Paclitaxel-coated devices in the treatment of femoropopliteal stenosis among patients ≥65 years old: An ACC PVI Registry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The connection between paclitaxel-coated devices (PCD) use during peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) and mortality is debated. We aimed to analyze patterns of PCD use and the safety and effectiveness of PCD use in the superficial femoral and/or popliteal arteries. METHODS: Patients undergoing PVI of femoropopliteal lesions with and without PCD between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2017 were compared using the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry PVI Registry. Outcomes were derived from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid claims data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 6-, 12-, and 24-months following PVI. Inverse probability weighting and frailty models were used to assess the differences between groups. The analysis was IRB-approved. RESULTS: In the overall cohort consisting of 6,302 femoropopliteal PVIs, PCD-PVI patients were more likely to be treated for claudication (63.5% vs 51.3%, P< .001), less likely to have a chronic total occlusion (24.6% vs 34.7%, P < .001), and more likely to be treated in certain geographic and practice settings. In the analytic cohort consisting of 1,666 femoropopliteal PVIs with linked claims outcomes (888 PCD-PVI, 53.3%), unadjusted rates of all outcomes were lower in PCD-PVI patients. After adjustment, there were no significant differences in mortality following PCD-PVI versus non-PCD PVI at 1 year (adjusted RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60-1.01, P= .055) or 2 years (aRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.24, P= .844). CONCLUSION: There were significant differences between the patients in whom and settings in which PCD-PVI was versus was not used. PCD-PVI was not associated with an increased risk of 2-year mortality in real-world use.

Development and validation of a predictive model for bleeding after peripheral vascular intervention: A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Peripheral Vascular Interventions Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a model to predict risk of in-hospital bleeding following endovascular peripheral vascular intervention. BACKGROUND: Peri-procedural bleeding is a common, potentially preventable complication of catheter-based peripheral vascular procedures and is associated with increased mortality. We used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Peripheral Vascular Interventions (PVI) Registry to develop a novel risk-prediction model to identify patients who may derive the greatest benefit from application of strategies to prevent bleeding. METHODS: We examined all patients undergoing lower extremity PVI at 76 NCDR PVI hospitals from 2014 to 2017. Patients with acute limb ischemia (n = 1600) were excluded. Major bleeding was defined as overt bleeding with a hemoglobin (Hb) drop of ≥ 3 g/dl, any Hb decline of ≥ 4 g/dl, or a blood transfusion in patients with pre-procedure Hb ≥ 8 g/dl. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a risk model to predict major bleeding. Model validation was performed using 1000 bootstrapped replicates of the population after sampling with replacement. RESULTS: Among 25,382 eligible patients, 1017 (4.0%) developed major bleeding. Predictors of bleeding included age, female sex, critical limb ischemia, non-femoral access, prior heart failure, and pre-procedure hemoglobin. The model demonstrated good discrimination (optimism corrected c-statistic = 0.67), calibration (corrected slope = 0.98, intercept of -0.04) and range of predicted risk (1%-18%). CONCLUSIONS: Post-procedural PVI bleeding risk can be predicted based upon pre- and peri-procedural patient characteristics. Further studies are needed to determine whether this model can be utilized to improve procedural safety through developing and targeting bleeding avoidance strategies.

Expanding opportunities to understand quality and outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions: The ACC NCDR PVI Registry.

Lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) are prevalent conditions in the United States, and both are associated with significant morbidity (eg, stroke, myocardial infarction, and limb loss) and increased mortality. With a growth in invasive procedures for PAD and CeVD, this demands a more clear responsibility and introduces an opportunity to study how patients are treated and evaluate associated outcomes. The American College of Cardiology (ACC) National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Peripheral Vascular Intervention (PVI) Registry is a prospective, independent collection of data elements from individual patients at participating centers, and it is a natural extension of the already robust NCDR infrastructure. As of September 20, 2018, data have been collected on 45,316 lower extremity PVIs, 12,417 carotid artery stenting procedures, and 11,027 carotid endarterectomy procedures at 208 centers in the United States. The purpose of the present report is to describe the patient and procedural characteristics of the overall cohort and the methods used to design and implement the registry. In collecting these data, ACC and ACC PVI Registry have the opportunity to play a pivotal role in scientific evidence generation, medical device surveillance, and creation of best practices for PVI and carotid artery revascularization.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID): Registry assessment of peripheral interventional devices core data elements.

OBJECTIVE: The current state of evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease and more specifically of evaluating medical devices used for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of the disease process, the multiple physician specialties that perform PVI, the multitude of devices available to treat peripheral artery disease, and the lack of consensus about the best treatment approaches. Because PVI core data elements are not standardized across clinical care, clinical trials, and registries, aggregation of data across different data sources and physician specialties is currently not feasible. METHODS: Under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Medical Device Epidemiology Network initiative-and its PASSION (Predictable and Sustainable Implementation of the National Registries) program, in conjunction with other efforts to align clinical data standards-the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) workgroup was convened. RAPID is a collaborative, multidisciplinary effort to develop a consensus lexicon and to promote interoperability across clinical care, clinical trials, and national and international registries of PVI. RESULTS: The current manuscript presents the initial work from RAPID to standardize clinical data elements and definitions, to establish a framework within electronic health records and health information technology procedural reporting systems, and to implement an informatics-based approach to promote the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials and registry efforts in PVI. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, we hope this work will facilitate and improve device evaluation and surveillance for patients, clinicians, health outcomes researchers, industry, policymakers, and regulators.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging-Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 2: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection.

The stimulus to create this document was the recognition that ionizing radiation-guided cardiovascular procedures are being performed with increasing frequency, leading to greater patient radiation exposure and, potentially, to greater exposure to clinical personnel. While the clinical benefit of these procedures is substantial, there is concern about the implications of medical radiation exposure. ACC leadership concluded that it is important to provide practitioners with an educational resource that assembles and interprets the current radiation knowledge base relevant to cardiovascular procedures. By applying this knowledge base, cardiovascular practitioners will be able to select procedures optimally, and minimize radiation exposure to patients and to clinical personnel. "Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging - Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness" is a comprehensive overview of ionizing radiation use in cardiovascular procedures and is published online. To provide the most value to our members, we divided the print version of this document into 2 focused parts. "Part I: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology" addresses radiation physics, dosimetry and detrimental biologic effects. "Part II: Radiologic Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection" covers the basics of operation and radiation delivery for the 3 cardiovascular imaging modalities (x-ray fluoroscopy, x-ray computed tomography, and nuclear scintigraphy). For each modality, it includes the determinants of radiation exposure and techniques to minimize exposure to both patients and to medical personnel.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging-Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 1: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways Developed in Collaboration With Mended Hearts.

The stimulus to create this document was the recognition that ionizing radiation-guided cardiovascular procedures are being performed with increasing frequency, leading to greater patient radiation exposure and, potentially, to greater exposure for clinical personnel. Although the clinical benefit of these procedures is substantial, there is concern about the implications of medical radiation exposure. The American College of Cardiology leadership concluded that it is important to provide practitioners with an educational resource that assembles and interprets the current radiation knowledge base relevant to cardiovascular procedures. By applying this knowledge base, cardiovascular practitioners will be able to select procedures optimally, and minimize radiation exposure to patients and to clinical personnel. Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging: Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness is a comprehensive overview of ionizing radiation use in cardiovascular procedures and is published online. To provide the most value to our members, we divided the print version of this document into 2 focused parts. Part I: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology addresses the issue of medical radiation exposure, the basics of radiation physics and dosimetry, and the basics of radiation biology and radiation-induced adverse effects. Part II: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection covers the basics of operation and radiation delivery for the 3 cardiovascular imaging modalities (x-ray fluoroscopy, x-ray computed tomography, and nuclear scintigraphy) and will be published in the next issue of the Journal.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID)　- Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices Core Data Elements.

BACKGROUND: The current state of evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease and more specifically of evaluating medical devices used for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of the disease process, the multiple physician specialties that perform PVI, the multitude of devices available to treat peripheral artery disease, and the lack of consensus about the best treatment approaches. Because PVI core data elements are not standardized across clinical care, clinical trials, and registries, aggregation of data across different data sources and physician specialties is currently not feasible.Methods and Results:Under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Medical Device Epidemiology Network initiative-and its PASSION (Predictable and Sustainable Implementation of the National Registries) program, in conjunction with other efforts to align clinical data standards-the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) workgroup was convened. RAPID is a collaborative, multidisciplinary effort to develop a consensus lexicon and to promote interoperability across clinical care, clinical trials, and national and international registries of PVI. The current manuscript presents the initial work from RAPID to standardize clinical data elements and definitions, to establish a framework within electronic health records and health information technology procedural reporting systems, and to implement an informatics-based approach to promote the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials and registry efforts in PVI. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, we hope this work will facilitate and improve device evaluation and surveillance for patients, clinicians, health outcomes researchers, industry, policymakers, and regulators.

Depression and long-term prognostic outcomes following peripheral endovascular interventions in the VA Healthcare System.

The association between depression and peripheral artery disease (PAD) outcomes remains widely understudied. In patients with PAD undergoing a peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) who have a recent diagnosis of depression, it is unknown what their long-term outcomes are and what factors may mediate an adverse risk. We therefore studied 797 consecutive patients undergoing PVI across 33 Veterans Affairs (VA) centers. Depression and outcomes were documented from patients' medical records. Outcomes included: (1) all-cause death; (2) non-fatal cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke); and (3) PAD-related events (including repeat PVI or amputation). Cox proportional hazards frailty models were constructed, adjusting for age. Additional covariates were selected if they resulted in at least 5% change in the age-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for depression on outcomes. Overall, 265 (33%) patients had a diagnosis of depression. After a median follow-up of 955 days (range 1-6.25 years), 52 (6.5%) patients died, 30 (3.8%) experienced non-fatal cardiovascular events, and 176 (22.1%) had PAD-related events. Compared to patients without depression, depressed patients had higher rates of non-fatal cardiovascular events (6.4% vs 2.4%, p-value 0.0055). No differences for the other outcomes were noted. Higher risk for non-fatal cardiovascular events persisted after adjustment for age (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.05-2.47). The only additional covariate that met our selection criteria was hypertension. After adjusting for hypertension, the association between depression and non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes attenuated (HR 1.53, 95% CI 0.99-2.35). In conclusion, a diagnosis of depression in veterans undergoing PVI was associated with increased risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events, mediated by age and hypertension.

The Contemporary Safety and Effectiveness of Lower Extremity Bypass Surgery and Peripheral Endovascular Interventions in the Treatment of Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for symptomatic peripheral artery disease includes lower extremity bypass surgery (LEB) and peripheral endovascular interventions (PVIs); however, limited comparative effectiveness data exist between the 2 therapies. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of LEB and PVI in patients with symptomatic claudication and critical limb ischemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a community-based clinical registry at 2 large integrated healthcare delivery systems, we compared 883 patients undergoing PVI and 975 patients undergoing LEB between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2011. Rates of target lesion revascularization were greater for PVI than for LEB in patients presenting with claudication (12.3±2.7% and 19.0±3.5% at 1 and 3 years versus 5.2±2.4% and 8.3±3.1%, log-rank P<0.001) and critical limb ischemia (19.1±4.8% and 31.6±6.3% at 1 and 3 years versus 10.8±2.5% and 16.0±3.2%, log-rank P<0.001). However, in comparison with PVI, LEB was associated with increased rates of complications up to 30 days following the procedure (37.1% versus 11.9%, P<0.001). There were no differences in amputation rates between the 2 groups. Findings remained consistent in sensitivity analyses by using propensity methods to account for treatment selection. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease, in comparison with LEB, PVI was associated with fewer 30-day procedural complications, higher revascularization rates at 1 and 3 years, and no difference in subsequent amputations.

Predicting in-hospital mortality in acute type B aortic dissection: evidence from International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of patients with acute type B aortic dissection (ABAD) is strongly related to their clinical presentation. The purpose of this study was to investigate predictors for mortality among patients presenting with ABAD and to create a predictive model to estimate individual risk of in-hospital mortality using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients with ABAD enrolled in IRAD between 1996 and 2013 were included for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to investigate predictors of in-hospital mortality. Significant risk factors for in-hospital death were used to develop a prediction model. A total of 1034 patients with ABAD were included for analysis (673 men; mean age, 63.5±14.0 years), with an overall in-hospital mortality of 10.6%. In multivariable analysis, the following variables at admission were independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality: increasing age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.06; P=0.044), hypotension/shock (OR, 6.43; 95% CI, 2.88-18.98; P=0.001), periaortic hematoma (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.38-6.78; P=0.006), descending diameter ≥5.5 cm (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.87-12.73; P<0.001), mesenteric ischemia (OR, 9.03; 95% CI, 3.49-23.38; P<0.001), acute renal failure (OR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.68-7.75; P=0.001), and limb ischemia (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.05-8.68; P=0.040). Based on these multivariable results, a reliable and simple bedside risk prediction tool was developed. CONCLUSIONS: We present a simple prediction model using variables that are independently associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with ABAD. Although it needs to be validated in an independent population, this model could be used to assist physicians in their choice of management and for informing patients and their families.

Patient access and 1-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention facilities with and without on-site cardiothoracic surgery: insights from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) program.

BACKGROUND: The safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at medical facilities without on-site cardiothoracic (CT) surgery has been established in clinical trials. However, the comparative effectiveness of this strategy in real-world practice, including impact on patient access and outcomes, is uncertain. The Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system has used this strategy, with strict quality oversight, since 2005, and can provide insight into this question. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 24,387 patients receiving PCI at VA facilities between October 2007 and September 2010, 6616 (27.1%) patients underwent PCI at facilities (n=18) without on-site CT surgery. Patient drive time (as a proxy for access), procedural complications, 1-year mortality, myocardial infarction, and rates of subsequent revascularization procedures were compared by facility. Results were stratified by procedural indication (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction versus non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina versus elective) and PCI volume. With the inclusion of PCI facilities without on-site CT surgery, median drive time for patients treated at those facilities decreased by 90.8 minutes (P<0.001). Procedural need for emergent coronary artery bypass graft and mortality rates were low and similar between facilities. Adjusted 1-year mortality and myocardial infarction rates were similar between facilities (hazard ratio in PCI facilities without relative to those with on-site CT surgery, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.2), and not modified by either PCI indication or PCI volume. Subsequent revascularization rates were higher at sites without on-site CT surgery facilities (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that providing PCI facilities without on-site CT surgery in an integrated health care system with quality oversight improves patient access without compromising procedural or 1-year outcomes.

Anatomic runoff score predicts cardiovascular outcomes in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease undergoing revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Although the presence, extent, and severity of obstruction in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (LE PAD) affect their functional status, quality of life, and treatment, it is not known if these factors are associated with future cardiovascular events. We empirically created an anatomic runoff score (ARS) to approximate the burden of LE PAD and determined its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We evaluated all patients with LE PAD and bilateral angiography undergoing revascularization in a community-based clinical study. Primary clinical outcomes of interest were (1) a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke and (2) amputation-free survival. Cox proportional hazards models were created to identify predictors of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We evaluated 908 patients undergoing angiography, and a total of 260 (28.0%) patients reached the composite end point (45 MI, 63 stroke, and 152 death) during the study period. Anatomic runoff score ranged from 0 to 15 (mean 4.7; SD 2.5) with higher scores indicating a higher burden of disease, and an optimal cutpoint analysis classified patients into low ARS (<5) and high ARS (≥5). The unadjusted rates of the primary composite end point and amputation-free survival were nearly 2-fold higher in patients with a high ARS when compared with patients with a low ARS. The most significant predictors of the composite end point (death/MI/stroke) were age (δ 10 years; hazard ratio [HR] 1.53; CI 1.32-1.78; P < .001), diabetes mellitus (HR 1.65; CI 1.26-2.18; P < .001), glomerular filtration rate <30 (HR 2.23; CI 1.44-3.44; P < .001), statin use (HR 0.66; CI 0.48-0.88; P < .001), and ARS (δ 2 points; HR 1.21; CI 1.08-1.35; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for clinical factors, the LE PAD ARS was an independent predictor of future cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a broadly representative patient population undergoing revascularization for symptomatic PAD. A clinically useful anatomic scoring system, if validated, may assist clinicians in risk stratification during the course of clinical decision making.

Clopidogrel prescription filling delays and cardiovascular outcomes in a pharmacy system integrating inpatient and outpatient care: insights from the Veterans Affairs CART Program.

BACKGROUND: Delays in filling clopidogrel prescriptions after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been demonstrated previously and associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,418 patients undergoing PCI with stent placement in Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2010. Data were obtained from the national VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program, including post-PCI clopidogrel prescription fill date and outcomes of myocardial infarction and death within 90 days of discharge. Patients who did not fill a clopidogrel prescription on the day of discharge were considered to have a delay. Multivariable models assessed the association between clopidogrel delay and myocardial infarction/death using clopidogrel delay as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: Of the patients, 7.2% had a delay in filling their clopidogrel prescription. Delay in filling clopidogrel was associated with increased risk of major adverse events (hazard ratio 2.34, 95% CI 1.66-3.29, P < .001). The percentage of patients who delayed filling varied by hospital, ranging from 0 to 43.5% with a median of 6.2% (P < .001, χ(2) for difference across hospitals) and a median odds ratio of 2.13 (95% CI 1.85-2.68) suggesting large site variation in clopidogrel delay across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: In a health care system with integrated inpatient and outpatient pharmacy services, 1 in 14 patients delays filling a clopidogrel prescription. The large site variation suggests a need to identify best practices that allow hospitals to optimize prescription filling at discharge to potentially improve patient outcomes.

Estimating the effects of time-varying exposures in observational studies using Cox models with stabilized weights adjustment.

PURPOSE: Assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical products with observational electronic medical record data is challenging when the treatment is time-varying. The objective of this paper is to develop a Cox model stratified by event times with stabilized weights (SWs) adjustment to examine the effect of time-varying treatment in observational studies. METHODS: Time-varying SWs are calculated at unique event times and are used in a Cox model stratified by event times to estimate the effect of time-varying treatment. We applied this method in examining the effect of an antiplatelet agent, clopidogrel, on events, including bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death after a drug-eluting stent was implanted in coronary artery. Clopidogrel use may change over time on the basis of patients' behavior (e.g., non-adherence) and physicians' recommendations (e.g., end of duration of therapy). We also compared the results with those from a Cox model for counting processes adjusting for all covariates used in creating SWs. RESULTS: We demonstrate that the (i) results from the stratified Cox model without SWs adjustment and the Cox model for counting processes without covariate adjustment are identical in analyzing the clopidogrel data; and (ii) the effects of clopidogrel on bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death are larger in the stratified Cox model with SWs adjustment compared with those from the Cox model for counting processes with covariate adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The Cox model stratified by event times with time-varying SWs adjustment is useful in estimating the effect of time-varying treatments in observational studies while balancing for known confounders.

Nonobstructive coronary artery disease and risk of myocardial infarction.

IMPORTANCE: Little is known about cardiac adverse events among patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). OBJECTIVE: To compare myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality rates between patients with nonobstructive CAD, obstructive CAD, and no apparent CAD in a national cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of all US veterans undergoing elective coronary angiography for CAD between October 2007 and September 2012 in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Patients with prior CAD events were excluded. EXPOSURES: Angiographic CAD extent, defined by degree (no apparent CAD: no stenosis >20%; nonobstructive CAD: ≥1 stenosis ≥20% but no stenosis ≥70%; obstructive CAD: any stenosis ≥70% or left main [LM] stenosis ≥50%) and distribution (1, 2, or 3 vessel). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 1-year hospitalization for nonfatal MI after the index angiography. Secondary outcomes included 1-year all-cause mortality and combined 1-year MI and mortality. RESULTS: Among 37,674 patients, 8384 patients (22.3%) had nonobstructive CAD and 20,899 patients (55.4%) had obstructive CAD. Within 1 year, 845 patients died and 385 were rehospitalized for MI. Among patients with no apparent CAD, the 1-year MI rate was 0.11% (n = 8, 95% CI, 0.10%-0.20%) and increased progressively by 1-vessel nonobstructive CAD, 0.24% (n = 10, 95% CI, 0.10%-0.40%); 2-vessel nonobstructive CAD, 0.56% (n = 13, 95% CI, 0.30%-1.00%); 3-vessel nonobstructive CAD, 0.59% (n = 6, 95% CI, 0.30%-1.30%); 1-vessel obstructive CAD, 1.18% (n = 101, 95% CI, 1.00%-1.40%); 2-vessel obstructive CAD, 2.18% (n = 110, 95% CI, 1.80%-2.60%); and 3-vessel or LM obstructive CAD, 2.47% (n = 137, 95% CI, 2.10%-2.90%). After adjustment, 1-year MI rates increased with increasing CAD extent. Relative to patients with no apparent CAD, patients with 1-vessel nonobstructive CAD had a hazard ratio (HR) for 1-year MI of 2.0 (95% CI, 0.8-5.1); 2-vessel nonobstructive HR, 4.6 (95% CI, 2.0-10.5); 3-vessel nonobstructive HR, 4.5 (95% CI, 1.6-12.5); 1-vessel obstructive HR, 9.0 (95% CI, 4.2-19.0); 2-vessel obstructive HR, 16.5 (95% CI, 8.1-33.7); and 3-vessel or LM obstructive HR, 19.5 (95% CI, 9.9-38.2). One-year mortality rates were associated with increasing CAD extent, ranging from 1.38% among patients without apparent CAD to 4.30% with 3-vessel or LM obstructive CAD. After risk adjustment, there was no significant association between 1- or 2-vessel nonobstructive CAD and mortality, but there were significant associations with mortality for 3-vessel nonobstructive CAD (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), 1-vessel obstructive CAD (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6), 2-vessel obstructive CAD (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.7), and 3-vessel or LM obstructive CAD (HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.6-4.4). Similar associations were noted with the combined outcome. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort of patients undergoing elective coronary angiography, nonobstructive CAD, compared with no apparent CAD, was associated with a significantly greater 1-year risk of MI and all-cause mortality. These findings suggest clinical importance of nonobstructive CAD and warrant further investigation of interventions to improve outcomes among these patients.

TransRadial Education and Therapeutics (TREAT): shifting the balance of safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an integral part of the treatment of coronary artery disease. The most common complication of PCI, bleeding, typically occurs at the vascular access site and is associated with short-term and long-term morbidity and mortality. Periprocedural bleeding also represents the primary safety concern of concomitant antithrombotic therapies essential for PCI success. Use of radial access for PCI reduces procedural bleeding and hence may change the risk profile and net clinical benefit of these drugs. This new drug-device safety interaction creates opportunities to advance the safe and effective use of antithrombotic agents during PCI. In June 2010 and March 2011, leaders from government, academia, professional societies, device manufacturing, and pharmaceutical industries convened for 2 think tank meetings. Titled TREAT I and II, these forums examined approaches to improve the overall safety of PCI by optimizing strategies for antithrombotic drug use and radial artery access. This article summarizes the content and proceedings of these sessions.

Feasibility of proactive medical device surveillance: the VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking (CART) program.

BACKGROUND: Timely identification and reporting of medical device problems is critical to postmarket device surveillance programs to maximize patient safety. Cardiac catheterization laboratories are high-device utilization areas well suited for device surveillance. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility of the national VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) system, embedded in the electronic health record of all 76 VA cardiac catheterization laboratories, to document unexpected problems with medical devices at the point of care. METHODS: We evaluated 260,258 consecutive cardiac catheterization and/or percutaneous coronary intervention procedures on 175,098 Veterans between August 2006 and February 2012. Unexpected device problems (UDPs) encountered for any equipment used during a procedure were entered by clinicians at the point of care as part of regular care documentation. All UDPs were reviewed in collaboration with the FDA to ascertain the likelihood of a device defect (eg, in manufacture or design) and/or contributing to a procedural complication (level I, unlikely; level II, possibly; level III, likely). RESULTS: Of the 260,258 procedure reports, 974 (0.37%) UDP's were reported by 71 (92.2%) of the 76 VA hospitals. After triage, 739 (75.9%) were deemed level I, 196 (20.1%) level II, and 39 (4.0%) level III. Of the 39 level III reports, 12 (30.7%) are in the submission phase as a FDA MedWatch report. The number of monthly UDP reports increased significantly from 2006 to 2012 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging a clinical application embedded in the electronic health record and in collaboration with FDA, a proactive national cardiac device surveillance program has been successfully implemented in the VA.

Acute and medium-term outcomes of endovascular therapy of obstructive disease of diverse etiology of the common femoral artery.

BACKGROUND: Common femoral endarterectomy is regarded as the standard revascularization strategy for the treatment of common femoral artery (CFA) disease. The availability of a variety of endovascular tools has resulted in an increased number of patients with CFA disease being treated using an endovascular strategy. We sought to evaluate clinical outcomes in a contemporary series of patients who were treated for CFA disease using an endovascular-first approach. METHODS: All patients with obstructive CFA disease who were treated using endovascular therapy were retrospectively identified from a peripheral interventional database. Baseline patient characteristics, anatomic details, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves for mortality, amputation-free survival, and primary and secondary patency were generated. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2011, a total of 30 patients underwent 31 CFA procedures. The primary etiologies of CFA obstruction were atherosclerosis (58%), access-site-related complication (32%), and thromboembolism (10%). Patients presented with severe claudication (60%), critical limb ischemia (13%), or acute limb ischemia (27%). The procedure was technically successful in 90% of cases with major complications in two (7%) patients. There was no procedure-related mortality. The KM estimate of survival and amputation-free survival at 1 year was 96% (± 4%) and 96% (± 4%), respectively. In those patients who had a successful revascularization, the overall 1-year estimate for primary and secondary patency was 88% (± 6) and 92% (± 5%), respectively. There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower patency in patients treated for atherosclerotic disease compared to those with access-site-related complications and thromboembolic disease at 2-year follow-up (76 vs. 100%, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular therapy for treatment of obstructive disease of the CFA is associated with a high rate of acute technical success. Primary patency rates in the cohort treated for access-site-related complications and thromboembolic disease are excellent and support an endovascular-first approach for this patient subset. Based on lower patency rates, surgical endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic disease in the CFA remains the gold standard in patients with normal surgical risk.

Determinants of fluoroscopy time for invasive coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the NCDR(®).

OBJECTIVES: Identifying the distributions and determinants of fluoroscopy time for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: ICA and PCI are significant contributors to radiation exposure from medical imaging in the US. Fluoroscopy time is a potentially modifiable determinant of radiation exposure for these procedures, but has not been well characterized in contemporary practice. METHODS: We evaluated the distribution of fluoroscopy time in patients undergoing ICA and/or PCI in the CathPCI Registry(®) , stratifying patients by numerous clinical scenarios. Hierarchical models were used to determine patient, procedure, operator and hospital-level factors associated with fluoroscopy time for these procedures. RESULTS: Our study included a total of 3,295,348 ICA and PCI procedures performed by 9,600 operators from January 2005 through June 2009. There was wide variation in fluoroscopy times for these procedures with median [IQR] fluoroscopy times of 2.6 [1.7-4.5] minutes for ICA, 6.7 [4.2-10.8] minutes for ICA in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 10.1 [6.0-17.4] minutes for PCI, 10.7 [7.0-16.9] minutes for PCI with ICA, and 16.0 [10.6-24.0] minutes for PCI and ICA in patients with prior CABG. Prolonged fluoroscopy times (>30 minutes) were rare for ICA, but occurred in 6.7% of PCIs and 14.7% of PCIs in patients with prior CABG. After accounting for patient characteristics and procedure complexity, operator and hospital-level factors explained nearly 20% of the variation in fluoroscopy time. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy times vary widely during ICA and PCI with operator and hospital-level factors contributing substantially to these differences. A better understanding of potentially modifiable sources of this variation will elucidate opportunities for enhancing the radiation safety of these procedures.