Publications

BACKGROUND: Subintimal angioplasty (SIA) is often utilized to cross femoropopliteal (FP) artery chronic total occlusions (CTOs). Re-entry devices (RED) can further assist with true lumen re-entry.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature for studies reporting on the use of SIA, with or without RED.

METHODS: A systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. Quantitative synthesis was applied when possible.

RESULTS: 87 studies and 4665 patients (5161 lesions) were included (63.9% male). 46.7% of patients had critical limb ischemia at the time of the intervention. Two RED types were used (Pioneer and Outback). Sixty-eight studies included lesions treated with SIA without RED, 17 studies included lesions treated with RED only, and two studies included a comparison between the two treatment methods. In total, 3898 (83.6%) patients were treated with SIA without RED and 754 (12.2%) with RED. Procedural success rate ranged from 64.5%-100% (92.5% for SIA without RED, 88.3% for RED cases). The complication rate ranged from 1.6% - 28% among different studies (cumulative rates: SIA: 9.1%, RED 9.3%). Perforations occurred in 1.6% of the total population (n = 46). Primary patency at one year ranged from 22% to 94.1%. Newer studies had a higher patency rate, ranging from 70% to 94.1%.

CONCLUSION: SIA with or without RED is a valuable alternative to intraluminal crossing for endovascular treatment of FP CTOs. Procedural success was excellent for both techniques, while the cumulative complication rate was numerically lower in the RED group. Short- and long-term outcomes were acceptable for both techniques.

Background Ticagrelor and prasugrel are potent P2Y12 inhibitors with superior efficacy compared with clopidogrel among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), though use in recent practice is not well described. In this retrospective study, we assessed trends, predictors, and variation in use of P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with STEMI in the United States. Methods and Results We identified 169 505 STEMI patients in the Chest Pain-Myocardial Infarction Registry from October 2013 through March 2017. We determined national utilization rates of P2Y12 inhibitors at discharge, patient predictors for each medication, and variation in use between hospitals. In a subset of 9655 Medicare patients ≥65 years old, we compared 1-year adjusted risks of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding based on hospital quartile of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use. Rates of ticagrelor use increased from 18.0% to 44.0%, while rates of prasugrel and clopidogrel use decreased from 24.6% to 13.5% and 57.4% to 42.6%, respectively. Prior percutaneous coronary intervention was the strongest clinical predictor for use of ticagrelor (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.09-1.18]) and prasugrel (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.21-1.34]) compared with clopidogrel. Predictors of clopidogrel use included no insurance, insurance with Medicare or Medicaid, and features associated with higher bleeding risk. The median hospital usage rate for newer P2Y12 inhibitors was 51.3% (interquartile range, 35.0%-65.9%), with substantial variation between hospitals (adjusted median odds ratio, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.77-3.10]). Among patients ≥65 years old, there were no differences in adjusted 1-year risks of adverse outcomes across hospital quartiles of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use. Conclusions Almost one-half of STEMI patients by 2017 were discharged on ticagrelor while far fewer received prasugrel. Patient characteristics are associated with P2Y12 inhibitor selection, though substantial hospital variation exists. Identifying barriers to use of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors may improve patient-centered decision-making for STEMI patients.

BACKGROUND: There are increased options to deliver thrombolytic treatment for acute, high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). The goals of this study were to examine practice patterns of systemic thrombolysis and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and to compare outcomes following CDT with ultrasound facilitation (CDT-ultrasound) and CDT alone.

METHODS: The study analyzed adults aged > 18 years with hospitalizations associated with acute PE and thrombolysis in the 2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database. The study identified characteristics associated with the use of systemic thrombolysis and CDT. Comparisons of CDT-ultrasound vs CDT alone were then made by evaluating in-hospital events and readmissions. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS: Among 5,436 hospitalizations, systemic thrombolysis was used more often (n = 3,376; 62.1%) than CDT (n = 2,060; 37.9%). Compared with CDT, systemic thrombolysis was used more frequently in patients with higher rates of vasopressor use (4.3% vs 1.0%), shock (15.8% vs. 6.9%), cardiac arrest (12.7% vs 3.4%), and mechanical ventilation (19.0% vs 5.9%). Among patients who underwent CDT, 417 (20.2%) received CDT-ultrasound, and 1,643 (79.8%) received CDT alone. Rates of bleeding events, vasopressor use, and mechanical ventilation were similar between therapeutic strategies. Following adjustment, in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.63-2.26; P = .59) and 30-day readmission rates (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.47-1.22; P = .25) were not significantly different between CDT-ultrasound and CDT alone.

CONCLUSIONS: Systemic thrombolysis is used more often than CDT in patients with acute PE, in particular among those with a greater prevalence of high-risk features. Among patients treated with CDT, there were no differences in events between CDT-ultrasound and CDT alone.

Peripheral arterial interventions require safe and effective vascular access and closure. The sites, techniques, and equipment used may vary depending on patient and procedural factors. To minimize the risk of procedural complications, arterial access should use micropuncture technique, ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance, a compressible arterial access site, and the smallest diameter sheath necessary. Hemostasis at an arteriotomy site may be achieved by manual compression, device-mediated compression, an intravascular closure device, or an extravascular closure device. Although closure devices improve patient comfort and expedite hemostasis, they have not been shown to reduce complications in comparison with compression.

High-intensity statins are recommended for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is the most advanced presentation of PAD. The benefit of statins in the CLI population is unclear based on the existent studies. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the efficacy of statin therapy in patients with CLI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were reviewed up to April 30, 2019. The primary outcomes included amputation rates and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included primary patency rates, amputation-free survival and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Risk of bias was assessed with the Robins-I tool for observational studies. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to assess publication bias. Nineteen studies including 26,985 patients with CLI were included in this systematic review. Among patients with known data on statin status, 12,292 (49.6%) were on statins versus 12,513 (50.4%) not on statins. Patients treated with statins were 25% less likely to undergo amputation (HR 0.75; 95% CI: 0.59-0.95; I2 = 79%) and 38% less likely to have a fatal event (HR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.52-0.75; I2 = 41.2%). Statin therapy was also associated with increased overall patency rates and lower incidence of MACCE. There was substantial heterogeneity in the analysis for amputation and amputation-free survival (I2 > 70%). In conclusion, statins are associated with decreased risk for amputation, mortality, and MACCE, as well as increased overall patency rates among patients with CLI. Future studies should assess whether other lipid-lowering medications in addition to high-intensity statins can further improve outcomes among patients with CLI. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019134160).

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major preventable disease that affects hospitalized inpatients. Risk stratification and prophylactic measures have good evidence supporting their use, but multiple reasons exist that prevent full adoption, compliance, and efficacy that may underlie the persistence of VTE over the past several decades. This policy statement provides a focused review of VTE, risk scoring systems, prophylaxis, and tracking methods. From this summary, 5 major areas of policy guidance are presented that the American Heart Association believes will lead to better implementation, tracking, and prevention of VTE events. They include performing VTE risk assessment and reporting the level of VTE risk in all hospitalized patients, integrating preventable VTE as a benchmark for hospital comparison and pay-for-performance programs, supporting appropriations to improve public awareness of VTE, tracking VTE nationwide with the use of standardized definitions, and developing a centralized data steward for data tracking on VTE risk assessment, prophylaxis, and rates.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine variation in the use of conscious sedation (CS) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) across hospitals and over time and to evaluate outcomes of CS compared with general anesthesia (GA) using instrumental variable analysis, a quasi-experimental method to control for unmeasured confounding.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use of CS for TAVR, contemporary data on utilization patterns are lacking, and existing studies evaluating the impact of sedation choice on outcomes may suffer from unmeasured confounding.

METHODS: Among 120,080 patients in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry who underwent transfemoral TAVR between January 2016 and March 2019, the relationship between anesthesia choice and TAVR outcomes was evaluated using hospital proportional use of CS as an instrumental variable.

RESULTS: Over the study period, the proportion of TAVR performed using CS increased from 33% to 64%, and CS was used in a median of 0% and 91% of cases in the lowest and highest quartiles of hospital CS use, respectively. On the basis of instrumental variable analysis, CS was associated with decreases in in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.2%; p = 0.010) and 30-day mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.5%; p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (adjusted difference: 0.8 days; p < 0.001), and more frequent discharge to home (adjusted risk difference: 2.8%; p < 0.001) compared with GA. The magnitude of benefit for most endpoints was less than in a traditional propensity score-based approach, however.

CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary U.S. practice, the use of CS for TAVR continues to increase, although there remains wide variation across hospitals. The use of CS for TAVR is associated with improved outcomes (including reduced mortality) compared with GA, although the magnitude of benefit appears to be less than in previous studies.

OBJECTIVE: Acute type B aortic dissection can be treated with medical management alone, open surgical repair, or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The nationwide burden of readmissions after acute type B aortic dissection has not been comprehensively assessed.

METHODS: We analyzed adults with a hospitalization due to acute type B aortic dissection between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014, in the Nationwide Readmissions Database. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis code for thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic dissection. The primary outcome was nonelective 90-day readmission. Predictors of readmission were determined using hierarchical logistic regression.

RESULTS: The study population consisted of 6937 patients with unplanned admissions for type B aortic dissections from 2010 through 2014. Medical management alone was the treatment for 62.6% of patients, 21.0% had open surgical repair, and 16.4% underwent TEVAR. Nonelective 90-day readmission rate was 25.1% (23.6% with medical management alone, 26.9% with open repair, and 28.7% with TEVAR; P < .001). An additional 4.7% of patients were electively readmitted. The most common cause for nonelective readmission was new or recurrent arterial aneurysm or dissection (24.8%). Of those with unplanned readmissions, 5.2% underwent an aortic procedure. The mortality rate during nonelective readmission was 5.0%, and the mean cost of the rehospitalization was $22,572 ± $41,598.

CONCLUSIONS: More than one in four patients have a nonelective readmission 90 days after hospitalization for acute type B aortic dissection. Absolute rates of readmission varied by initial treatment received but were high irrespective of the initial treatment. The most common cause of readmission was aortic disease, particularly among those treated with medication alone. Further research is required to determine potential interventions to decrease these costly and morbid readmissions, including the role of multidisciplinary aortic teams.