Publications

BACKGROUND: Little is known about treatment variability across US hospitals for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected from the 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample. All patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to nonfederal US hospitals with a primary diagnosis of CLTI, were identified. Patients were classified according to their clinical presentation (rest pain, skin ulceration, or gangrene) and were further characterized according to the treatment strategy used. The primary outcome of interest was variability in CLTI treatment, as characterized by the median odds ratio. The median odds ratio is defined as the likelihood that 2 similar patients would be treated with a given modality at 1 versus another randomly selected hospital. There were 15 896 (weighted n=79 480) hospitalizations identified where CLTI was the primary diagnosis. Medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, and amputation alone were used in 4057 (25%), 5390 (34%), 3733 (24%), and 2716 (17%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for both patient- and hospital-related factors, the median odds ratio (95% CI) for medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, any revascularization, and amputation alone were 1.28 (1.19-1.38), 1.86 (1.77-1.95), 1.65 (1.55-1.74), 1.37 (1.28-1.45), and 1.42 (1.27-1.55), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability in CLTI treatment exists across US hospitals and is not fully explained by patient or hospital characteristics.

Percutaneous revascularization is the primary strategy for treating lower extremity venous and arterial disease. Angiography is limited by its ability to accurately size vessels, precisely determine the degree of stenosis and length of lesions, characterize lesion morphology, or correctly diagnose postintervention complications. These limitations are overcome with use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). IVUS has demonstrated the ability to improve outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention, and there is increasing evidence to support its benefits in the setting of peripheral vascular intervention. At this stage in its evolution, there remains a need to standardize the use and approach to peripheral vascular IVUS imaging. This manuscript represents considerations and consensus perspectives that emerged from a roundtable discussion including 15 physicians with expertise in interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery, representing 6 cardiovascular specialty societies, held on February 3, 2023. The roundtable's aims were to assess the current state of lower extremity revascularization, identify knowledge gaps and need for evidence, and determine how IVUS can improve care and outcomes for patients with peripheral arterial and deep venous pathology.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary care patterns/outcomes in high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients are unknown.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize the management of high-risk PE patients and identify factors associated with poor outcomes.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the PERT (Pulmonary Embolism Response Team) Consortium Registry was performed. Patients presenting with intermediate-risk PE, high-risk PE, and catastrophic PE (those with hemodynamic collapse) were identified. Patient characteristics were compared with chi-square testing for categorical covariates and Student's t-test for continuous covariates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations between clinical characteristics and outcomes in the high-risk population.

RESULTS: Of 5,790 registry patients, 2,976 presented with intermediate-risk PE and 1,442 with high-risk PE. High-risk PE patients were more frequently treated with advanced therapies than intermediate-risk PE patients (41.9% vs 30.2%; P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality (20.6% vs 3.7%; P < 0.001) and major bleeding (10.5% vs. 3.5%; P < 0.001) were more common in high-risk PE. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated vasopressor use (OR: 4.56; 95% CI: 3.27-6.38; P < 0.01), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use (OR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.12-7.30; P = 0.03), identified clot-in-transit (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.13-4.52; P = 0.02), and malignancy (OR: = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.13-2.56; P = 0.01) as factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Catastrophic PE patients (n = 197 [13.7% of high-risk PE patients]) had higher in-hospital mortality (42.1% vs 17.2%; P < 0.001) than those presenting with noncatastrophic high-risk PE. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13.3% vs. 4.8% P < 0.001) and systemic thrombolysis (25% vs 11.3%; P < 0.001) were used more commonly in catastrophic PE.

CONCLUSIONS: In the largest analysis of high-risk PE patients to date, mortality rates were high with the worst outcomes among patients with hemodynamic collapse.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were: i) to assess fragility indices (FIs) of individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared paclitaxel-based drug-coated balloons (DCBs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus standard endovascular devices, and ii) to meta-analyze mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy outcomes from available RCT data while also estimating the FI of pooled results.

METHODS: This systematic review has been registered in the PROSPERO public database (CRD42022304326 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). A query of PubMed (Medline), EMBASE (Excerpta Medical Database), Scopus, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was performed to identify eligible RCTs. Rates of primary patency (PP) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were assessed as efficacy outcomes, while lower limb amputation (LLA) consisting of major amputation that is. below or above the knee and all-cause mortality were estimated as safety outcomes. All outcomes were pooled with a random effects model to account for any clinical and study design heterogeneity. The analyses were performed by dividing the RCTs according to their maximal follow-up length (mid-term was defined as results up to 2-3 years, while long-term was defined as results up to 4-5 years). For each individual outcome, the FI and reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated according to whether the outcome results were statistically significant or not, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ), which are the FI or RFI divided by the sample size, were also calculated.

RESULTS: A total of 2,337 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There were 2 RCTs examining DES devices and 14 RCTs evaluating different DCBs. For efficacy outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased the PP rate and reduced the TLR rate at mid-term, with a calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.66 for patency (95% CI, 1.55-1.86; P < 0.001), with a corresponding number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 3 patients (95% CI, 2.9-3.8) and RR of 0.44 for TLR (95% CI, 0.35-0.54; P = 0.027), respectively. Similarly, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy both increased PP and decreased TLR rates at long-term, with calculated pooled RR values of 1.73 (95% CI, 1.12-2.61; P = 0.004) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P = 0.82), respectively. For safety outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased all-cause mortality at mid-term, with a calculated pooled RR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.21-3.24). However, there was no difference between treatment arms in LLA at mid-term (95% CI, 0.1-2.7; P = 0.68). Similarly, neither all-cause mortality nor LLA at long-term differed between treatment arms, with a calculated pooled RR of 0.66, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.31-3.42) and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.30-5.21; P = 0.22), respectively. The pooled estimates of PP at mid-term were robust (FI = 28 and FQ = 1.9%) as were pooled rates of TLR (FI = 18 and FQ = 0.9%). However, when safety outcomes were analyzed, the robustness of the meta-analysis decreased significantly. In fact, the relationship between the use of paclitaxel-coated devices and all-cause mortality at mid-term showed very low robustness (FI = 4 and FQ = 0.2%). At 5 years, only the benefit of paclitaxel-based devices to reduce TLR remained robust, with an FI of 32 and an FQ of 3.1%.

CONCLUSIONS: The data supporting clinical efficacy endpoints of RCTs that examined paclitaxel-based devices in the treatment of femoral-popliteal arterial occlusive disease were robust; however, the pooled safety endpoints were highly fragile and prone to bias due to loss of patient follow-up in the original studies. These findings should be considered in the ongoing debate concerning the safety of paclitaxel-based devices.

BACKGROUND: Lower-limb amputation rates in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia vary across the United States, with marked disparities in amputation rates by gender, race, and income status. We evaluated the association of patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics with the intensity of vascular care received the year before a major lower-limb amputation and how intensity of care associates with outcomes after amputation.

METHODS: Using Medicare claims data (2016-2019), beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent a major lower-limb amputation were identified. We examined patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics associated with the intensity of vascular care received the year before amputation. Secondary objectives evaluated all-cause mortality and adverse events following amputation.

RESULTS: Of 33 036 total Medicare beneficiaries undergoing major amputation, 7885 (23.9%) were due to chronic limb-threatening ischemia; of these, 4988 (63.3%) received low-intensity and 2897 (36.7%) received high-intensity vascular care. Mean age, 76.6 years; women, 38.9%; Black adults, 24.5%; and of low income, 35.2%. After multivariable adjustment, those of low income (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.58-0.72]; P<0.001), and to a lesser extent, men (odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.98]; P=0.019), and those who received care at a safety-net hospital (odds ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.97]; P=0.012) were most likely to receive low intensity of care before amputation. High-intensity care was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality 2 years following amputation (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.74-0.85]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were of low-income status, and to a lesser extent, men, or those cared for at safety-net hospitals were most likely to receive low-intensity vascular care. Low-intensity care was associated with worse long-term event-free survival. These data emphasize the continued disparities that exist in contemporary vascular practice.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear.

METHODS: Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response.

RESULTS: Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence.

CONCLUSIONS: The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of real-world data on the in-hospital (IH) and post-discharge outcomes in patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) with adjunctive atherectomy.

AIMS: In this retrospective, registry-based study, we evaluated IH and post-discharge outcomes among patients undergoing PVI, treated with or without atherectomy, in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PVI Registry.

METHODS: The IH composite endpoint included procedural complications, bleeding or thrombosis. The primary out-of-hospital endpoint was major amputation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included repeat endovascular or surgical revascularisation and death. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of atherectomy use and its association with clinical endpoints.

RESULTS: A total of 30,847 patients underwent PVI from 2014 to 2019, including 10,971 (35.6%) treated with atherectomy. The unadjusted rate of the IH endpoint occurred in 524 (4.8%) of the procedures involving atherectomy and 1,041 (5.3%) of non-atherectomy procedures (p=0.07). After adjustment, the use of atherectomy was not associated with an increased risk of the combined IH endpoint (p=0.68). In the 6,889 (22.4%) patients with out-of-hospital data, atherectomy was associated with a reduced risk of amputation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.85; p<0.01) and surgical revascularisation (aHR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.89; p=0.017), no difference in death rates (p=0.10), but an increased risk of endovascular revascularisation (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06-1.39; p<0.01) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of atherectomy during PVI is common and is not associated with an increase in IH adverse events. Longitudinally, patients treated with atherectomy undergo repeat endovascular reintervention more frequently but experience a reduced risk of amputation and surgical revascularisation.