Standardized Data Elements for Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Consensus Report From the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative.

Recent advances in therapy and the promulgation of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism teams show great promise to improve management and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the absence of randomized evidence and lack of consensus leads to tremendous variations in treatment and compromises the wide implementation of new innovations. Moreover, the changing landscape of health care, where quality, cost, and accountability are increasingly relevant, dictates that a broad spectrum of outcomes of care must be routinely monitored to fully capture the impact of modern PE treatment. We set out to standardize data collection in patients with PE undergoing evaluation and treatment, and thus establish the foundation for an expanding evidence base that will address gaps in evidence and inform future care for acute PE. To do so, >100 international PE thought leaders convened in Washington, DC, in April 2022 to form the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative. Participants included physician experts, key members of the US Food and Drug Administration, patient representatives, and industry leaders. Recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of PE care, the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative was created with representative experts from stakeholder medical subspecialties, including cardiology, pulmonology, vascular medicine, critical care, hematology, cardiac surgery, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, and pharmacology. A list of critical evidence gaps was composed with a matching comprehensive set of standardized data elements; these data points will provide a foundation for productive research, knowledge enhancement, and advancement of clinical care within the field of acute PE, and contribute to answering urgent unmet needs in PE management. Evidence produced through the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative, as it is applied to data collection, promises to provide crucial knowledge that will ultimately produce a robust evidence base that will lead to standardization and harmonization of PE management and improved outcomes.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

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.

Trends in Discharge Rates for Acute Pulmonary Embolism in U.S. Emergency Departments.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient management of select patients with low-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has been proven to be safe and effective, yet recent evidence suggests that patients are still managed with hospitalization. Few studies have assessed contemporary real-world trends in discharge rates from U.S. emergency departments (EDs) for acute PE. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the proportion of discharges from EDs for acute PE changed between 2012 and 2020 and which baseline characteristics are associated with ED discharge. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: U.S. EDs participating in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. PATIENTS: Patients with ED visits for acute PE between 2012 and 2020. MEASUREMENTS: National trends in the proportion of discharges for acute PE and factors associated with ED discharge. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2020, there were approximately 1 635 300 visits for acute PE. Overall, ED discharge rates remained constant over time, with rates of 38.2% (95% CI, 17.9% to 64.0%) between 2012 and 2014 and 33.4% (CI, 21.0% to 49.0%) between 2018 and 2020 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.01 per year [CI, 0.89 to 1.14]). No baseline characteristics, including established risk stratification scores, were predictive of an increased likelihood of ED discharge; however, patients at teaching hospitals and those with private insurance were more likely to receive oral anticoagulation at discharge. Only 35.9% (CI, 23.9% to 50.0%) of patients who were considered low-risk according to their Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) class, 33.1% (CI, 21.6% to 47.0%) according to simplified PESI score, and 34.8% (CI, 23.3% to 48.0%) according to hemodynamic stability were discharged from the ED setting. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional survey design and inability to adjudicate diagnoses. CONCLUSION: In a representative nationwide sample, rates of discharge from the ED for acute PE appear to have remained constant between 2012 and 2020. Only one third of low-risk patients were discharged for outpatient management, and rates seem to have stabilized. Outpatient management of low-risk acute PE may still be largely underutilized in the United States. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Comparison of Unibody and Non-Unibody Endografts for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Medicare Beneficiaries: The SAFE-AAA Study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the long-term performance of aortic stent grafts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, in particular, unibody stent grafts (eg, Endologix AFX AAA stent grafts). Only limited data sets are available to evaluate the long-term risks related to these devices. The SAFE-AAA Study (Comparison of Unibody and Non-Unibody Endografts for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Medicare Beneficiaries Study) was designed with the Food and Drug Administration to provide a longitudinal assessment of the safety of unibody aortic stent grafts among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: The SAFE-AAA Study was a prespecified, retrospective cohort study evaluating whether unibody aortic stent grafts are noninferior to non-unibody aortic stent grafts with respect to the composite primary outcome of aortic reintervention, rupture, and mortality. Procedures were evaluated from August 1, 2011, through December 31, 2017. The primary end point was evaluated through December 31, 2019. Inverse probability weighting was used to account for imbalances in observed characteristics. Sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the effect of unmeasured confounding, including assessment of the falsification end points heart failure, stroke, and pneumonia. A prespecified subgroup included patients treated from February 22, 2016, through December 31, 2017, corresponding to the market release of the most contemporary unibody aortic stent grafts (Endologix AFX2 AAA stent graft). RESULTS: Of 87 163 patients who underwent aortic stent grafting at 2146 US hospitals, 11 903 (13.7%) received a unibody device. The average age of the total cohort was 77.0±6.7 years, 21.1% were female, 93.5% were White, 90.8% had hypertension, and 35.8% used tobacco. The primary end point occurred in 73.4% of unibody device-treated patients versus 65.0% of non-unibody device-treated patients (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.15-1.22]; noninferior P value of 1.00; median follow-up, 3.4 years). Falsification end points were negligibly different between groups. In the subgroup treated with contemporary unibody aortic stent grafts, the cumulative incidence of the primary end point occurred in 37.5% of unibody device-treated patients and 32.7% of non-unibody device-treated patients (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.98-1.14]). CONCLUSIONS: In the SAFE-AAA Study, unibody aortic stent grafts failed to meet noninferiority compared with non-unibody aortic stent grafts with respect to aortic reintervention, rupture, and mortality. These data support the urgency of instituting a prospective longitudinal surveillance program for monitoring safety events related to aortic stent grafts.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Systemic Heparin During Arteriovenous Fistula Creation by Emulating a Target Trial.

Most of the 800,000 people living with end-stage kidney disease in the United States rely on a functioning vascular access to provide life-sustaining hemodialysis, yet one-third of arteriovenous fistulas experience early failures. Determining the safety and effectiveness of systemic heparin during fistula creation could improve the quality and quantity of life for these vulnerable patients. In this paper, a pragmatic randomized trial was emulated to assess the effect of systemic heparin administration (vs. none) during radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula creation on early bleeding and thrombosis using data from two international multicenter randomized trials performed between 2014 and 2019. Marginal risks were estimated using inverse probability weighted parametric survival analysis and confidence intervals were generated with bootstrapping. A total of 914 patients were enrolled and 61% received systemic heparin; median (IQR) age was 58 (49, 67) years and 45% were on hemodialysis at enrollment. No difference in the risk of bleeding events was observed, with a risk difference (95% CI) at 14 days of -0.1% (-1.6, 1.4). The risk of access thrombosis was lower in the heparin group, with a risk of 3.7% (2.6, 4.8) after heparin and 5.3% (3.4, 7.4) without heparin at 14 days (risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.50, 0.98).

Implementing methods in the ELEGANCE registry to increase diversity in clinical research.

OBJECTIVE: Women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) who are at an increased risk of presenting with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) and have different responses to treatment compared with non-Hispanic White males yet are underrepresented in PAD research. METHODS: ELEGANCE is a global, prospective, multi-center, post-market registry of PAD patients treated with drug-eluting device that aims to enroll at least 40% women and 40% URMs. The study design incorporates strategies to increase enrollment of women and URMs. Inclusion criteria are age ≥18 years and treatment with any commercially available Boston Scientific Corporation drug-eluting device marketed for peripheral vasculature lesions; exclusion criterion is life expectancy <1 year. RESULTS: Of 750 patients currently enrolled (951 lesions) across 39 sites, 324 (43.2%) are female and 350 (47.3%) are URMs (21.6% Black, 11.2% Asian, 8.5% Hispanic/Latino, and 5.3% other). Rutherford classification is distributed differently between sexes (P = .019). Treatment indication differs among race/ethnicity groups (P = .003). Chronic limb-threatening ischemia was higher for Black (38.3%) and Hispanic/Latino (28.1%) patients compared with non-Hispanic White (21.8%) and Asian patients (21.4%). De-novo stenosis was higher in Asian patients (92.3%) compared with Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic/Latino patients (72.2%, 68.7%, and 77.8%, respectively; P < .001). Mean lesion length was longest for Black patients (162.7 mm), then non-Hispanic White (135.2 mm), Asian (134.8 mm), and Hispanic/Latino patients (128.1 mm; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of data from the ELEGANCE registry show that differences exist in baseline disease characteristics by sex and race/ethnicity; these may be the result of other underlying factors, including time to diagnosis, burden of undermanaged comorbidities, and access to care.

The mid-term effect of intravascular ultrasound on endovascular interventions for lower extremity peripheral arterial disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is an important adjunctive tool for patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT). The evidence regarding the advantages of IVUS use is evolving, and recent studies have reported conflicting results. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of IVUS during angiography-guided EVT for patients with PAD. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through April 2023 to identify studies that investigated the outcomes of IVUS with angiography-guided EVT vs angiography-alone-guided EVT. The primary outcome was restenosis/occlusion rate; secondary outcomes were target lesion revascularization, major amputation, and mortality. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and 14 observational studies, largely of moderate quality, were included, yielding a total of 708,808 patients with 709,189 lesions that were treated with IVUS-guided EVT (n = 101,405) vs angiography-alone (n = 607,784). Compared with angiography alone, IVUS-guided EVT was associated with a non-significant trend towards decreased restenosis/occlusion (relative risk [RR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.00; I2 = 60%). Although the risk of target lesion revascularization and mortality were comparable (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65-1.10; I2 = 70%; RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.28; I2 = 43%, respectively), the use of IVUS was also associated with significantly lower risk of major amputation (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82; I2 = 47%). Subgroup analysis focusing on femoropopliteal disease demonstrated significantly higher patency (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; I2 = 73%). However, superiority with major amputation was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: IVUS-guided EVT for PAD may possibly be associated with a lower major amputation rate compared with angiography alone-guided EVT, although the difference in patency remained an insignificant trend in favor of IVUS-guided EVT. Adjunctive use of IVUS during EVT may be beneficial, and further prospective studies are warranted to delineate this relationship and the applicability of this technology in routine practice.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

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.

An international, multispecialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document on controversial issues in the management of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis.

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.

Device regulation and surveillance in vascular care: Challenges and opportunities.

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.

Intravascular Ultrasound Use in Peripheral Arterial and Deep Venous Interventions: Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion From SCAI/AVF/AVLS/SIR/SVM/SVS.

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.

Sex and Racial Disparities in Peripheral Artery Disease.

Several studies have shown that women and racial and ethnic minority patients are at increased risk of developing lower extremity peripheral artery disease and suffering adverse outcomes from it, but a knowledge gap remains regarding the underlying causes of these increased risks. Both groups are more likely to be underdiagnosed, have poorly managed contributory comorbidities, and incur disparities in treatment and management postdiagnosis. Opportunities for improvement in the care of women and racial and ethnic minorities with peripheral artery disease include increased rates of screening, higher rates of clinical suspicion (particularly in the absence of typical symptoms of intermittent claudication), and more aggressive risk factor management before and after the diagnosis of peripheral artery disease.

Procedural Feasibility and Peri-procedural Outcomes of Peripheral Endovascular Therapy via Transradial versus Transfemoral Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of transradial access for peripheral vascular interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase. REVIEW METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to June 2023 to identify studies investigating the outcomes of lower extremity, carotid, and visceral artery vascular interventions via transradial vs. transfemoral access. The primary outcome was procedural failure rate. Secondary outcomes were total access site complications, minor and major bleeding, stroke, access vessel occlusion, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials and 29 observational studies yielded a total of 70 882 patients treated via transradial (n = 2 616) vs. transfemoral access (n = 68 338). The overall failure rate was 2.3 ± 0.7%, and the transradial approach was associated with a statistically significantly higher procedural failure rate than the transfemoral approach (3.9 ± 0.7% vs. 1.0 ± 0.3%; odds ratio [OR] 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84 - 5.12; I2 = 32%; p < .001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest failure rate in lower extremity interventions with 12.4 ± 4.9% for transradial vs. 4.0 ± 1.2% for transfemoral access. Conversely, procedural complications were statistically significantly fewer with transradial access for total access site complications (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.91; I2 = 36%; p = .010). Minor bleeding was statistically significantly less with the transradial approach (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.86; I2 = 30%; p = .010), whereas major bleeding and stroke rates were similar. Transradial access had more access vessel occlusion than transfemoral access (1.9% ± 0.5% vs. < 0.1% ± 0.0%; p = .004), although most remained asymptomatic. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were all comparable. GRADE certainty was low to moderate in most outcomes. CONCLUSION: The transradial approach was associated with a higher procedural failure rate. Total access site complications and minor bleeding were lower with the transradial approach, albeit with more frequent access vessel occlusion. Transradial access may be a feasible and safe approach; however, appropriate patient selection is imperative.

Short and Midterm Outcomes of Percutaneous Deep Venous Arterialisation for No Option Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous deep venous arterialisation (pDVA) is a state of the art technique for treating patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) with no conventional option for revascularisation. There are limited large scale data examining the clinical effectiveness of pDVA for patients with end stage CLTI. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases. REVIEW METHODS: Four databases were searched from January 2018 to June 2024 to identify studies investigating the feasibility and clinical outcomes of pDVA for patients with CLTI with no conventional revascularisation options. Meta-analysis of time to event outcomes (mean ± standard deviation) was performed for amputation free survival as the primary outcome, and freedom from amputation and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes (mean and 95% confidence interval [CI]) were procedural success rate, patency, re-intervention, and complete wound healing. RESULTS: Ten non-randomised studies were included with 351 patients. The mean patient age was 70.3 years, and 67.6% were male. Most procedures used the posterior tibial artery. The aggregated rate of amputation free survival at six and twelve months (five studies, 260 patients) was 72.6 ± 2.8% and 66.0 ± 3.1%, respectively, while the overall survival at six and twelve months (five studies, 260 patients) was 85.0 ± 2.3% and 77.7 ± 2.9%, respectively. The procedural success rate (nine studies, 330 patients) was 95.5% (95% CI 92.4 - 98.7%). Primary and secondary patency at six months (four studies, 241 patients) was 23.4% (95% CI 13.6 - 33.2%) and 54.9% (95% CI 34.3 - 75.5%), respectively. The rates of re-intervention (four studies, 190 patients) and complete wound healing (five studies, 190 patients) at twelve months were 41.7% (95% CI 25.7 - 57.7%) and 46.0% (95% CI 31.7 - 60.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated acceptable feasibility for no option CLTI at highly specialised institutions for patients undergoing pDVA. Meta-analysis of time to event outcomes revealed that pDVA provides reasonable amputation free survival for up to twelve months, albeit with a overall low certainty of evidence. Wider adoption of pDVA may be considered in selected patients with CLTI, although its clinical impact and cost effectiveness require further evaluation.

The influence of patient sex on pulmonary embolism evaluation, treatment modality, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third-leading cause of cardiovascular mortality, accounting for 100,000 deaths per year in the United States. Although sex-based disparities have previously been described in this population, it is unclear if these differences have persisted with the expansion of PE evaluation and treatment approaches. The purpose of this study is to investigate sex-based differences in the evaluation, management, and outcomes of patients with acute PE. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in the national Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) Consortium database between October 2015 and October 2022. We evaluated patient demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnostic imaging performed, treatment at several phases of care (pre-PERT, PERT recommendations, and post-PERT), and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 5722 patients with acute PE (2838 [49.6%] women) from 35 centers were included. There were no differences in PE risk category between male and female patients. Women were less likely to undergo echocardiography (76.9% vs 73.8%) and more likely to receive no anticoagulation prior to PERT evaluation (35.5% vs 32.9%). PERT teams were more likely to recommend catheter-based interventions for men (26.6% vs 23.1%), and men were more likely to undergo these procedures (21.9% vs 19.3%). In a multivariable analysis, female sex was a predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.21). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, we identified sex-based differences in the evaluation and management of patients presenting with acute PE. Subsequently, women presenting with acute PE were at higher risk of in-hospital mortality.

Quantifying patients' preferences on tradeoffs between mortality risk and reduced need for target vessel revascularization for claudication.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that symptomatic relief from claudication using paclitaxel-coated devices might be associated with an increase in mortality over 5 years. We designed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to quantify tradeoffs that patients would accept between a decreased risk of clinically driven target-vessel revascularization (CDTVR) and increased mortality risk. METHODS: Patients with claudication symptoms were recruited from seven medical centers to complete a web-based survey including eight DCE questions that presented pairs of hypothetical device profiles defined by varying risks of CDTVR and overall mortality at 2 and 5 years. Random-parameters logit models were used to estimate relative preference weights, from which the maximum-acceptable increase in 5-year mortality risk was derived. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients completed the survey. On average, patients would accept a device offering reductions in CDTVR risks from 30% to 10% at 2 years and from 40% to 30% at 5 years if the 5-year mortality risk was less than 12.6% (95% CI: 11.8-13.4%), representing a cut-point of 4.6 percentage points above a baseline risk of 8%. However, approximately 40% chose the device alternative with the lower 5-year mortality risk in seven (20.6%) or eight (18.0%) of the eight DCE questions regardless of the benefit offered. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients in the study would accept some incremental increase in 5-year mortality risk to reduce the 2-year and 5-year risks of CDTVR by 20 and 10 percentage points, respectively. However, significant patient-level variability in risk tolerance underscores the need for systematic approaches to support benefit-risk decision making.

An International, Expert-Based Delphi Consensus Document on Controversial Issues about TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR).

OBJECTIVE: TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative therapeutic modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, certain issues regarding the indications and contraindications of TCAR remain unanswered or unresolved. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to attempt to provide some guidance on these topics. METHODS: A 3-Round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 29 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions of the participants. Round 2 was carried out after the results from the literature on each topic were provided to the participants. During Round 3, the participants had the opportunity to finalize their vote. RESULTS: Most participants agreed that TCAR can/can probably/possibly be performed within 14 days of a cerebrovascular event, but it is best to avoid it in the first 48 hours. It was felt that TCAR cannot/should not replace TFCAS or CEA, as each procedure has specific indications and contraindications. Symptomatic patients >80 years should probably be treated with TCAR rather than with TFCAS. TCAR can/can probably be used for the treatment of restenosis following CEA/TFCAS. Finally, there is a need for a randomized controlled trial to provide better evidence for the unresolved issues. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi Consensus document attempted to assist the decision-making of physicians/interventionalists/vascular surgeons involved in the management of carotid stenosis patients. Furthermore, areas requiring additional research were identified. Future studies and randomized controlled trials should provide more evidence to address the unanswered questions regarding TCAR.

Intravascular imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention: temporal trends and clinical outcomes in the USA.

AIMS: Prior trials have demonstrated that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in less frequent target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with standard angiographic guidance. The uptake and associated outcomes of IVI-guided PCI in contemporary clinical practice in the USA remain unclear. Accordingly, temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI relative to PCI with angiographic guidance alone were examined in a broad, unselected population of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiary data from 1 January 2013, through 31 December 2019 to evaluate temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI as compared with PCI with angiography guidance alone in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The primary outcomes were 1 year mortality and MACE, defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat PCI, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Secondary outcomes were MI or repeat PCI at 1 year. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted association between IVI guidance and outcomes. Falsification endpoints (hospitalized pneumonia and hip fracture) were used to assess for potential unmeasured confounding. The study population included 1 189 470 patients undergoing PCI (38.0% female, 89.8% White, 65.1% with MI). Overall, IVI was used in 10.5% of the PCIs, increasing from 9.5% in 2013% to 15.4% in 2019. Operator IVI use was variable, with the median operator use of IVI 3.92% (interquartile range 0.36%-12.82%). IVI use during PCI was associated with lower adjusted rates of 1 year mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], MI (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99), repeat PCI (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.73-0.75), and MACE (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86). There was no association with the falsification endpoint of hospitalized pneumonia (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.04) or hip fracture (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10). CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing PCI, use of IVI has increased over the previous decade but remains relatively infrequent. IVI-guided PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality, acute MI, repeat PCI, and MACE.

Differences in Comorbidities Explain Black-White Disparities in Outcomes After Femoropopliteal Endovascular Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Black adults have a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease and limb amputations than White adults in the United States. Given that peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) is now the primary revascularization strategy for peripheral artery disease, it is important to understand whether racial differences exist in PVI incidence and outcomes. METHODS: Data from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥66 years of age from 2016 to 2018 were evaluated to determine age- and sex-standardized population-level incidences of femoropopliteal PVI among Black and White adults over the 3-year study period. Patients' first inpatient or outpatient PVIs were identified through claims codes. Age- and sex-standardized risks of the composite outcome of death and major amputation within 1 year of PVI were examined by race. RESULTS: Black adults underwent 928 PVIs per 100 000 Black beneficiaries compared with 530 PVIs per 100 000 White beneficiaries (risk ratio, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.73-1.77]; P<0.01). Black adults who underwent PVI were younger (mean age, 74.5 years versus 76.4 years; P<0.01), were more likely to be female (52.8% versus 42.7%; P<0.01), and had a higher burden of diabetes (70.6% versus 56.0%; P<0.01), chronic kidney disease (67.5% versus 56.6%; P<0.01), and heart failure (47.4% versus 41.7%; P<0.01) than White adults. When analyzed by indication for revascularization, Black adults were more likely to undergo PVI for chronic limb-threatening ischemia than White adults (13 023 per 21 352 [61.0%] versus 59 956 per 120 049 [49.9%]; P<0.01). There was a strong association between Black race and the composite outcome at 1 year (odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.16-1.25]). This association persisted after adjustment for socioeconomic status (odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.03-1.13]) but was eliminated after adjustment for comorbidities (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.01]). CONCLUSIONS: Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, Black adults had substantially higher population-level PVI incidence and were significantly more likely to experience adverse events after PVI than White adults. The association between Black race and adverse outcomes appears to be driven by a higher burden of comorbidities. This analysis emphasizes the critical need for early identification and aggressive management of peripheral artery disease risk factors and comorbidities to reduce Black-White disparities in the development and progression of peripheral artery disease and the risk of adverse events after PVI.

Estimation of DAPT Study Treatment Effects in Contemporary Clinical Practice: Findings From the EXTEND-DAPT Study.

BACKGROUND: Differences in patient characteristics, changes in treatment algorithms, and advances in medical technology could each influence the applicability of older randomized trial results to contemporary clinical practice. The DAPT Study (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) found that longer-duration DAPT decreased ischemic events at the expense of greater bleeding, but subsequent evolution in stent technology and clinical practice may attenuate the benefit of prolonged DAPT in a contemporary population. We evaluated whether the DAPT Study population is different from a contemporary population of US patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention and estimated the treatment effect of extended-duration antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in this more contemporary cohort. METHODS: We compared the characteristics of drug-eluting stent-treated patients randomly assigned in the DAPT Study to a sample of more contemporary drug-eluting stent-treated patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2016 to June 2017. After linking trial and registry data, we used inverse-odds of trial participation weighting to account for patient and procedural characteristics and estimated a contemporary real-world treatment effect of 30 versus 12 months of DAPT after coronary stent procedures. RESULTS: The US drug-eluting stent-treated trial cohort included 8864 DAPT Study patients, and the registry cohort included 568 540 patients. Compared with the trial population, registry patients had more comorbidities and were more likely to present with myocardial infarction and receive 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents. After reweighting trial results to represent the registry population, there was no longer a significant effect of prolonged DAPT on reducing stent thrombosis (reweighted treatment effect: -0.40 [95% CI, -0.99% to 0.15%]), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (reweighted treatment effect, -0.52 [95% CI, -2.62% to 1.03%]), or myocardial infarction (reweighted treatment effect, -0.97% [95% CI, -2.75% to 0.18%]), but the increase in bleeding with prolonged DAPT persisted (reweighted treatment effect, 2.42% [95% CI, 0.79% to 3.91%]). CONCLUSIONS: The differences between the patients and devices used in contemporary clinical practice compared with the DAPT Study were associated with the attenuation of benefits and greater harms attributable to prolonged DAPT duration. These findings limit the applicability of the average treatment effects from the DAPT Study in modern clinical practice.