Publications

Background Recent guidelines have emphasized the use of medical management, early diagnosis, and a multidisciplinary team to effectively treat patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). Previous literature briefly highlighted the current racial disparities in its intervention. Herein, we analyze the trend over a 14-year time period to investigate whether the disparities gap in CLI management is closing. Methods and Results The National Inpatient Sample was queried between 2005 and 2018 for hospitalizations involving CLI. Nontraumatic amputations and revascularization were identified. Utilization trends of these procedures were compared between races (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, and Other). Multivariable regression assessed differences in race regarding procedure usage. There were 6 904 562 admissions involving CLI in the 14-year study period. The rate of admissions in White patients who received any revascularization decreased by 0.23% (P<0.001) and decreased by 0.25% (P=0.025) for Asian and Pacific Islander patients. Among all patients, the annual rate of admission in White patients who received any amputation increased by 0.21% (P<0.001), increased by 0.19% (P=0.001) for Hispanic patients, and increased by 0.19% (P=0.012) for the Other race patients. Admissions involving Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, or Other race patients had higher odds of receiving any revascularization compared with White patients. All races had higher odds of receiving major amputation compared with White patients. Conclusions Our analysis highlights disparities in CLI treatment in our nationally representative sample. Non-White patients are more likely to receive invasive treatments, including major amputations and revascularization for CLI, compared with White patients.

Background Clinical characteristics and outcomes in people living with HIV (PLWH) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain poorly described. We sought to compare real-world treatment of coronary artery disease, as well as patient and procedural factors and outcomes after PCI between PLWH and uninfected controls. Methods and Results We utilized procedural registry data from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019 to analyze patients with obstructive coronary artery disease on angiography. In the PCI subgroup, we used inverse probability of treatment weighting and applied Cox proportional hazards to evaluate the association of HIV serostatus with outcomes, including all-cause mortality at 5 years. Among 184 310 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, treatment strategy was similar between PLWH and controls-35.7% versus 34.2% PCI, 13.6% versus 15% coronary artery bypass grafting, and 50.7% versus 50.8% medical therapy. The PCI cohort consisted of 546 (0.9%) PLWH and 56 811 (99.1%) controls. PLWH undergoing PCI had well-controlled HIV disease, and compared with controls, were younger, more likely to be Black, had fewer traditional risk factors, more acute coronary syndrome, less extensive coronary artery disease, and similar types of stents and P2Y12 therapy. However, PLWH experienced worse survival as early as 6 months post-PCI, which persisted over time and amounted to a 21% increased mortality risk by 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.03-1.42; P=0.02]). Conclusions Despite well-controlled HIV disease, a more favorable overall cardiovascular risk profile, and similar PCI procedural metrics, PLWH still have significantly worse long-term survival following PCI than controls.

BACKGROUND:  Contemporary pulmonary embolism (PE) research, in many cases, relies on data from electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative databases that use International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Natural language processing (NLP) tools can be used for automated chart review and patient identification. However, there remains uncertainty with the validity of ICD-10 codes or NLP algorithms for patient identification.

METHODS:  The PE-EHR+ study has been designed to validate ICD-10 codes as Principal Discharge Diagnosis, or Secondary Discharge Diagnoses, as well as NLP tools set out in prior studies to identify patients with PE within EHRs. Manual chart review by two independent abstractors by predefined criteria will be the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values will be determined. We will assess the discriminatory function of code subgroups for intermediate- and high-risk PE. In addition, accuracy of NLP algorithms to identify PE from radiology reports will be assessed.

RESULTS:  A total of 1,734 patients from the Mass General Brigham health system have been identified. These include 578 with ICD-10 Principal Discharge Diagnosis codes for PE, 578 with codes in the secondary position, and 578 without PE codes during the index hospitalization. Patients within each group were selected randomly from the entire pool of patients at the Mass General Brigham health system. A smaller subset of patients will also be identified from the Yale-New Haven Health System. Data validation and analyses will be forthcoming.

CONCLUSIONS:  The PE-EHR+ study will help validate efficient tools for identification of patients with PE in EHRs, improving the reliability of efficient observational studies or randomized trials of patients with PE using electronic databases.

BACKGROUND: We assess the rates of device use and outcomes by race among patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral arterial intervention using the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Peripheral Vascular Intervention (PVI) registry.

METHODS: Patients who underwent PVI between April 2014 and March 2019 were included. Socioeconomic status was evaluated using the Distressed Community Index score for patients' zip codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with utilization of drug-eluting technologies, intravascular imaging, and atherectomy. Among patients with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, we compared 1-year mortality, rates of amputation, and repeat revascularizations.

RESULTS: Of 63 150 study cases, 55 719 (88.2%) were performed in White patients and 7431 (11.8%) in Black patients. Black patients were younger (67.9 versus 70.0 years), had higher rates of hypertension (94.4% versus 89.5%), diabetes (63.0% versus 46.2%), less likely to be able to walk 200 m (29.1% versus 24.8%), and higher Distressed Community Index scores (65.1 versus 50.6). Black patients were provided drug-eluting technologies at a higher rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06-1.23]) with no difference in atherectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.05]) or intravascular imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.22]) use. Black patients experienced a lower rate of acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.72-0.88]). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked analyses of 7429 cases (11.8%), Black patients were significantly less likely to have surgical (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.17-0.96]) or repeat PVI revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.59]) at 1 year compared with White patients. There was no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [0.8-1.4]) or major amputation (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.8-7.6]) between Black and White patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Black patients presenting for PVI were younger, had higher prevalence of comorbidities and lower socioeconomic status. After adjustment, Black patients were less likely to have surgical or repeat PVI revascularization after the index PVI procedure.

IMPORTANCE: Recent studies have produced inconsistent findings regarding the outcomes of the percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD) during acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the percutaneous microaxial LVAD vs alternative treatments among patients presenting with AMICS using observational analyses of administrative data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used Medicare fee-for-service claims of patients admitted with AMICS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019. Treatment strategies were compared using (1) inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate the effect of different baseline treatments in the overall population; (2) instrumental variable analysis to determine the effectiveness of the percutaneous microaxial LVAD among patients whose treatment was influenced by cross-sectional institutional practice patterns; (3) an instrumented difference-in-differences analysis to determine the effectiveness of treatment among patients whose treatment was influenced by longitudinal changes in institutional practice patterns; and (4) a grace period approach to determine the effectiveness of initiating the percutaneous microaxial LVAD within 2 days of percutaneous coronary intervention. Analysis took place between March 2021 and December 2022.

INTERVENTIONS: Percutaneous microaxial LVAD vs alternative treatments (including medical therapy and intra-aortic balloon pump).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day all-cause mortality and readmissions.

RESULTS: Of 23 478 patients, 14 264 (60.8%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 73.9 (9.8) years. In the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis and grace period approaches, treatment with percutaneous microaxial LVAD was associated with a higher risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (risk difference, 14.9%; 95% CI, 12.9%-17.0%). However, patients receiving the percutaneous microaxial LVAD had a higher frequency of factors associated with severe illness, suggesting possible confounding by measures of illness severity not available in the data. In the instrumental variable analysis, 30-day mortality was also higher with percutaneous microaxial LVAD, but patient and hospital characteristics differed across levels of the instrumental variable, suggesting possible confounding by unmeasured variables (risk difference, 13.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-23.2%). In the instrumented difference-in-differences analysis, the association between the percutaneous microaxial LVAD and mortality was imprecise, and differences in trends in characteristics between hospitals with different percutaneous microaxial LVAD use suggested potential assumption violations.

CONCLUSIONS: In observational analyses comparing the percutaneous microaxial LVAD to alternative treatments among patients with AMICS, the percutaneous microaxial LVAD was associated with worse outcomes in some analyses, while in other analyses, the association was too imprecise to draw meaningful conclusions. However, the distribution of patient and institutional characteristics between treatment groups or groups defined by institutional differences in treatment use, including changes in use over time, combined with clinical knowledge of illness severity factors not captured in the data, suggested violations of key assumptions that are needed for valid causal inference with different observational analyses. Randomized clinical trials of mechanical support devices will allow valid comparisons across candidate treatment strategies and help resolve ongoing controversies.

PURPOSE: To investigate the real-world safety of paclitaxel (PTX)-coated devices for treating lower extremity peripheral artery disease using a commercial claims database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from FAIR Health, the largest commercial claims data warehouse in the United States, were used for this study. The study consisted of patients who underwent femoropopliteal revascularization procedures between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, with PTX and non-PTX devices. The primary outcome was 4-year survival following treatment. The secondary outcomes included 2-year survival, 2- and 4-year freedom from amputation, and repeat revascularization. Propensity score matching was used to minimize confounding, and the Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate survival.

RESULTS: A total of 10,832 procedures were included in the analysis, including 4,962 involving PTX devices and 5,870 involving non-PTX devices. PTX devices were associated with a reduced hazard of death following treatment at 2 and 4 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.69-0.79]; P <.05, and HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.77-1.02]; log-rank P =.018, respectively). The risk of amputation was also lower following treatment with PTX devices than with non-PTX devices at 2 and 4 years (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.76-0.87]; P =.02, and HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.89]; log-rank P =.01, respectively). In addition, the odds of repeat revascularization were similar with PTX and non-PTX devices at 2 and 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world commercial claims database, no short- or long-term signal for increased mortality or amputations was observed following treatment with PTX devices.

BACKGROUND: Multiple interventions, including catheter-directed therapy (CDT), systemic thrombolysis (ST), surgical embolectomy (SE), and therapeutic anticoagulation (AC) have been used to treat intermediate to high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), but the most effective and safest treatment remains unclear. Our study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety outcomes of each intervention.

METHODS: We queried PubMed and EMBASE in January 2023 and performed a network meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT), including high or intermediate-risk PE patients, and comparing AC, CDT, SE, and ST. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and major bleeding. The secondary outcomes included long-term mortality (≥6 months), recurrent PE, minor bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage.

RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs and 42 observational studies involving 157,454 patients. CDT was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than ST (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.41 [0.31-0.55]), AC (OR [95% CI]: 0.33 [0.20-0.53]), and SE (OR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.39-0.96]). Recurrent PE in CDT was lower than ST (OR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.50-0.87]), AC (OR [95% CI]: 0.36 [0.20-0.66]), and trended lower than SE (OR [95% CI]: 0.71 [0.40-1.26]). Notably, ST had higher major bleeding risks than CDT (OR [95% CI]: 1.51 [1.19-1.91]) and AC (OR [95% CI]: 2.21 [1.53-3.19]). By rankogram analysis, CDT presented the highest p-score in in-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, and recurrent PE.

CONCLUSION: In this network meta-analysis of observational studies and RCTs involving patients with intermediate to high-risk PE, CDT was associated with improved mortality outcomes compared to other therapies, without significant additional bleeding risk.

IMPORTANCE: Carotid artery stenting has been limited to use in patients with high surgical risk; outcomes in patients with standard surgical risk are not well known.

OBJECTIVE: To compare stroke, death, and myocardial infarction outcomes following transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy in patients with standard surgical risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective propensity-matched cohort study was conducted from August 2016 to August 2019 with follow-up until August 31, 2020, using data from the multicenter Vascular Quality Initiative Carotid Artery Stent and Carotid Endarterectomy registries. Patients with standard surgical risk, defined as those lacking Medicare-defined high medical or surgical risk characteristics and undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (n = 2962) or carotid endarterectomy (n = 35 063) for atherosclerotic carotid disease. In total, 760 patients were excluded for treatment of multiple lesions or in conjunction with other procedures.

EXPOSURES: Transcarotid artery revascularization vs carotid endarterectomy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite end point of 30-day stroke, death, or myocardial infarction or 1-year ipsilateral stroke.

RESULTS: After 1:3 matching, 2962 patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization (mean [SD] age, 70.4 [6.9] years; 1910 [64.5%] male) and 8886 undergoing endarterectomy (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [6.5] years; 5777 [65.0%] male) were identified. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of the primary composite end point between the 2 cohorts (transcarotid 3.0% vs endarterectomy 2.6%; absolute difference, 0.40% [95% CI, -0.43% to 1.24%]; relative risk [RR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.50]; P = .34). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a higher risk of 1-year ipsilateral stroke (1.6% vs 1.1%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.08]; RR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.11%]; P = .02) but no difference in 1-year all-cause mortality (2.6% vs 2.5%; absolute difference, -0.13% [95% CI, -0.18% to 0.33%]; RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.39]; P = .67).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, the risk of 30-day stroke, death, or myocardial infarction or 1-year ipsilateral stroke was similar in patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization compared with those undergoing endarterectomy for carotid stenosis.

PURPOSE: The value of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization procedures is incompletely understood. Moreover, data on long-term clinical outcomes and costs are limited. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and costs between IVUS and contrast angiography alone in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization procedures in Japan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective comparative analysis was performed using the Japanese Medical Data Vision insurance claims database. All patients undergoing revascularization for peripheral artery disease (PAD) between April 2009 and July 2019 were included. Patients were followed until July 2020, death, or a subsequent revascularization procedure for PAD. Two patient groups were compared: one undergoing IVUS imaging or the other contrast angiography alone. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and limb events, including all-cause-mortality, endovascular thrombolysis, subsequent revascularization procedures for PAD, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and major amputations. Total health care costs were documented over the follow-up and compared between groups, using a bootstrap method.

RESULTS: The study included 3956 patients in the IVUS group and 5889 in the angiography alone group. Intravascular ultrasound was significantly associated with reduced risk of a subsequent revascularization procedure (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.25 [0.22-0.28]) and major adverse cardiac and limb events (0.69 [0.65-0.73]). The total costs were significantly lower in the IVUS group, with a mean cost saving over follow-up of $18 173 [$7 695-$28 595] per patient.

CONCLUSION: The use of IVUS during peripheral revascularization provides superior long-term clinical outcomes at lower costs compared with contrast angiography alone, warranting wider adoption and fewer barriers to IVUS reimbursement for patients with PAD undergoing routine revascularization.

CLINICAL IMPACT: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization has been introduced to improve the precision of the procedure. However, questions over the benefit of IVUS in terms of long-term clinical outcome and over cost have limited its use in everyday clinical practice. This study, performed in a Japanese health insurance claims database, demonstrates that use of IVUS provides a superior clinical outcome over the long term at a lower cost compared to angiography alone. These findings should encourage clinicians to use IVUS in routine peripheral vascular revascularization procedures and encourage providers to reduce barriers to use.

IMPORTANCE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has increasingly been used for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) despite limited supporting data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether initial TEVAR following uTBAD is associated with reduced mortality or morbidity compared with medical therapy alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims data for adults aged 65 years or older with index admissions for acute uTBAD from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2018, with follow-up available through December 31, 2019.

EXPOSURES: Initial TEVAR was defined as TEVAR within 30 days of admission for acute uTBAD.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, aorta-related and repeated aorta-related hospitalizations, and aortic interventions associated with initial TEVAR vs medical therapy. Propensity score inverse probability weighting was used.

RESULTS: Of 7105 patients with eligible index admissions for acute uTBAD, 1140 (16.0%) underwent initial TEVAR (623 [54.6%] female; median age, 74 years [IQR, 68-80 years]) and 5965 (84.0%) did not undergo TEVAR (3344 [56.1%] female; median age, 76 years [IQR, 69-83 years]). Receipt of TEVAR was associated with region (vs South; Midwest: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.81]; P < .001; Northeast: aOR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]; P < .001), Medicaid dual eligibility (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91; P = .003), hypertension (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .03), peripheral vascular disease (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49; P = .03), and year of admission (2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were associated with greater odds of TEVAR compared with 2011). After inverse probability weighting, mortality was similar for the 2 strategies up to 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06), as were aorta-related hospitalizations (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99-1.27), aortic interventions (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20), and cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20). In a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality over a period of 1 year (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .03), 2 years (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .008), and 5 years (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, 16.0% of patients underwent initial TEVAR within 30 days of uTBAD, and receipt of initial TEVAR was associated with hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, region, Medicaid dual eligibility, and year of admission. Initial TEVAR was not associated with improved mortality or reduced hospitalizations or aortic interventions over a period of 5 years, but in a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality. These findings, along with cost-effectiveness and quality of life, should be assessed in a prospective trial in the US population.