Publications

2021

Elgendy IY, Gad MM, Mansoor H, Mahmoud AN, Elbadawi A, Saad A, Saad M, Elkaryoni A, Secemsky EA, Mamas MA, Monreal M, Weinberg I, Pepine CJ. Acute Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy and Puerperium: National Trends and In-Hospital Outcomes. Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2021;96(8):2102–2113. PMID: 34144802

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the trend and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy and puerperium using a large national database.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried to identify pregnancy-related hospitalizations in the United States from January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2015. Temporal trends in the rates of acute PE and in-hospital mortality rates were extracted.

RESULTS: Among 37,524,314 hospitalizations, 6,333 patients (0.02%) had acute PE. The prevalence of comorbidities and risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, and smoking increased, but rates of acute PE did not change significantly (18.01 in 2007 vs 19.36 in 2015, per 100,000 hospitalizations, Ptrends=.21). Advanced therapies were used in a small number of women (systemic thrombolysis: 2.4%, surgical pulmonary embolectomy: 0.5%, and inferior vena cava filter in 8.3%). Rates of in-hospital mortality were almost 200-fold higher among those who had acute PE (29.3 vs 0.13, per 1000 pregnancy-related, P<.001). The rate of in-hospital mortality did not change among women with acute PE (2.6% in 2007 vs 2.5% in 2015, Ptrends=.74).

CONCLUSION: In this contemporary analysis of pregnancy-related hospitalizations, acute PE was uncommon, but rates have not decreased over the past decade. Acute PE during pregnancy and puerperium was associated with high maternal mortality, and the rates of in-hospital mortality have not improved. Future studies to improve prevention and management of acute PE during pregnancy and puerperium are warranted.

Tamez H, Secemsky EA, Valsdottir LR, Moussa ID, Song Y, Simonton CA, Gibson M, Popma JJ, Yeh RW. Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for in-stent restenosis among Medicare beneficiaries. EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2021;17(5):e380-e387. PMID: 32863243

BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis (ISR) is highly prevalent and leads to repeat revascularisation. Long-term implications of ISR are poorly understood.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR.

METHODS: National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI records for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing PCI from July 2009 to December 2014 were linked to Medicare claims. Baseline characteristics and long-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation including target vessel revascularisation (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared between ISR PCI versus de novo lesion PCI.

RESULTS: Of 653,304 individuals, 10.2% underwent ISR PCI and 89.8% underwent de novo lesion PCI. The median duration of follow-up was 825 days (quartile 1: 352 days-quartile 3: 1,379 days). The frequency of MACCE (55.6% vs 45.0%; p<0.001), all-cause mortality (27.8% vs 25.5%; p<0.001), MI (19.0% vs 12.3%; p<0.001), repeat revascularisation (31.9% vs 18.6%; p<0.001), TVR (22.4% vs 8.0%; p<0.001), and stroke (8.8% vs 8.3%; p=0.005) was higher after ISR PCI. After multivariable adjustment, ISR PCI remained associated with worse long-term outcomes than after de novo lesion PCI (hazard ratio [HR] for MACCE 1.24 [95% CI: 1.22, 1.26], mortality 1.07 [95% CI: 1.05, 1.09], MI 1.44 [95% CI: 1.40, 1.48], repeat revascularisation 1.55 [95% CI: 1.51, 1.59], and TVR 2.50 [95% CI: 2.42, 2.58]).

CONCLUSIONS: ISR PCI was common and was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrent long-term major ischaemic events compared to patients undergoing de novo lesion PCI. There remains a need for new strategies to minimise ISR.

Secemsky EA, Butala N, Raja A, Khera R, Wang Y, Curtis JP, Maddox TM, Virani SS, Armstrong EJ, Shunk KA, Brindis RG, Bhatt D, Yeh RW. Comparative Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: An National Cardiovascular Data Registry Research to Practice Project. Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions. 2021;14(8):e010323. PMID: 34372676

[Figure: see text].

Secemsky EA, Barrette E, Bockstedt L, Bonaca MP, Hess CN, Hanson T, Monteiro J, Manda B, Yeh RW. Long-term safety of drug-coated devices for peripheral revascularisation. EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2021;17(7):590–598. PMID: 33342764

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of randomised trials of paclitaxel-coated peripheral devices found an association with worse long-term survival.

AIMS: We aimed to assess long-term mortality in patients treated with drug-coated versus non-drug-coated devices who are insured by Medicare Advantage (MA), an alternative to traditional Medicare that represents >30% of the Medicare eligible population. We analysed data from an MA administrative claims data source that includes both inpatient and outpatient femoropopliteal artery revascularisation procedures.

METHODS: Patients treated with or without drug-coated devices for femoropopliteal artery revascularisation from 4/2015-12/2017 were studied using Optum's De-identified Clinformatics Datamart Database. Mortality was assessed up to December 2019 using Kaplan-Meier cumulative mortality curves and Cox proportional hazard models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for differences between groups.

RESULTS: Of 16,796 patients revascularised, 4,427 (26.4%) were treated with drug-coated devices: 3,600 (81.3%) balloons and 827 (18.7%) stents. The median follow-up was 2.66 years (IQR 2.02-3.52). Treatment with drug-coated devices was associated with similar long-term mortality to non-drug-coated devices (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10; p=0.39). Results were comparable for patients treated with balloons alone (adjusted HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92-1.08; p=0.96) or stents (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88-1.18; p=0.78). These findings did not differ based on treatment setting, disease severity, age, sex or comorbidity burden (interaction p>0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort, there was no evidence of increased long-term mortality following treatment with drug-coated devices.

Krawisz AK, Carroll BJ, Secemsky EA. Risk Stratification and Management of Extracranial Carotid Artery Disease. Cardiology clinics. 2021;39(4):539–549. PMID: 34686266

Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States and is a leading cause of disability. Extracranial internal carotid artery stenosis is a major cause of ischemic stroke, as it is estimated to cause 8% to 15% of ischemic strokes. It is critical to improve our strategies for stroke prevention and treatment in order to reduce the burden of this disease. Herein, we review approaches for the diagnosis and risk stratification of carotid artery disease as well as interventional strategies for the prevention and treatment of strokes caused by carotid artery disease.

Naidu SS, Baron SJ, Eng MH, Sathanandam SK, Zidar DA, Feldman DN, Ing FF, Latif F, Lim MJ, Henry TD, Rao S V, Dangas GD, Hermiller JB, Daggubati R, Shah B, Ang L, Aronow HD, Banerjee S, Box LC, Caputo RP, Cohen MG, Coylewright M, Duffy PL, Goldsweig AM, Hagler DJ, Hawkins BM, Hijazi ZM, Jayasuriya S, Justino H, Klein AJ, Kliger C, Li J, Mahmud E, Messenger JC, Morray BH, Parikh SA, Reilly J, Secemsky E, Shishehbor MH, Szerlip M, Yakubov SJ, Grines CL, Ackman members of the S 2020 TTCL, Alvarez-Breckenridge J, Baird C, Baker D, Berry C, Bhattacharya M, Bilazarian S, Bowen R, Brounstein K, Cameron C, Cavalcante R, Culbertson C, Diaz P, Emanuele S, Evans E, Fletcher R, Fortune T, Gaiha P, Govender D, Gutfinger D, Haggstrom K, Herzog A, Hite D, Kalich B, Kirkland A, Kohler T, Laurisden H, Livolsi K, Lombardi L, Lowe S, Marhenke K, Meikle J, Moat N, Mueller M, Patarca R, Popma J, Rangwala N, Simonton C, Stokes J, Taber M, Tieche C, Venditto J, West NEJ, Zinn L. Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2021;98(5):904–913. PMID: 34398509

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Lou JY, Kennedy KF, Menard MT, Abbott D, Secemsky EA, Goodney PP, Saad M, Soukas PA, Hyder ON, Aronow HD. North American lower-extremity revascularization and amputation during COVID-19: Observations from the Vascular Quality Initiative. Vascular medicine (London, England). 2021;26(6):613–623. PMID: 34169796

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's impact on vascular procedural volumes and outcomes has not been fully characterized.

METHODS: Volume and outcome data before (1/2019 - 2/2020), during (3/2020 - 4/2020), and following (5/2020 - 6/2020) the initial pandemic surge were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Volume changes were determined using interrupted Poisson time series regression. Adjusted mortality was estimated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS: The final cohort comprised 57,181 patients from 147 US and Canadian sites. Overall procedure volumes fell 35.2% (95% CI 31.9%, 38.4%, p < 0.001) during and 19.8% (95% CI 16.8%, 22.9%, p < 0.001) following the surge, compared with presurge months. Procedure volumes fell 71.1% for claudication (95% CI 55.6%, 86.4%, p < 0.001) and 15.9% for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) (95% CI 11.9%, 19.8%, p < 0.001) but remained unchanged for acute limb ischemia (ALI) when comparing surge to presurge months. Adjusted mortality was significantly higher among those with claudication (0.5% vs 0.1%; OR 4.38 [95% CI 1.42, 13.5], p = 0.01) and ALI (6.4% vs 4.4%; OR 2.63 [95% CI 1.39, 4.98], p = 0.003) when comparing postsurge with presurge periods.

CONCLUSION: The first North American COVID-19 pandemic surge was associated with a significant and sustained decline in both elective and nonelective lower-extremity vascular procedural volumes. When compared with presurge patients, in-hospital mortality increased for those with claudication and ALI following the surge.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral vascular devices (stents and balloons) coated with paclitaxel were developed to address suboptimal outcomes associated with percutaneous revascularization procedures of the femoral-popliteal arteries. In randomized controlled trials (RCT), paclitaxel-coated devices (PCD) provided increased long-term patency and a decreased need for repeat revascularization procedures compared with uncoated devices. This finding resulted in the adoption of their use for endovascular lower extremity revascularization procedures. However, in late 2018 a study-level meta-analysis showed increased all-cause mortality at 2 years or more after the procedure in patients treated with PCDs. This review examines the subsequent data evaluation following the publication of the meta-analysis.

METHODS: We review the published responses of physicians, regulatory agencies, and patient advocates during 15-month period after the meta-analysis. We present the additional data gathered from RCTs that comprised the meta-analysis and safety outcomes from large insurance databases in both the United States and Europe.

RESULTS: Immediately after the publication of the meta-analysis, concern for patient safety resulted in less PCD use, the suspension of large RCTs evaluating their use, and the publication of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration informing physicians that there was uncertainty in the benefit-risk profile of these devices for indicated patients and that the potential risk should be assessed before the use of PCDs. Review of the meta-analysis found that a mortality signal was present, but criticisms included that the evaluation was performed on study-level, not patient-level data, and the studies in the analysis were heterogenous in device type, paclitaxel doses, and patient characteristics. Further, the studies were not designed to be pooled nor were they powered for evaluating long-term safety. Clinical characteristics associated with a drug effect or causal relationship were also absent. Specifically, there was no dose response, no clustering of causes of death, and a lack of signal consistency across geographic regions. As more long-term data became available in the RCTs the strength of the mortality signal diminished and analysis of real-world use in large insurance databases, showed that there was no significant increase in all-cause mortality associated with PCD use.

CONCLUSIONS: The available data do not provide definitive proof for increased mortality with PCD use. A key observation is that trial design improvements will be necessary to better evaluate the risk-benefit profile of PCDs.