Publications

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.

BACKGROUND: The extent and consequences of ischemia in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) may change rapidly, and delays from diagnosis to revascularization may worsen outcomes. We sought to describe the association between time from diagnosis to endovascular lower extremity revascularization (diagnosis-to-limb revascularization [D2L] time) and clinical outcomes in outpatients with CLTI.

METHODS AND RESULTS: In the CLIPPER cohort, comprising patients between 66 and 86 years old diagnosed with CLTI betweeen 2010 and 2019, we used Medicare claims data to identify patients who underwent outpatient endovascular revascularization within 180 days of diagnosis. We described the risk-adjusted association between D2L time and clinical outcomes. Among 1 130 065 patients aged between 66 and 86 years with CLTI, 99 221 (8.8%) underwent outpatient endovascular lower extremity revascularization within 180 days of their CLTI diagnosis. Among patients with D2L time <30 days, there was no association between D2L time and all-cause death or major lower extremity amputation. However, among patients with D2L time >30 days, each additional 10-day increase in D2L time was associated with a 2.5% greater risk of major amputation (hazard ratio, 1.025 [95% CI, 1.014-1.036]). There was no association between D2L time and all-cause death.

CONCLUSIONS: A delay of >30 days from CLTI diagnosis to lower extremity endovascular revascularization was associated with an increased risk of major lower extremity amputation among patients undergoing outpatient endovascular revascularization. Improving systems of care to reduce D2L time could reduce amputations.

Cardiovascular devices are essential for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases including cerebrovascular, coronary, valvular, congenital, peripheral vascular and arrhythmic diseases. The regulation and surveillance of vascular devices in real-world practice, however, presents challenges during each individual product's life cycle. Four examples illustrate recent challenges and questions regarding safety, appropriate use and efficacy arising from FDA approved devices used in real-world practice. We outline potential pathways wherein providers, regulators and payors could potentially provide high-quality cardiovascular care, identify safety signals, ensure equitable device access, and study potential issues with devices in real-world practice.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in the United States disproportionately experience poor cardiovascular outcomes. Little is known about how hospitalizations and mortality for acute cardiovascular conditions have changed among Medicare beneficiaries in socioeconomically disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged communities over the past 2 decades.

METHODS: Medicare files were linked with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's social vulnerability index to examine age-sex standardized hospitalizations for myocardial infarction, heart failure, ischemic stroke, and pulmonary embolism among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries ≥65 years of age residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities (highest social vulnerability index quintile nationally) and nondisadvantaged communities (all other quintiles) from 2003 to 2019, as well as risk-adjusted 30-day mortality among hospitalized beneficiaries.

RESULTS: A total of 10 942 483 Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age were hospitalized for myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism (mean age, 79.2 [SD, 8.7] years; 53.9% female). Although age-sex standardized myocardial infarction hospitalizations declined in socioeconomically disadvantaged (990-650 per 100 000) and nondisadvantaged communities (950-570 per 100 000) from 2003 to 2019, the gap in hospitalizations between these groups significantly widened (adjusted odds ratio 2003, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.02-1.04]; adjusted odds ratio 2019, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.13-1.16]). There was a similar decline in hospitalizations for heart failure in socioeconomically disadvantaged (2063-1559 per 100 000) and nondisadvantaged communities (1767-1385 per 100 000), as well as for ischemic stroke, but the relative gap did not change for both conditions. In contrast, pulmonary embolism hospitalizations increased in both disadvantaged (146-184 per 100 000) and nondisadvantaged communities (153-184 per 100 000). By 2019, risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was similar between hospitalized beneficiaries from socioeconomically disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged communities for myocardial infarction, heart failure, and ischemic stroke but was higher for pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01-1.20]).

CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 2 decades, hospitalizations for most acute cardiovascular conditions decreased in both socioeconomically disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged communities, although significant disparities remain, while 30-day mortality is now similar across most conditions.

Hypertension is a primary contributor to cardiovascular disease, and the leading risk factor for loss of quality adjusted life years. Up to 50% of the cases of hypertension in the United States remain uncontrolled. Additionally, 8%-18% of the hypertensive population have resistant hypertension; uncontrolled pressure despite 3 different antihypertensive agents. Recently, catheter-based percutaneous renal denervation emerged as a method for ablating renal sympathetic nerves for difficult-to-control hypertension. Initial randomized (non-sham) trials and registry analyses showed impressive benefit, but the first sham-controlled randomized controlled trial using monopolar radiofrequency ablation showed limited benefit. With refinement of techniques to include multipolar radiofrequency, ultrasound denervation, and direct ethanol injection, randomized controlled trials demonstrated significant blood pressure improvement, leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval of radiofrequency- and ultrasound-based denervation technologies. In this review article, we summarize the major randomized sham-controlled trials and societal guidelines regarding the efficacy and safety of renal artery denervation for the treatment of uncontrolled hypertension.

Balancing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in patients with gastrointestinal disorders is challenging because of the potential for interference with the absorption of antithrombotic drugs and for an increased risk of bleeding. In this Review, we address considerations for enteral antithrombotic therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal comorbidities. For those with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), we summarize a general scheme for risk stratification and clinical evidence on risk reduction approaches, such as limiting the use of concomitant medications that increase the risk of GIB and the potential utility of gastrointestinal protection strategies (such as proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists). Furthermore, we summarize the best available evidence and potential gaps in our knowledge on tailoring antithrombotic therapy in patients with active or recent GIB and in those at high risk of GIB but without active or recent GIB. Finally, we review the recommendations provided by major medical societies, highlighting the crucial role of teamwork and multidisciplinary discussions to customize the antithrombotic regimen in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Two of the main reasons recent guidelines do not recommend routine population-wide screening programs for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS) is that screening could lead to an increase of carotid revascularization procedures and that such mass screening programs may not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, selective screening for AsxCS could have several benefits. This article presents the rationale for such a program.

AREAS COVERED: The benefits of selective screening for AsxCS include early recognition of AsxCS allowing timely initiation of preventive measures to reduce future myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death and cardiovascular (CV) event rates.

EXPERT OPINION: Mass screening programs for AsxCS are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted screening of populations at high risk for AsxCS provides an opportunity to identify these individuals earlier rather than later and to initiate a number of lifestyle measures, risk factor modifications, and intensive medical therapy in order to prevent future strokes and CV events. For patients at 'higher risk of stroke' on best medical treatment, a prophylactic carotid intervention may be considered.

BACKGROUND: The role of advanced therapies (systemic thrombolysis, catheter-based treatment, and surgical thrombectomy) for the management of right heart thrombus is poorly defined. In this study, we assessed the clinical predictors and outcomes of advanced therapy compared with anticoagulation alone for the acute management of right heart thrombus.

METHODS: In this observational cohort study, we analyzed consecutive patients who were treated for right heart thrombus. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause mortality. Clinical predictors of utilizing advanced therapy were assessed with multivariable logistic regression. Propensity score matching was utilized to compare adjusted outcomes between patients receiving advanced therapies versus anticoagulation alone.

RESULTS: A total of 345 patients were included in the study. Advanced therapy was utilized in 13.6% (N=47) of patients, of which 25.5% (N=12/47) was systemic thrombolysis, 23.4% (N=11/47) was endovascular thrombectomy, and 53.2% (N=25/47) was surgical thrombectomy. Younger age (odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]) and concurrent pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 5.36 [95% CI, 2.48-12.1]) predicted utilization of advanced therapy. In propensity score-matched analysis, there was no difference in 90-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.17-1.22]), in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.17-2.19]), or length of stay (β, -4.39 [95% CI, -14.0 to 5.22]) between advanced therapy and anticoagulation.

CONCLUSIONS: Among a diverse cohort of patients with right heart thrombus, outcomes did not differ between those who underwent advanced therapy and anticoagulation alone. Important predictors for utilizing advanced treatment included younger age and the presence of a concurrent pulmonary embolism. Future studies assessing advanced therapy in larger and broader patient populations are necessary.