Best practices for vascular arterial access and closure: a contemporary guide for the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

More than 1 million transcatheter-based cardiovascular procedures across the spectrum of interventional cardiology are performed annually in the United States. With the expanded indications for and increased complexities associated with these procedures, interventional cardiologists are expected to possess the requisite expertise to complete these interventions safely and effectively. While the art of vascular access and closure remains a prerequisite and critical skillset in contemporary practice, there remain significant variations in the techniques employed, resulting in the bleeding and vascular complications encountered in clinical practice. With an increasing recognition of the potential merits to standardized approaches to vascular access and closure, cardiovascular societies have put forth recommendations around best practices for performing these procedures in the cardiac catheterization laboratories. In this review, we aim to: (1) Examine the evolving definitions of bleeding and vascular complications; (2) Review best practices for transradial and transfemoral access and closure, including for large bore procedures; and (3) Highlight knowledge gaps and proposed areas of clinical research pertaining to vascular access which may inform clinical practice and potentially optimize the outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter-based cardiac and vascular interventions.

Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon vs Uncoated Balloon for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: The AGENT IDE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Drug-coated balloons offer a potentially beneficial treatment strategy for the management of coronary in-stent restenosis. However, none have been previously evaluated or approved for use in coronary circulation in the United States. Objective: To evaluate whether a paclitaxel-coated balloon is superior to an uncoated balloon in patients with in-stent restenosis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: AGENT IDE, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, enrolled 600 patients with in-stent restenosis (lesion length <26 mm and reference vessel diameter >2.0 mm to ≤4.0 mm) at 40 centers across the United States between May 2021 and August 2022. One-year clinical follow-up was completed on October 2, 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 allocation to undergo treatment with a paclitaxel-coated (n = 406) or an uncoated (n = 194) balloon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point of 1-year target lesion failure-defined as the composite of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or cardiac death-was tested for superiority. Results: Among 600 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 157 females [26.2%]; 42 Black [7%], 35 Hispanic [6%] individuals), 574 (95.7%) completed 1-year follow-up. The primary end point at 1 year occurred in 17.9% in the paclitaxel-coated balloon group vs 28.6% in the uncoated balloon group, meeting the criteria for superiority (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42-0.84]; 2-sided P = .003). Target lesion revascularization (13.0% vs 24.7%; HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.74]; P = .001) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (5.8% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.92]; P = .02) occurred less frequently among patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon. The rate of cardiac death was 2.9% vs 1.6% (HR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.49-6.28]; P = .38) in the coated vs uncoated balloon groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing coronary angioplasty for in-stent restenosis, a paclitaxel-coated balloon was superior to an uncoated balloon with respect to the composite end point of target lesion failure. Paclitaxel-coated balloons are an effective treatment option for patients with coronary in-stent restenosis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04647253.

Development of a routine bedside CYP2C19 genotype assessment program for antiplatelet therapy guidance in a community hospital catheterization laboratory.

Genotype based personalized antiplatelet therapy in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been studied in clinical trials. Despite the demonstrated risk associated with CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LoF) carriage in clopidogrel-treated PCI patients, real-world implementation of genotyping for PCI has been low. The goal of the current study was to provide CYP2C19 genotype information to the interventionalist prior to the completion of the catheterization to facilitate immediate personalized antiplatelet therapy. Routine personalization of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for PCI in a community hospital cardiac catheterization laboratory by POC genotyping with the SpartanRx system was first offered in February 2017. A best practice advisory (BPA) based on the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guideline for CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel therapy was placed in the electronic health record prescription medication ordering system. By December 2019, 1,052 patients had CYP2C19 genotype testing, 429 patients underwent PCI with genotype guided antiplatelet therapy, and 250 patients underwent PCI without genotype testing and received antiplatelet therapy at the discretion of the treating physician. BPA compliance was 93. 87% of LoF allele carriers were prescribed ticagrelor or prasugrel whereas 96% of non-LoF allele carriers were prescribed clopidogrel. The genotyping results were available within 1 h and made immediately available for decision making by the interventional cardiologist. POC CYP2C19 genotyping is feasible in a community hospital catheterization laboratory and is associated with high rate of best practice compliance.Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03040622.

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes.

A Randomized Comparison of Radial Artery Intimal Hyperplasia Following Distal Versus Proximal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography: PRESERVE RADIAL.

BACKGROUND: Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to conventional forearm transradial access (fTRA) for coronary angiography (CAG). Differences in healing of the radial artery (RA) in the forearm have not been evaluated between these 2 access strategies. We sought to compare the mean difference in forearm RA intimal-medial thickening (IMT) in patients randomized to dTRA versus fTRA. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this single-center randomized clinical trial, 64 patients undergoing nonemergent CAG were randomized (1:1) to dTRA versus fTRA. Ultra-high-resolution (55-MHz) vascular ultrasound of the forearm and distal RA was performed pre-CAG and at 90 days. The primary end point was the mean change in forearm RA IMT. Secondary end points included procedural characteristics, vascular injury, RA occlusion, and ipsilateral hand pain and function. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, mean forearm RA IMT, and procedural specifics were similar between the dTRA and fTRA cohorts. There was no difference in mean change in forearm RA IMT between the 2 cohorts (0.07 versus 0.07 mm; P=0.37). No RA occlusions or signs of major vascular injury were observed at 90 days. Ipsilateral hand pain and function (Borg pain scale score: 12 versus 11; P=0.24; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulders, and Hand scale score: 6 versus 8; P=0.46) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Following CAG, dTRA was associated with no differences in mean change of forearm RA IMT, hand pain, and function versus fTRA for CAG. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate mechanisms and predictors of RA healing and identify effective strategies to preserving RA integrity for repeated procedures. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04801901.

A non-interventional cardiologist's guide to coronary chronic total occlusions.

Coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) are present in up to one-third of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). It is thus essential for all clinical cardiologists to possess a basic awareness and understanding of CTOs, including optimal evaluation and management. While percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for CTO lesions has many similarities to non-CTO PCI, there are important considerations pertaining to pre-procedural evaluation, interventional techniques, procedural complications, and post-procedure management and follow-up unique to patients undergoing this highly specialized intervention. Distinct from other existing topical reviews, the current manuscript focuses on key knowledge relevant to non-interventional cardiologists.

Do Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Differ by the Number of Antianginals for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease? Insights from the BARI 2D Trial.

Medical therapy, including antianginal treatment, is the cornerstone in the management of stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, it remains unclear whether combining antianginal agents provides benefits beyond monotherapy in terms of quality of life (QoL) and cardiovascular outcomes. We used data from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial, which compared cardiovascular and QoL outcomes in patients with SIHD and diabetes mellitus randomized to revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone. We categorized patients into 3 groups: ≥2 versus 1 versus 0 antianginals. We compared patient characteristics, QoL metrics, and cardiovascular end points at baseline and at 5 years, creating a multivariable model to adjust for key clinical confounders. Of 2,368 patients, 348 patients (14.7%) were on 0 antianginals, 1,020 patients (43.1%) were on 1 antianginal, and 1,000 patients (42.2%) were on ≥2 antianginals at baseline. The most common antianginal class was ß blockers. At baseline, patients on 0 antianginals had better QoL metrics (self-health score, Duke activity status index, and energy rating) than patients on ≥2 antianginals. However, at the 1-year follow-up, patients taking only 1 antianginal showed greater QoL improvement than those taking 0 antianginal, without any incremental benefit in QoL metrics seen in patients taking ≥2 antianginal agents, even after adjusting for multiple covariates such as age, heart failure, diabetes control, and myocardial jeopardy index. Lastly, at the 5-year follow-up, after adjustment, there were no differences in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or myocardial infarction between patients taking different numbers of antianginals. Adults on a single antianginal for SIHD and diabetes mellitus had similar or better improvements in QoL than those on 2 or more antianginal agents at 1 year of follow-up. These findings merit further research to better understand the impact of medical therapy intensity on QoL in patients with SIHD and associated co-morbidities.

Early Utilization of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices increase systemic blood pressure and end organ perfusion while reducing cardiac filling pressures. METHODS AND RESULTS: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCT03677180) is a single-arm, multicenter study. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing early MCS with Impella in patients presenting with AMI-CS. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. A total of 406 patients were enrolled at 80 sites between 2016 and 2020. Average age was 64±12 years, 24% were female, 17% had a witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 27% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 9% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. Patients presented with a mean systolic blood pressure of 77.2±19.2 mm Hg, 85% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, mean lactate was 4.8±3.9 mmol/L and cardiac power output was 0.67±0.29 watts. At 24 hours, mean systolic blood pressure improved to 103.9±17.8 mm Hg, lactate to 2.7±2.8 mmol/L, and cardiac power output to 1.0±1.3 watts. Procedural survival, survival to discharge, survival to 30 days, and survival to 1 year were 99%, 71%, 68%, and 53%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early use of MCS in AMI-CS is feasible across varying health care settings and resulted in improvements to early hemodynamics and perfusion. Survival rates to hospital discharge were high. Given the encouraging results from our analysis, randomized clinical trials are warranted to assess the role of utilizing early MCS, using a standardized, multidisciplinary approach.

A Randomized Comparison of Radial Artery Intimal Hyperplasia Following Distal vs. Proximal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography: PRESERVE RADIAL Trial.

Background: Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to conventional forearm transradial access (fTRA) for coronary angiography (CAG). Differences in healing of the radial artery in the forearm (FRA) have not been evaluated between these 2 access strategies. We sought to compare FRA intimal-medial thickening (IMT) in patients randomized to dTRA vs. fTRA for CAG. Methods and Results: Sixty-four consecutive patients undergoing non-emergent CAG were randomized (1:1) to dTRA vs. fTRA. Ultrahigh resolution (55 MHz) vascular ultrasound) of the FRA and distal RA was performed pre-CAG and at 90 days. Primary endpoint was 90-day FRA IMT. Secondary endpoints included procedural characteristics, vascular injury, RA occlusion and ipsilateral hand pain and function. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, mean FRA IMT, time to RA access, procedure time, and radiation exposure were similar between the dTRA and fTRA cohorts. There were no between group differences in 90-day FRA IMT (0.37 mm vs 0.38 mm, respectively; p =0.73). No RA occlusions or signs of major vascular injury were observed at 90 days. Ipsilateral hand pain and function (Borg pain scale:12 vs 11, p =0.24; DASH scores: 6 vs 8, p =0.46) were comparable. Conclusions: In this single center randomized clinical trial, similar patterns of FRA vascular healing at 90 days, procedural results as well as hand pain and function were observed following dTRA vs. fTRA for CAG. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the mechanistics and predictors of RA healing and to identify strategies aimed at preserving RA integrity for future procedures. What is New?: DTRA has been proposed as an alternative to traditional fTRA in the wrist for CAG and PCI because of ergonomic and post-procedural recovery benefits to the patient, as well as potential reductions in occlusion of the FRA.There are gaps in knowledge, however, regarding potential differences in remodeling of the FRA in patients undergoing dTRA versus fTRA.In this randomized clinical trial, there were no differences in IMT and patterns of vascular injury and healing, using ultrahigh resolution (55 MHz) ultrasound, at 90 days in patients randomized to dTRA or FTRA for elective and non-emergent CAG and PCI. What Are the Clinical Implications: Our findings highlight the need for further inquiry through large multicenter randomized clinical trials to better the understand the mechanistics and predictors of IMT and to identify strategies to mitigate the adverse effects of vessel remodeling in patients undergoing TRA across the entire severity spectrum of cardiovascular disease.

Influence of Race/Ethnicity and Sex on Coronary Stent Outcomes in Diabetic Patients.

Background: How diabetes mellitus (DM), race/ethnicity, and sex impact ischemic events following coronary artery stent procedures is unknown. Methods: Using the PLATINUM Diversity and PROMUS Element Plus Post-Approval Pooled Study (N = 4184), we examined the impact of race/ethnicity, sex, and DM on coronary stent outcomes. Primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (MACE composite: death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization). Results: The study sample included 1437 diabetic patients (501 White men, 470 White women, 246 minority men, 220 minority women) and 2641 patients without medically treated DM (561 minority, 1090 women). Mean age (years) ranged from 61 in minority men to 65 in White women. Diabetic patients had a higher prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors and comorbidities. Diabetic minority women (DMW; 70% Black, 27% Hispanic) had similar atherosclerotic risk factors to other diabetics, but experienced higher 1-year MACE (14.4% vs 7.5%, P <.01) and MI (4.3% vs 1.6%, P <.01) rates compared with patients without medically treated DM. No other diabetic cohort (White men, White women, minority men) showed an increased risk of MACE vs patients without medically treated DM. The incremental risk of MACE in DMW was associated with insulin use and persisted after risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.6 vs patients without medically treated DM; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5). Independent predictors of 1-year MACE included insulin use, hyperlipidemia, renal disease, and prior MI. Conclusions: DMW face the highest risk of ischemic events following coronary stenting, driven, in part, by insulin use. Aggressive secondary prevention and strict glycemic control are imperative in this cohort, and further research is warranted to elucidate the biologic mechanisms underpinning these observations. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02240810 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/).

Sex-Related Differences in Patient Characteristics, Hemodynamics, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock: INOVA-SHOCK Registry.

Background: Little is known about sex-related differences in outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated within a standardized team-based approach (STBA). Methods: We evaluated 520 consecutive patients (151 women and 369 men) with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) in a single-center registry (January 2017-December 2019) and examined outcomes according to sex and CS phenotype. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke. Results: Women with AMI-CS had higher baseline acuity (CardShock score: female [F]: 5.5 vs male [M]: 4.0; P = .04). Women with HF-CS more often presented with cardiac arrest (F: 12.4% vs M: 2.4%; P< .01) and had higher rates of vasopressor use (F: 70.8% vs M: 58.0%; P = .04) and mechanical circulatory support (F: 46.1% vs M: 32.5%; P = .04). There were no sex-related differences in in-hospital mortality for AMI-CS (F: 45.2% vs M: 36.9%; P = .28) and HF-CS (F: 28.1% vs M: 24.5%; P = .56). Women with HF-CS experienced higher rates of major bleeding (F: 25.8% vs M: 13.7%; P = .02) and vascular complications (F: 15.7% vs M: 6.1%; P = .01). However, female sex was not an independent predictor of these complications. No sex differences in survival were noted at 1 year. Conclusions: Within an STBA, although women with AMI-CS and HF-CS presented with higher acuity, they experienced similar in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, stroke, and 30-day readmissions as men. Further research is needed to better understand the extent to which historical differences in CS outcomes can be mitigated by an STBA.

Position Statement on Vascular Access Safety for Percutaneous Devices in AMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice.

A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network. METHODS: The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.

Cardiogenic Shock From Heart Failure Versus Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Characteristics, Hospital Course, and 1-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about clinical characteristics, hospital course, and longitudinal outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) related to heart failure (HF-CS) compared to acute myocardial infarction (AMI; CS related to AMI [AMI-CS]). METHODS: We examined in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of 520 (219 AMI-CS, 301 HF-CS) consecutive patients with CS (January 3, 2017-December 31, 2019) in a single-center registry. RESULTS: Mean age was 61.5±13.5 years, 71% were male, 22% were Black patients, and 63% had chronic kidney disease. The HF-CS cohort was younger (58.5 versus 65.6 years, P<0.001), had fewer cardiac arrests (15.9% versus 35.2%, P<0.001), less vasopressor utilization (61.8% versus 82.2%, P<0.001), higher pulmonary artery pulsatility index (2.14 versus 1.51, P<0.01), lower cardiac power output (0.64 versus 0.77 W, P<0.01) and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (25.4 versus 22.2 mm Hg, P<0.001) than patients with AMI-CS. Patients with HF-CS received less temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.9% versus 76.3% P<0.001) and experienced lower rates of major bleeding (17.3% versus 26.0%, P=0.02) and in-hospital mortality (23.9% versus 39.3%, P<0.001). Postdischarge, 133 AMI-CS and 229 patients with HF-CS experienced similar rates of 30-day readmission (19.5% versus 24.5%, P=0.30) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.3% versus 28.8%, P=0.45). Patients with HF-CS had lower 1-year mortality (n=123, 42.6%) compared to the patients with AMI-CS (n=110, 52.9%, P=0.03). Cumulative 1-year mortality was also lower in patients with HF-CS (log-rank test, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF-CS were younger, and despite lower cardiac power output and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, less likely to receive vasopressors or temporary mechanical circulatory support. Although patients with HF-CS had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality, both cohorts experienced similarly high rates of postdischarge major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and 30-day readmission, highlighting that both cohorts warrant careful long-term follow-up. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03378739.

Rates and impact of vascular complications in mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are increasingly used for hemodynamic support in cardiogenic shock or high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Vascular complications remain a major source of morbidity and mortality despite technological advances with percutaneous techniques. Little is known about the rates and predictors of vascular complications with large-bore access MCS in the contemporary era. METHODS: The study cohort was derived from National Inpatient Sample using data from 2015 to 2019 for cardiac hospitalizations with the use of: intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) Impella, and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The rates of vascular complications and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 221,700 hospitalizations with MCS use, the majority had only IABP (68%). The rates of vascular complications were greatest with ECMO (15.8%) when compared with IABP (3.0%) and Impella (5.6%). Among patients with vascular complications, in-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO (56.3%) when compared with IABP (26.2%) and Impella (33.8%). Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) was the strongest predictor of vascular complications, with 10 times higher odds when present (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.96, p < 0.001). In risk-adjusted models, when compared with IABP, the use of Impella (aOR: 1.73, p < 0.001), ECMO (aOR: 5.35, p < 0.001), or a combination of MCS devices (aOR: 3.47, p < 0.001) was associated with higher odds of vascular complications. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, the use of MCS is associated with significant vascular complications and in-hospital mortality. Predictors of vascular complications include larger arteriotomy size, female gender, and peripheral arterial disease. Vascular access management remains essential to prevent major complications.

The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biologic Understanding, Quality, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock): Rationale and Design.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to advance therapies in cardiogenic shock (CS), outcomes remain poor. This is likely due to several factors, including major gaps in our understanding of the pathophysiology, phenotyping of patients, and challenges with conducting adequately powered clinical studies. An unmet need exists for a comprehensive multicentre "all-comers" prospective registry to facilitate characterising contemporary presentation, treatment (in a device-agnostic fashion), and short- and intermediate-term outcomes and quality of life (QOL) of CS patients. METHODS: The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biological Understanding, Quality and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock) registry is a prospective observational registry that will study unrestricted adult patients with a primary diagnosis of CS at 4 North American centres with multidisciplinary shock programs. Both acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and acute heart failure (HF-CS) etiologies will be included, and the registry will be device agnostic and widely inclusive. The primary end point will be survival at 30 days after hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes will include in-hospital adverse events and survival to 6 and 12 months. Patients will also undergo neurologic and health-related QOL assessments with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey tools before discharge and during follow-up. Serial biospecimens will facilitate biomarker studies. CONCLUSIONS: The VANQUISH Shock registry provides a unique opportunity to study the pathophysiology, contemporary management, clinical course, and outcomes of CS. By capturing detailed and high-quality longitudinal data, the registry will address existing knowledge gaps and serve as a springboard for future mechanistic clinical studies to advance the field.