matching comprehensive set of standardized data elements; these data points will provide a foundation for productive research, knowledge enhancement, and advancement of clinical care within the field of acute PE, and contribute to answering urgent unmet needs in PE management. Evidence produced through the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative, as it is applied to data collection, promises to provide crucial knowledge that will ultimately produce a robust evidence base that will lead to standardization and harmonization of PE management and improved outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite optimal medical therapy, a significant proportion of patients' blood pressure remains uncontrolled. Catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) has been proposed as a potential intervention for uncontrolled hypertension. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of RDN in patients with uncontrolled hypertension, with emphasis on the differential effect of RDN in patients on and off antihypertensive medications.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Online databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety of RDN versus control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Subgroup analyses were conducted for sham-controlled trials and studies that used RDN devices that have gained or are currently seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval. Fifteen trials with 2581 patients (RDN, 1723; sham, 858) were included. In patients off antihypertensive medications undergoing RDN, a significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory (-3.70 [95% CI, -5.41 to -2.00] mm Hg), office (-4.76 [95% CI, -7.57 to -1.94] mm Hg), and home (-3.28 [95% CI, -5.96 to -0.61] mm Hg) systolic blood pressures was noted. In patients on antihypertensive medications, a significant reduction was observed in 24-hour ambulatory (-2.23 [95% CI, -3.56 to -0.90] mm Hg), office (-6.39 [95% CI, -11.49 to -1.30]), home (-6.08 [95% CI, -11.54 to -0.61] mm Hg), daytime (-2.62 [95% CI, -4.14 to -1.11]), and nighttime (-2.70 [95% CI, -5.13 to -0.27]) systolic blood pressures, as well as 24-hour ambulatory (-1.16 [95% CI, -1.96 to -0.35]), office (-3.17 [95% CI, -5.54 to -0.80]), and daytime (-1.47 [95% CI, -2.50 to -0.27]) diastolic blood pressures.

CONCLUSIONS: RDN significantly lowers blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension, in patients off and on antihypertensive medications, with a favorable safety profile. The efficacy of RDN was consistent in sham-controlled trials and contemporary trials using US Food and Drug Administration-approved devices.

AIMS: Recent evidence from randomized trials demonstrates that colchicine can reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with coronary artery disease. Colchicine's effect on lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is not known.

METHODS AND RESULTS: To make inferences about the real-world effectiveness of colchicine in PAD, we emulated two target trials leveraging the variable prescribing practice of adding colchicine vs. a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) to urate-lowering therapy in patients with gout and PAD. Emulated Trial 1 compared colchicine initiators with NSAID initiators. Emulated Trial 2 compared long-term (indefinite) and short-term (3 months) treatment strategies after initiating colchicine. Eligible individuals were those continuously enrolled in Medicare receiving care at a multicentre academic health system between July 2007 and December 2019. The primary outcome for both trials was a 2 year composite of major adverse limb events (MALE), MACE, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included MALE and death, MACE and death, and individual components of the primary outcome. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Percentile-based 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping. A total of 1820 eligible patients were included; the mean age was 77 years [standard deviation (SD) 7], 32% were female, and 9% were non-White. The mean (SD) duration of colchicine and NSAID therapy was 247 (345) and 137 (237) days, respectively. In the emulation of Trial 1, the risk of the primary composite outcome of MALE, MACE, and death at 2 years was 29.9% (95% CI 27.2%, 32.3%) in the colchicine group and 31.5% (28.3%, 34.6%) in the NSAID group, with a risk difference of -1.7% (95% CI -6.5%, 3.1%) and a risk ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.83, 1.07). Similar findings were noted in the emulation of Trial 2, with a risk of the primary composite outcome at 2 years of 30.7% (95% CI 23.7%, 38.1%) in the long-term colchicine group and 33.4% (95% CI 29.4%, 37.7%) in the short-term group, with a risk difference of -2.7% (95% CI -10.3%, 5.4%) and risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI 0.70, 1.16).

CONCLUSION: In a real-world sample of patients with PAD and gout, estimates of the effect of colchicine were consistent across two analyses and provided no conclusive evidence that colchicine decreased the risk of adverse cardiovascular or limb events and death. The cardiovascular and limb benefits of colchicine in older, comorbid populations with PAD and advanced systematic atherosclerosis remain uncertain.