Drug-Eluting Resorbable Scaffold versus Angioplasty for Infrapopliteal Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and infrapopliteal artery disease, angioplasty has been associated with frequent reintervention and adverse limb outcomes from restenosis. The effect of the use of drug-eluting resorbable scaffolds on these outcomes remains unknown. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 261 patients with CLTI and infrapopliteal artery disease were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting resorbable scaffold or angioplasty. The primary efficacy end point was freedom from the following events at 1 year: amputation above the ankle of the target limb, occlusion of the target vessel, clinically driven revascularization of the target lesion, and binary restenosis of the target lesion. The primary safety end point was freedom from major adverse limb events at 6 months and from perioperative death. RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point was observed (i.e., no events occurred) in 135 of 173 patients in the scaffold group and 48 of 88 patients in the angioplasty group (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 74% vs. 44%; absolute difference, 30 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15 to 46; one-sided P<0.001 for superiority). The primary safety end point was observed in 165 of 170 patients in the scaffold group and 90 of 90 patients in the angioplasty group (absolute difference, -3 percentage points; 95% CI, -6 to 0; one-sided P<0.001 for noninferiority). Serious adverse events related to the index procedure occurred in 2% of the patients in the scaffold group and 3% of those in the angioplasty group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI due to infrapopliteal artery disease, the use of an everolimus-eluting resorbable scaffold was superior to angioplasty with respect to the primary efficacy end point. (Funded by Abbott; LIFE-BTK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04227899.).

Catheter-based therapy for high-risk or intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: death and re-hospitalization.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Catheter-based therapies (CBTs) have been developed as a treatment option in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). There remains a paucity of data to inform decision-making in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE. The aim of this study was to characterize in-hospital and readmission outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE treated with vs. without CBT in a large retrospective registry. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE were identified using the 2017-20 National Readmission Database. In-hospital outcomes included death and bleeding and 30- and 90-day readmission outcomes including all-cause, venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related and bleeding-related readmissions. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between CBT and no CBT. RESULTS: A total of 14 903 [2076 (13.9%) with CBT] and 42 829 [8824 (20.6%) with CBT] patients with high-risk and intermediate-risk PE were included, respectively. Prior to IPTW, patients with CBT were younger and less likely to have cancer and cardiac arrest, receive systemic thrombolysis, or be on mechanical ventilation. In the IPTW logistic regression model, CBT was associated with lower odds of in-hospital death in high-risk [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.87] and intermediate-risk PE (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.83). Patients with high-risk PE treated with CBT were associated with lower risk of 90-day all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.71-0.83] and VTE (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34-0.63) readmission. Patients with intermediate-risk PE treated with CBT were associated with lower risk of 90-day all-cause (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.79) and VTE (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76) readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high-risk or intermediate-risk PE, CBT was associated with lower in-hospital death and 90-day readmission. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Mortality in randomised controlled trials using paclitaxel-coated devices for femoropopliteal interventional procedures: an updated patient-level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Numerous randomised clinical trials and real-world studies have supported the safety of paclitaxel-coated devices for the treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease. However, a 2018 summary-level meta-analysis suggested an increased mortality risk for paclitaxel-coated devices compared with uncoated control devices. This study presents an updated analysis of deaths using the most complete and current data available from pivotal trials of paclitaxel-coated versus control devices. METHODS: Ten trials comparing paclitaxel-coated versus control devices were included in a patient-level pooled analysis. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the effect of paclitaxel exposure on risk of death in both intention-to-treat (ITT; primary analysis) and three as-treated analysis sets accounting for treatment group crossover at the index procedure and over time. The effect of paclitaxel dose and baseline covariates were also evaluated. FINDINGS: A total of 2666 participants were included with a median follow-up of 4·9 years. No significant increase in deaths was observed for patients treated with paclitaxel-coated devices. This was true in the ITT analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1·14, 95% CI 0·93-1·40), the as-treated analysis (HR 1·13, 95% CI 0·92-1·39), and in two crossover analyses: 1·07 (0·87-1·31) when late crossovers were censored and 1·04 (0·84-1·28) when crossovers were analysed from the date of paclitaxel exposure. There was no significant effect of paclitaxel dose on mortality risk. INTERPRETATION: This meta-analysis found no association between paclitaxel-coated device exposure and risk of death, providing reassurance to patients, physicians, and regulators on the safety of paclitaxel-coated devices. FUNDING: Becton Dickinson, Boston Scientific, Cook, Medtronic, Philips, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.

Developmental or Procedural Vena Cava Interruption and Venous Thromboembolism: A Review.

The inferior vena cava (IVC) and superior vena cava are the main conduits of the systemic venous circulation into the right atrium. Developmental or procedural interruptions of vena cava might predispose to stasis and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) distal to the anomaly and may impact the subsequent rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to review the various etiologies of developmental or procedural vena cava interruption and their impact on venous thromboembolism. A systematic search was performed in PubMed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines per each clinical question. For management questions with no high-quality evidence and no mutual agreements between authors, Delphi methods were used. IVC agenesis is the most common form of congenital vena cava interruption, is associated with an increased risk of DVT, and should be suspected in young patients with unexpected extensive bilateral DVT. Surgical techniques for vena cava interruption (ligation, clipping, and plication) to prevent PE have been largely abandoned due to short-term procedural risks and long-term complications, although survivors of prior procedures are occasionally encountered. Vena cava filters are now the most commonly used method of procedural interruption, frequently placed in the infrarenal IVC. The most agreed-upon indication for vena cava filters is for patients with acute venous thromboembolism and coexisting contraindications to anticoagulation. Familiarity with different forms of vena cava interruption and their local and systemic adverse effects is important to minimize complications and thrombotic events.

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.

Intravascular Lithotripsy for Peripheral Artery Calcification: 30-Day Outcomes From the Disrupt PAD III Observational Study.

PURPOSE: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has shown promising safety and effectiveness in calcified peripheral artery disease (PAD) in large trials and small real-world experiences. Real-world evidence from a larger cohort is lacking, so we aimed to evaluate the real-world acute performance of IVL in the treatment of calcified PAD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Disrupt PAD III Observational Study (OS) is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study. Patients with claudication or critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and at least moderate calcification were eligible. Independent predictors of procedural outcomes were assessed by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Between November 2017 and June 2021 across 30 global sites, 1373 patients with 1677 lesions (1531, 91.3% core lab evaluable) were enrolled. Diameter stenosis and lesion length was 80.6±17.6% and 93.5±74.3 mm, respectively. Target vessels included femoropopliteal (61%), iliac (15.8%), common femoral (10.7%), and infrapopliteal arteries (12.8%). Lesion characteristics included 31.1% chronic total occlusions (CTOs) and 19.3% long lesions (≥15 cm). At final assessment, residual stenosis was 23.8±11.3%, with 0.9% serious angiographic complications, no abrupt closures, distal embolization, no flow, or thrombotic events. Independent predictors of ≤30% residual stenosis were lesion length ≥15 cm (odds ratio [OR]=0.384), female sex (OR=1.850), age ≤75 years (OR=1.625), IVL balloon to artery ratio ≥1.0 (OR=1.538), and CTO lesions (OR=0.638). Lesion length ≥15 cm (OR=16.076) was an independent predictor of procedural complications. CONCLUSIONS: The Disrupt PAD III OS represents the largest assessment of IVL periprocedural outcomes in calcified PAD. It confirmed excellent procedural safety and effectiveness in complex lesions across multiple peripheral vascular beds. CLINICAL IMPACT: This final analysis of the PAD III OS represents the largest report of peripheral IVL utilization in daily clinical practice. The outcomes of this study indicate that previously reported procedural results in clinical trial settings can be translated to a broader patient population. Treatment with peripheral IVL in severely calcified stenotic lower limb lesions demonstrated consistent acute safety and stenosis reduction, even in complex patients across multiple vessel beds. In addition, the importance of proper IVL balloon sizing to achieve excellent acute stenosis reduction was confirmed by multivariate analysis.

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.

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.

Randomized Trial of Chocolate Touch Compared With Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon in Femoropopliteal Lesions (Chocolate Touch Study).

BACKGROUND: First-generation drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have significantly reduced the rate of restenosis compared with balloon angioplasty alone; however, high rates of bailout stenting and dissections persist. The Chocolate Touch DCB is a nitinol constrained balloon designed to reduce acute vessel trauma and inhibit neointima formation and restenosis. METHODS: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) and superficial femoral or popliteal disease (≥70% stenosis) were randomized 1:1 to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB at 34 sites in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand. The primary efficacy end point was DCB success, defined as primary patency at 12 months (peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 by duplex ultrasound without clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the absence of clinically driven bailout stenting). The primary safety end point was freedom from major adverse events at 12 months, a composite of target limb-related death, major amputation, or reintervention. Both primary end points were tested for noninferiority, and if met, sequential superiority testing for efficacy followed by safety was prespecified. An independent clinical events committee, and angiographic and duplex ultrasound core laboratories blinded to treatment allocation reviewed all end points. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were randomized to Chocolate Touch (n=152) versus Lutonix DCB (n=161). Follow-up at 1 year was available in 94% of patients. The mean age was 69.4±9.5 years, the average lesion length was 78.1±46.9 mm, and 46.2% had moderate-to-severe calcification. The primary efficacy rates of DCB success at 12 months was 78.8% (108/137) with Chocolate Touch and 67.7% (88/130) with Lutonix DCB (difference, 11.1% [95% CI, 0.6-21.7]), meeting noninferiority (Pnoninferiority<0.0001) and sequential superiority (Psuperiority=0.04). The primary safety event rate was 88.9% (128/144) with Chocolate Touch and 84.6% (126/149) with Lutonix DCB (Pnoninferiority<0.001; Psuperiority=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, the second-generation Chocolate Touch DCB met both noninferiority end points for efficacy and safety and was more effective than Lutonix DCB at 12 months for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924857.

Consensus minimum core data elements adapted to peripheral vascular intervention in the drug-eluting era: Consensus report from the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) Pathways "LEAN" working group.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) initiated the Pathways Program to provide a transparent, collaborative forum in which to pursue insights into multiple unresolved questions on benefit-risk of paclitaxel-coated devices, including understanding the basis of the mortality signal, without a demonstrable potential biological mechanism, and whether the late mortality signal could be artifact intrinsic to multiple independent prospective randomized data sources that did not prespecify death as a long-term end point. In response to the directive, the LEAN-Case Report Form working group focused on enhancements to the RAPID Phase I Minimum Core Data set through the addition of key clinical modifiers that would be more strongly linked to longer-term mortality outcomes after peripheral arterial disease intervention in the drug-eluting device era, with the goal to have future mortality signals more accurately examined.

Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty for Infrapopliteal Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Primary Patency and Binary Restenosis Rates.

PURPOSE: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) remains the mainstay of endovascular therapy for infrapopliteal chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), but outcomes have not been well characterized using high-quality data. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide an updated benchmark for rates of primary patency and binary restenosis after PTA using prospectively collected, predominantly core-lab adjudicated randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were queried for RCTs published through November 2022 using PTA as a control arm and including patients with infrapopliteal CLTI. Studies were excluded if >25% of patients had intermittent claudication, other vessels were included, or primary patency or binary restenosis were not outcomes. Outcomes were analyzed using random effects models. This analysis was publicly registered (PROSPERO ID#394543). No funding was utilized. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were included (1048 patients, 1279 lesions). Pooled primary patency rates using data from 6 RCTs were 68% at 6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]=45%-84%) and 66% at 12 months (95% CI=51%-79%). Pooled binary restenosis rates using data from 11 RCTs were 54% at 6 months (95% CI=33%-73%) and 60% at 9 to 12 months (95% CI=39%-78%). Significant heterogeneity was present in all outcomes (I2>50%, p<0.0001). Publication bias was not observed (Egger's p>0.1). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides estimates for binary restenosis and primary patency following PTA utilizing prospectively collected, predominantly core-lab adjudicated data. Results demonstrate 1-year primary patency rates that are 10% to 20% higher than what has been historically used in power calculations. These new estimates will help facilitate more accurate power analysis for future RCTs. CLINICAL IMPACT: Rates of primary patency and binary restenosis after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) have not been well-described using high-quality data, and investigators have been utilizing estimates of 40% to 50% and 45% to 65%, respectively, when performing power calculations for trials. This meta-analysis demonstrates using high-quality, prospectively collected, and predominantly core-lab adjudicated randomized controlled trial data that actual rates of primary patency are closer to 60% up to 1 year following PTA and provides the first meta-analysis estimate of binary restenosis rates up to 1 year after PTA. These estimates will help facilitate more accurate power calculations for future RCTs in this space.

Chocolate Touch Versus Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal Lesions in Diabetes: The Chocolate Touch Study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated that in patients undergoing treatment of femoropopliteal artery lesions, the Chocolate Touch drug-coated balloon (DCB) was safe and had superior efficacy at 12 months compared with the Lutonix DCB. We report the prespecified diabetes subanalysis comparing outcomes among patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) were randomized to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB. The primary efficacy endpoint was DCB success defined as primary patency at 12 months (peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 by duplex ultrasound without clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the absence of bailout stenting). The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major adverse events at 12 months, a composite of target limb-related death, major amputation, or reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients (38% DM [n=119]) were randomized to either Chocolate Touch (n=66/152) or Lutonix DCB (n=53/161). Among patients with DM, DCB success was 77.2% and 60.5% (p=0.08), and in non-DM patients, DCB success was 80% and 71.3% (p=0.2114) for the Chocolate Touch and Lutonix DCB, respectively. The primary safety endpoint was similar for both cohorts regardless of DM status (interaction test, p=0.96). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial demonstrated similar safety and efficacy for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease with the Chocolate Touch DCB compared with using the Lutonix DCB regardless of DM status at 12 months. CLINICAL IMPACT: This substudy of the Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated similar safety and efficacy for treatment of femoropopliteal disease of the Chocolate Touch DCB compared with the Lutonix DCB regardless of diabetes (DM) status at 12 months. Endovascular therapy has become the therapy of choice for the treatment of most symptomatic femoropopliteal lesions regardless of DM status. These results give clinicians another option when treating femoropopliteal disease in this high-risk patient population.

Association between Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and pulmonary embolism severity, management, and in-hospital outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic and Latino patients are under-represented in existing healthcare disparities research in pulmonary embolism (PE). The goal of this study was to determine if differences in PE severity, treatment modality, or in-hospital outcomes exist for Hispanic or Latino patients with PE. METHODS: All PE cases from 2013 to 2019 at a single institution were reviewed. Clinical characteristics, imaging findings, intervention types, and in-hospital and 30-day outcomes were collected. Two cohorts were created based on patients' self-reported ethnicity. Outcomes were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1265 patients were identified with confirmed PE; 474 (37%) identified as Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic or Latino patients presented with high-risk PE significantly less often (19% vs 25%, p = 0.03). On univariate analysis, Hispanic or Latino patients had lower rates of PE-specific intervention (15% vs 19%, p = 0.03) and similar rates of inpatient mortality (6.8% vs 7.5%, p = 0.64). On ordinal regression analysis, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity was associated with lower PE severity (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.89, p = 0.003). In subgroup analyses of intermediate and high-risk PEs, ethnicity was not a significant predictor of receipt of PE-specific intervention or in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: At this institution, Hispanic or Latino patients were less likely to present with high-risk PE but had similar rates of inpatient mortality. Future research is needed to identify if disparities in in-hospital care are driving perceived differences in PE severity and what addressable systematic factors are driving higher-than-expected in-hospital mortality for Hispanic or Latino patients.

Four-year patient-level pooled mortality analysis of the ILLUMENATE US Pivotal and EU randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis of two concordant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the long-term, 4-year safety profile of the Stellarex drug-coated balloon (DCB) vs percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for the treatment of peripheral artery disease. METHODS: An independent, third-party, meta-analysis of homogeneous, patient-level data from the ILLUMENATE Pivotal and ILLUMENATE EU RCTs was performed to assess mortality (time to death) in patients treated for symptomatic femoropopliteal disease. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) methodology was used to estimate hazard rates [HRs] of all-cause mortality, and Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to assess predictors of mortality. All serious adverse events, including deaths, were adjudicated by an independent, blinded clinical events committee. RESULTS: In total, 589 (419 DCB; 170 PTA) patients were included in the pooled analysis of the ILLUMENATE Pivotal and ILLUMENATE EU RCTs. The median follow-up was 1735 days (interquartile range, 1434-1829 days), equivalent to 4.75 years. Vital status compliance was >95% in each RCT. The total number of deaths through 4 years was 81 of 589 (13.8%): 58 of 419 (13.8%) in the DCB arm and 23 of 170 (13.5%) in the PTA arm. The 1-year KM estimate of all-cause mortality was 1.9% ± 0.7% (estimate ±standard error) in those treated with DCB vs 1.2% ± 0.9% in those treated with PTA. At 2, 3, and 4 years, the respective KM estimates were 6.6% ± 1.2% vs 4.9% ± 1.7%, 9.3% ± 1.4% vs 9.9% ± 2.4%, and 14.0% ± 1.7% vs 14.4% ± 2.8% (P = .864). There were no significant differences in clinical events committee-adjudicated deaths between the two cohorts. In multivariate analysis, predictors of 4-year mortality were age (HR, 1.048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.026-1.071; P < .0001), renal insufficiency (HR, 2.440; 95% CI, 1.566-3.800; P < .0001), and lesion length (HR, 1.004; 95% CI, 1.000-1.008; P = .041). Neither paclitaxel exposure (DCB vs PTA; HR, 1.086; 95% CI, 0.709-1.664; P = .705) nor dose (mg; HR, 1.043; 95% CI, 0.971-1.119; P = .248) was the predictor of all-cause mortality at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic meta-analysis of two concordant ILLUMENATE RCTs shows no difference in all-cause mortality through 4 years between Stellarex DCB and PTA, confirming the acceptable, long-term safety profile of the Stellarex DCB.

Therapy for Renal Artery Stenosis: A Call for Change.

CLINICAL IMPACT: We present a brief case description of a patient who benefitted from stenting in ARAS and provide a comprehensive review of ARAS; its prevalence, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment. We review the evidence for and against stenting in ARAS as well as consensus guidelines for stenting. Our review is valuable as we argue that stenting in ARAS is underutilized and the randomized control data for stenting in those patients who may benefit most is lacking. Our review will provide an important perspective for clinicians faced with decisions of how to treat ARAS.

Utilization of and Outcomes Associated with Intravascular Ultrasound during Deep Venous Stent Placement among Medicare Beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: To evaluate temporal trends, practice variation, and associated outcomes with the use of intravascular ultrasound (US) during deep venous stent placement among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All lower extremity deep venous stent placement procedures performed between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries were included. Temporal trends in intravascular US use were stratified by procedural setting and physician specialty. The primary outcome was a composite of 12-month all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, or repeat target vessel intervention. The secondary outcome was a composite of 12-month stent thrombosis, embolization, or restenosis. RESULTS: Among the 20,984 deep venous interventions performed during the study period, 15,184 (72.4%) utilized intravascular US. Moderate growth in intravascular US use was observed during the study period in all clinical settings. There was a variation in the use of intravascular US among all operators (median, 77.3% of cases; interquartile range, 20.0%-99.2%). In weighted analyses, intravascular US use during deep venous stent placement was associated with a lower risk of both the primary (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and secondary (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.27-0.39; P < .001) composite end points. CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular US is frequently used during deep venous stent placement among Medicare beneficiaries, with further increase in use from 2017 to 2019. The utilization of intravascular US as part of a procedural strategy was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of adverse outcomes after the procedure, including venous stent thrombosis and embolization.

Intravascular ultrasound in peripheral venous and arterial interventions: A contemporary systematic review and grading of the quality of evidence.

Although angiography has been the primary imaging modality used in peripheral vascular intervention, this technique has major limitations due to the evaluation of three-dimensional vessels in two dimensions. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is an important adjunctive tool that can address some of these limitations. This systematic review assesses the appropriateness of IVUS as an imaging modality for guiding peripheral intervention through evidence collection and clinical appraisal of studies. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a cohort of 48 studies (29 arterial; 19 venous) detailing IVUS use in peripheral vascular intervention were extracted. Qualitative assessment of the studies evaluated pre- and postprocedure efficacy of IVUS and revealed that IVUS-guided peripheral intervention in arterial and venous diagnosis and treatment was superior to other imaging techniques alone. Each study in the cohort was further assessed for reliability and validity using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) level of evidence scale. The majority of both arterial (79.3%) and venous (73.7%) studies received a 2b rating, the second highest level of evidence rating. The evidence to date indicates that IVUS results in better clinical outcomes overall and should be more widely adopted as an adjunctive imaging modality during peripheral intervention. (PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42021232353).

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interventional cardiology fellowship training in the New York metropolitan area: A perspective from the United States epicenter.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare burden posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the New York Metropolitan area has necessitated the postponement of elective procedures resulting in a marked reduction in cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) volumes with a potential to impact interventional cardiology (IC) fellowship training. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey sent electronically to 21 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited IC fellowship program directors (PDs) and their respective fellows. RESULTS: Fourteen programs (67%) responded to the survey and all acknowledged a significant decrease in CCL procedural volumes. More than half of the PDs reported part of their CCL being converted to inpatient units and IC fellows being redeployed to COVID-19 related duties. More than two-thirds of PDs believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would have a moderate (57%) or severe (14%) adverse impact on IC fellowship training, and 21% of the PDs expected their current fellows' average percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) volume to be below 250. Of 25 IC fellow respondents, 95% expressed concern that the pandemic would have a moderate (72%) or severe (24%) adverse impact on their fellowship training, and nearly one-fourth of fellows reported performing fewer than 250 PCIs as of March 1st. Finally, roughly one-third of PDs and IC fellows felt that there should be consideration of an extension of fellowship training or a period of early career mentorship after fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a significant reduction in CCL procedural volumes that is impacting IC fellowship training in the NY metropolitan area. These results should inform professional societies and accreditation bodies to offer tailored opportunities for remediation of affected trainees.