The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The optimal revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease depends on various factors, such as disease complexity, patient characteristics, and preferences. Including a heart team in complex cases is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes. Decision-making between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting must consider each patient's clinical profile and coronary anatomy. While current practice guidelines offer some insight into the optimal revascularization approach for the various phenotypes of coronary artery disease, the evidence to support either strategy continues to evolve and grow. Given the large amount of contemporary data on revascularization, this review aims to comprehensively summarize the literature on coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients across the spectrum of coronary artery disease phenotypes. RECENT FINDINGS: Contemporary evidence suggests that for patients with triple vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention due to better long-term outcomes, including lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Similarly, for patients with left main coronary artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered, as they have shown similar efficacy in terms of major adverse cardiac events, but there may be a slightly higher risk of death with percutaneous coronary intervention. For proximal left anterior descending artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are viable options, but coronary artery bypass grafting has shown lower rates of repeat revascularization and better relief from angina. The Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score can help in decision-making by predicting the risk of adverse events and guiding the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. European and American guidelines both agree with including a heart team that can develop and lay out individualized, optimal treatment options with respect for patient preferences. The debate between coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in multiple different scenarios will continue to develop as technology and techniques improve for both procedures. Risk factors, pre, peri, and post-procedural complications involved in both revascularization strategies will continue to be mitigated to optimize outcomes for those patients for which coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention provide ultimate benefit. Methods to avoid unnecessary revascularization continue to develop as well as percutaneous technology that may allow patients to avoid surgical intervention when possible. With such changes, revascularization guidelines for specific patient populations may change in the coming years, which can serve as a limitation of this time-dated review.

Procedural Outcomes With Femoral, Radial, Distal Radial, and Ulnar Access for Coronary Angiography: A Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radial artery access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces the risk of death, bleeding, and vascular complications and is preferred over femoral artery access, leading to a class 1 indication by clinical practice guidelines. However, alternate upper extremity access such as distal radial and ulnar access are not mentioned in the guidelines despite randomized trials. We aimed to evaluate procedural outcomes with femoral, radial, distal radial, and ulnar access sites in patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared at least 2 of the 4 access sites in patients undergoing PCI or angiography. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and access site hematoma. Intention-to-treat mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: From 47 randomized clinical trials that randomized 38 924 patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI, when compared with femoral access, there was a lower risk of major bleeding with radial access (odds ratio [OR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.35-0.59]) and lower risk of access site hematoma with radial (OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.24-0.48]), distal radial (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.20-0.56]), and ulnar (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.31-0.83]) access. However, when compared with radial access, there was higher risk of hematoma with ulnar access (OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]). CONCLUSIONS: Data from randomized trials support guideline recommendation of class 1 for the preference of radial access over femoral access in patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI. Moreover, distal radial and ulnar access can be considered as a default secondary access site before considering femoral access. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42024512365.

Underrepresentation of Women in Revascularization Trials.

This Viewpoint discusses the unequal representation of women in coronary revascularization trials in the US, its negative effects on the cardiovascular health of both sexes, and potential mechanisms to ensure appropriate representation of women moving forward.

Temporal Trends in Cardiovascular Disease Prevalence Among Asian American Subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Asian and multiracial individuals represent the 2 fastest growing racial and ethnic groups in the United States, yet most prior studies report Asian American and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander as a single racial group, with limited data on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence among subgroups. We sought to evaluate temporal trends in CVD burden among disaggregated Asian subgroups. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with CVD based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision (ICD-9 and ICD-10) coding who received care from a mixed-payer health care organization in California between 2008 and 2018 were classified into self-identified racial and ethnic subgroups (non-Hispanic White [NHW], Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial groups). Adjusted trends in CVD prevalence over time by subgroup were compared using logistic regression. Among 3 494 071 patient-years, prevalence of CVD increased faster among all subgroups except Japanese and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients (P<0.01 for each, reference: NHW). Filipino patients had the highest overall CVD prevalence, which increased from 34.3% to 45.1% over 11 years (increase from 17.3%-21.9%, P<0.0001, reference: NHW). Asian Indian patients had the fastest increase in CVD prevalence over time (16.9%-23.7%, P<0.0001, reference: NHW). Among subcategories of disease, hypertension increased faster among Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and multiracial groups (P<0.01 for all, reference: NHW), and coronary artery disease increased faster among Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, and Japanese groups (P<0.05 for each, reference: NHW). CONCLUSIONS: The increasing prevalence of CVD among disaggregated Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial subgroups over time highlights the importance of tailored approaches to addressing CVD in these diverse subpopulations.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Aortic Valve Replacement Among Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States, 2012-2019.

PURPOSE: There are concerns that transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) procedures are preferentially available to White patients. Our objective was to examine differences in utilization of aortic valve replacement and outcomes by race/ethnicity in the US for patients with aortic stenosis. METHODS: We performed a serial cross-sectional cohort study of 299,976 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with principal diagnosis of aortic stenosis between 2012 and 2019 stratified by self-reported race/ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and White). Outcomes included aortic valve replacement rates within 6 months of index hospitalization and associated procedural outcomes, including 30-day readmission, 30-day and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Within 6 months of an index admission for aortic stenosis, 86.8% (122,457 SAVR; 138,026 TAVR) patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Overall, compared with White people, Black (HR 0.87 [0.85-0.89]), Hispanic (0.92 [0.88-0.96]), and Asian (0.95 [0.91-0.99]) people were less likely to receive aortic valve replacement. Among patients who were admitted emergently/urgently, White patients (41.1%, 95% CI, 40.7-41.4) had a significantly higher aortic valve replacement rate compared with Black (29.6%, 95% CI, 28.3-30.9), Hispanic (36.6%, 95% CI, 34.0-39.3), and Asian patients (35.4%, 95% CI, 32.3-38.9). Aortic valve replacement rates increased annually for all race/ethnicities. There were no significant differences in 30-day or 1-year mortality by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve replacement rates within 6 months of aortic stenosis admission are lower for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people compared to White people. These race-related differences in aortic stenosis treatment reflect complex issues in diagnosis and management, warranting a comprehensive reassessment of the entire care spectrum for disadvantaged populations.

Myocardial Infarction Across COVID-19 Pandemic Phases: Insights From the Veterans Health Affairs System.

Background Cardiovascular procedural treatments were deferred at scale during the COVID-19 pandemic, with unclear impact on patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Methods and Results In a retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with NSTEMI in the US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System from January 1, 2019 to October 30, 2022 (n=67 125), procedural treatments and outcomes were compared between the prepandemic period and 6 unique pandemic phases: (1) acute phase, (2) community spread, (3) first peak, (4) post vaccine, (5) second peak, and (6) recovery. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the association between pandemic phases and 30-day mortality. NSTEMI volumes dropped significantly with the pandemic onset (62.7% of prepandemic peak) and did not revert to prepandemic levels in subsequent phases, even after vaccine availability. Percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting volumes declined proportionally. Compared with the prepandemic period, patients with NSTEMI experienced higher 30-day mortality during Phases 2 and 3, even after adjustment for COVID-19-positive status, demographics, baseline comorbidities, and receipt of procedural treatment (adjusted odds ratio for Phases 2 and 3 combined, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.13-1.43], P<0.01). Patients receiving Veterans Affairs-paid community care had a higher adjusted risk of 30-day mortality compared with those at Veterans Affairs hospitals across all 6 pandemic phases. Conclusions Higher mortality after NSTEMI occurred during the initial spread and first peak of the pandemic but resolved before the second, higher peak-suggesting effective adaptation of care delivery but a costly delay to implementation. Investigation into the vulnerabilities of the early pandemic spread are vital to informing future resource-constrained practices.

Considerations on the Management of Acute Postoperative Ischemia After Cardiac Surgery: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Acute postoperative myocardial ischemia (PMI) after cardiac surgery is an infrequent event that can evolve rapidly and become a potentially life-threatening complication. Multiple factors are associated with acute PMI after cardiac surgery and may vary by the type of surgical procedure performed. Although the criteria defining nonprocedural myocardial ischemia are well established, there are no universally accepted criteria for the diagnosis of acute PMI. In addition, current evidence on the management of acute PMI after cardiac surgery is sparse and generally of low methodological quality. Once acute PMI is suspected, prompt diagnosis and treatment are imperative, and options range from conservative strategies to percutaneous coronary intervention and redo coronary artery bypass grafting. In this document, a multidisciplinary group including experts in cardiac surgery, cardiology, anesthesiology, and postoperative care summarizes the existing evidence on diagnosis and treatment of acute PMI and provides clinical guidance.

Assessing and Addressing Social Determinants of Cardiovascular Health: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Social determinants of health (SDOH) are the social conditions in which people are born, live, and work. SDOH offers a more inclusive view of how environment, geographic location, neighborhoods, access to health care, nutrition, socioeconomics, and so on are critical in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. SDOH will continue to increase in relevance and integration of patient management, thus, applying the information herein to clinical and health systems will become increasingly commonplace. This state-of-the-art review covers the 5 domains of SDOH, including economic stability, education, health care access and quality, social and community context, and neighborhood and built environment. Recognizing and addressing SDOH is an important step toward achieving equity in cardiovascular care. We discuss each SDOH within the context of cardiovascular disease, how they can be assessed by clinicians and within health care systems, and key strategies for clinicians and health care systems to address these SDOH. Summaries of these tools and key strategies are provided.

Intravascular Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Severely Calcified Coronary Artery Disease: A DISRUPT CAD III Intravascular Ultrasound Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has emerged as a novel technique for the treatment of severely calcified coronary lesions. We evaluated the mechanism and efficacy of IVL in facilitating optimal stent implantation in heavily calcified coronary lesions using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS: Forty-six patients were initially enrolled as a part of the Disrupt CAD III study. Of these, 33 had pre-IVL, 24 had post-IVL, and 44 had post-stent IVUS evaluation. The final analysis was performed on 18 patients who had IVUS images interpretable at all three intervals. The primary endpoint was increase in minimum lumen area (MLA) from pre-IVL to post-IVL treatment to post-stenting. RESULTS: Pre-IVL, MLA was 2.75 ± 0.84 mm2, percent area stenosis was 67.22 % ± 20.95 % with maximum calcium angle of 266.90° ± 78.30°, confirming severely calcified lesions. After IVL, MLA increased to 4.06 ± 1.41 mm2 (p = 0.0003), percent area stenosis decreased to 54.80 % ± 25.71 % (p = 0.0009), and maximum calcium angle decreased to 239.40° ± 76.73° (p = 0.003). There was a further increase in MLA to 6.84 ± 2.18 mm2 (p < 0.0001) and decrease in percent area stenosis to 30.33 % ± 35.08 % (p < 0.0001) post-stenting with minimum stent area of 6.99 ± 2.14 mm2. The success rate of stent delivery, implantation, and post-stent dilation was 100 % post-IVL. CONCLUSION: In this first study evaluating the mechanism of IVL using IVUS, the primary endpoint of increase in MLA from pre-IVL to post-IVL treatment to post-stenting was successfully achieved. Our study showed that the use of IVL-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved vessel compliance, facilitating optimal stent implantation in de novo severely calcified lesions.

Temporal trends in transcatheter aortic valve replacement use and outcomes by race, ethnicity, and sex.

OBJECTIVES: To identify trends in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use and outcomes by race (non-Hispanic White, Black), ethnicity (Hispanic), and sex over time. BACKGROUND: Despite rapid growth in TAVR use over time, our understanding of its use and outcomes among males and females of underrepresented racial/ethnic groups remains limited. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of hospitalizations from 2013 to 2017 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database was performed. RESULTS: White patients comprised 65% (n = 2.16 × 107 ) of all hospitalizations, yet they comprised 83% (n = 176,887) of the admissions for aortic stenosis (p < 0.0001). Among 91,693 hospitalizations for aortic valve replacement, 64,069 were surgical (34.0% female, 7.0% Hispanic, and 5.9% Black) and 27,624 were transcatheter (46.6% female, 4.5% Hispanic, and 4.4% Black). Growth in TAVR volumes was the slowest among minorities and females. Hispanic males, Hispanic females, and White females had the highest in-hospital mortality (2.7%-3.3%; compared to White males, adjusted odds ratio: Hispanic males 1.9 [1.2-3.0], Hispanic females 1.9 [1.2-3.1], and White females 1.4 [1.2-1.7]). Despite less baseline vascular disease, females of all races/ethnicities had more vascular complications than men (female 5% vs. male 3.5%, p ≤ 0.001). Further adjustment for vascular complications only partially attenuated mortality differences. Black and Hispanic patients had a longer mean length of hospital stay than White patients, which was most pronounced among females. Pacemaker requirements were consistently low among all groups. CONCLUSION: Differences in TAVR growth and outcomes by race, ethnicity, and sex over time highlight areas for focused efforts to close gaps in minimally invasive structural heart disease care.

Sex-Specific Considerations in the Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management of Ischemic Heart Disease: JACC Focus Seminar 2/7.

There are sex-related differences in the epidemiology, presentation, diagnostic testing, and management of ischemic heart disease in women compared with men. The adjusted morbidity and mortality are persistently higher, particularly in younger women and Blacks. Women have more angina but less obstructive coronary artery disease, which affects delays in presentation and diagnosis and testing accuracy. The nonbiological factors play a significant role in access to care, ischemic heart disease management, and guideline adherence. Future research focus includes sex-specific outcomes, characterization of the biological differences, and implementation science around quality of clinical care.