Publications by Year: 2024

OBJECTIVE: TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative therapeutic modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, certain issues regarding the indications and contraindications of TCAR remain unanswered or unresolved. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to attempt to provide some guidance on these topics.

METHODS: A 3-Round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 29 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions of the participants. Round 2 was carried out after the results from the literature on each topic were provided to the participants. During Round 3, the participants had the opportunity to finalize their vote.

RESULTS: Most participants agreed that TCAR can/can probably/possibly be performed within 14 days of a cerebrovascular event, but it is best to avoid it in the first 48 hours. It was felt that TCAR cannot/should not replace TFCAS or CEA, as each procedure has specific indications and contraindications. Symptomatic patients >80 years should probably be treated with TCAR rather than with TFCAS. TCAR can/can probably be used for the treatment of restenosis following CEA/TFCAS. Finally, there is a need for a randomized controlled trial to provide better evidence for the unresolved issues.

CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi Consensus document attempted to assist the decision-making of physicians/interventionalists/vascular surgeons involved in the management of carotid stenosis patients. Furthermore, areas requiring additional research were identified. Future studies and randomized controlled trials should provide more evidence to address the unanswered questions regarding TCAR.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that symptomatic relief from claudication using paclitaxel-coated devices might be associated with an increase in mortality over 5 years. We designed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to quantify tradeoffs that patients would accept between a decreased risk of clinically driven target-vessel revascularization (CDTVR) and increased mortality risk.

METHODS: Patients with claudication symptoms were recruited from seven medical centers to complete a web-based survey including eight DCE questions that presented pairs of hypothetical device profiles defined by varying risks of CDTVR and overall mortality at 2 and 5 years. Random-parameters logit models were used to estimate relative preference weights, from which the maximum-acceptable increase in 5-year mortality risk was derived.

RESULTS: A total of 272 patients completed the survey. On average, patients would accept a device offering reductions in CDTVR risks from 30% to 10% at 2 years and from 40% to 30% at 5 years if the 5-year mortality risk was less than 12.6% (95% CI: 11.8-13.4%), representing a cut-point of 4.6 percentage points above a baseline risk of 8%. However, approximately 40% chose the device alternative with the lower 5-year mortality risk in seven (20.6%) or eight (18.0%) of the eight DCE questions regardless of the benefit offered.

CONCLUSIONS: Most patients in the study would accept some incremental increase in 5-year mortality risk to reduce the 2-year and 5-year risks of CDTVR by 20 and 10 percentage points, respectively. However, significant patient-level variability in risk tolerance underscores the need for systematic approaches to support benefit-risk decision making.

OBJECTIVE: Women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) who are at an increased risk of presenting with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) and have different responses to treatment compared with non-Hispanic White males yet are underrepresented in PAD research.

METHODS: ELEGANCE is a global, prospective, multi-center, post-market registry of PAD patients treated with drug-eluting device that aims to enroll at least 40% women and 40% URMs. The study design incorporates strategies to increase enrollment of women and URMs. Inclusion criteria are age ≥18 years and treatment with any commercially available Boston Scientific Corporation drug-eluting device marketed for peripheral vasculature lesions; exclusion criterion is life expectancy <1 year.

RESULTS: Of 750 patients currently enrolled (951 lesions) across 39 sites, 324 (43.2%) are female and 350 (47.3%) are URMs (21.6% Black, 11.2% Asian, 8.5% Hispanic/Latino, and 5.3% other). Rutherford classification is distributed differently between sexes (P = .019). Treatment indication differs among race/ethnicity groups (P = .003). Chronic limb-threatening ischemia was higher for Black (38.3%) and Hispanic/Latino (28.1%) patients compared with non-Hispanic White (21.8%) and Asian patients (21.4%). De-novo stenosis was higher in Asian patients (92.3%) compared with Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic/Latino patients (72.2%, 68.7%, and 77.8%, respectively; P < .001). Mean lesion length was longest for Black patients (162.7 mm), then non-Hispanic White (135.2 mm), Asian (134.8 mm), and Hispanic/Latino patients (128.1 mm; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of data from the ELEGANCE registry show that differences exist in baseline disease characteristics by sex and race/ethnicity; these may be the result of other underlying factors, including time to diagnosis, burden of undermanaged comorbidities, and access to care.

A nonthrombotic iliac vein lesion is defined as the extrinsic compression of the iliac vein. Symptoms of lower extremity chronic venous insufficiency or pelvic venous disease can develop secondary to nonthrombotic iliac vein lesion. Anatomic compression has been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Causative factors that lead to symptomatic manifestations remain unclear. To provide guidance for providers treating patients with nonthrombotic iliac vein lesion, the VIVA Foundation convened a multidisciplinary group of leaders in venous disease management with representatives from the American Venous Forum and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. Consensus statements regarding nonthrombotic iliac vein lesions were drafted by the participants to address patient selection, imaging for diagnosis, technical considerations for stent placement, postprocedure management, and future research/educational needs.

INTRODUCTION: Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension.

METHODS: We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, s = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module.

RESULTS: Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions (P < 0.001), with higher comprehension in the 3 versions that provided separated risk information for each risk. In the multivariable regression, separated risk presentation was associated with 0.58 more correct responses (P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.77) compared with integrated risk information. Neither providing icon arrays nor using vertical versus horizontal time formats affected comprehension rates, although participant understanding did correlate with DCE choice consistency.

CONCLUSIONS: In presentations of multiple risks over multiple time points, presenting risk information separately for each health outcome appears to increase understanding.

HIGHLIGHTS: When conveying information about risks of different outcomes at multiple time points, separate presentations of single-outcome risks resulted in higher comprehension than presentations that combined risk information for different outcomes.We also observed benefits of presenting single-outcome risks separately among respondents with lower numeracy and graph literacy.Study participants who scored higher on risk understanding were more internally consistent in their responses to a discrete choice experiment.

Background: Cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) were developed to mitigate the risk of stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but their benefit remains unproven. In the PROTECTED-TAVR trial, EPD use did not reduce periprocedural stroke (primary study outcome) but led to a 62% reduction in the secondary endpoint of disabling stroke. Given these results, the impact of EPDs during TAVR remains unclear. Methods: We used STS/ACC TVT registry data to examine the association between EPD use and a proxy for disabling stroke among transfemoral TAVR patients between 1/2018-6/2023. The primary outcome was in-hospital disabling stroke-defined as stroke associated with either in-hospital death or discharge to a non-home location. We evaluated the association between EPD use and disabling stroke using instrumental variable (IV) analysis with site-level preference for EPD use as the instrument-a quasi-experimental approach that can support causal inference. In addition, we performed a propensity-score based comparison using overlap weighting as a secondary analysis. Results: The study population consisted of 414,649 patients of whom 53,389 (12.9%) received an EPD. The unadjusted rate of in-hospital disabling stroke was 0.7% among the EPD group and 0.9% in the no EPD group. EPD use was associated with a reduction in disabling stroke in both IV analysis (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.00) and propensity-weighted (PW) analysis (OR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.70-0.90) but was not associated with a reduction in non-disabling stroke. In subgroup analyses, the benefit of EPD was greater among those with versus without prior stroke (interaction p<0.05 for IV and PW). Conclusions: In the largest study to date, among patients undergoing TAVR, EPD use was associated with a small, borderline significant reduction in stroke associated with death or a discharge to a non-home location (a proxy for disabling stroke) that is likely to be causal in nature. Taken together with previous mechanistic and clinical studies, these findings provide credible evidence that EPDs benefit patients undergoing TAVR.

Most of the 800,000 people living with end-stage kidney disease in the United States rely on a functioning vascular access to provide life-sustaining hemodialysis, yet one-third of arteriovenous fistulas experience early failures. Determining the safety and effectiveness of systemic heparin during fistula creation could improve the quality and quantity of life for these vulnerable patients. In this paper, a pragmatic randomized trial was emulated to assess the effect of systemic heparin administration (vs. none) during radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula creation on early bleeding and thrombosis using data from two international multicenter randomized trials performed between 2014 and 2019. Marginal risks were estimated using inverse probability weighted parametric survival analysis and confidence intervals were generated with bootstrapping. A total of 914 patients were enrolled and 61% received systemic heparin; median (IQR) age was 58 (49, 67) years and 45% were on hemodialysis at enrollment. No difference in the risk of bleeding events was observed, with a risk difference (95% CI) at 14 days of -0.1% (-1.6, 1.4). The risk of access thrombosis was lower in the heparin group, with a risk of 3.7% (2.6, 4.8) after heparin and 5.3% (3.4, 7.4) without heparin at 14 days (risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.50, 0.98).

The effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography compared with angiography guidance alone in treating aortic conditions, such as dissections, aneurysms, and blunt traumatic injuries, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current literature for IVUS use during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted in March 2024 adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies comparing outcomes of TEVAR/EVAR with and without IVUS were identified. The outcomes of interest included contrast volume, fluoroscopy and procedural time, perioperative endoleak, and reinterventions and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. Pooled analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by the condition being treated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A total of 4,219 patients (n = 2,655 IVUS and n = 1,564 non-IVUS) from 9 observational studies were included. The IVUS group exhibited a reduction in contrast agent volume (weighted mean difference -34.65 mL, 95% CI -54.73 to -14.57) and fluoroscopy time (weighted mean difference -6.13 minutes, 95% CI -11.10 to -1.15), with no difference in procedural time. The perioperative type I and III endoleak occurrences were similar (risk ratio 2.36, 95% CI 0.55 to 10.11; risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.77, respectively). Reintervention and mortality during follow-up were comparable (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.97; hazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.18, respectively). All the included studies had small risks of bias. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides evidence that IVUS enables the safe deployment of TEVAR/EVAR with reduced contrast agent and radiation exposure.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.