Association of Anemia With Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Peripheral Vascular Intervention: Insights From the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2 VIC).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of patients with anemia undergoing percutaneous peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) in a contemporary registry. METHODS: We evaluated the differences in the clinical features and outcomes of patients with and without anemia undergoing PVI in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2 VIC) registry. Anemia was defined using World Health Organization criteria. RESULTS: Baseline anemia was present in 42.3% of 15,683 patients undergoing PVI. Compared to patients without anemia, those with anemia were older (mean age, 67 years vs 71 years), were more often black (16% vs 29%), and had higher comorbidities. Anemic patients were twice as likely to present with acute limb ischemia (5% vs 11%) and undergo urgent PVI (6% vs 15%) or below-the-knee PVI (18% vs 35%). Many in-hospital adverse events were higher in anemic patients. In a propensity-matched cohort, any adverse outcome (3.4% vs 8.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94-3.42) or major cardiovascular event, defined as death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or amputation (1.1% vs 3.2%; OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.83-4.79) was more likely in anemic patients. Of all adverse events, the highest odds were observed for post-PVI transfusions and amputations in anemic patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed that baseline hemoglobin (1 g/dL below the normal value) was associated with greater risk of any adverse event (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.47-1.68). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of anemia was high among PVI patients and was associated with significantly greater likelihood of amputation, any adverse event, and major cardiovascular events. Whether preprocedure correction of anemia has the potential to decrease post-PVI adverse events remains to be studied.

The comparative safety of abciximab versus eptifibatide in patients on dialysis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2).

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the patterns of use and outcomes associated with eptifibatide and abciximab administration among dialysis patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Contraindicated medications are frequently administered to dialysis patients undergoing PCI often resulting in adverse outcomes. Eptifibatide is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor that is often used during PCI and is contraindicated in dialysis. METHODS: We included dialysis patients who underwent PCI from January 2010 to September 2015 at 47 hospitals in Michigan. We compared outcomes between patients who received eptifibatide compared with abciximab. Both groups required concurrent treatment with unfractionated heparin only. In-hospital outcomes included repeat PCI, bleeding, major bleeding, need for transfusion, and death. Optimal full matching was used to adjust for non-random drug administration. RESULTS: Of 177 963 patients who underwent PCI, 4303 (2.4%) were on dialysis. Among those, 384 (8.9%) received eptifibatide and 100 (2.3%) received abciximab. Prior to matching, patients who received eptifibatide had higher pre-procedural hemoglobin levels (11.3 g/dL vs. 10.7 g/dL; P < 0.001) and less frequently had a history of myocardial infarction (36.5% vs. 52.0%; P = 0.005). After matching, there were no significant differences in in-hospital outcomes between eptifibatide and abciximab including transfusion (aOR: 1.15; 95%CI: 0.55-2.40; P = 0.70), bleeding (1.47; 0.64-3.40; P = 0.36), major bleeding (4.68; 0.42-52.3; P = 0.21), repeat PCI (0.38; 0.03-4.23; P = 0.43), and death (1.53; 0.2-9.05; P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being contraindicated in dialysis, eptifibatide was used approximately 3.5 times more frequently than abciximab among dialysis patients undergoing PCI but was associated with similar in-hospital outcomes.

Contemporary Trends and Outcomes Associated With the Preprocedural Use of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2).

OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe trends in the use of preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitors and their clinical impact in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Oral P2Y12 inhibitors are ubiquitously used medications; however, the specific timing of initial P2Y12 inhibitor administration remains intensely debated. METHODS: Our study population comprised 74,053 consecutive patients undergoing PCI at 47 hospitals in Michigan from January 2013 through June 2015. In-hospital outcomes included stent thrombosis, bleeding, need for transfusion, and death. Hierarchical logistic regression, propensity matching, and targeted maximum likelihood estimation were used to adjust for baseline patient differences and clustering, and to minimize bias. RESULTS: Of 24,733 patients who received a preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitor, 82% received clopidogrel, 8% prasugrel, and 10% ticagrelor. Preprocedural administration of P2Y12 inhibitors declined during the study (49.3% to 24.8%; P<.001), and varied greatly across hospitals (14.5%-95.9%). No significant differences in outcomes were observed between patients receiving preprocedural clopidogrel and a matched cohort of those not receiving any preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitor (stent thrombosis: adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-7.84; bleeding: OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.63-1.46; transfusion: OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.69-1.55; and death: OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.38-2.37). Similar findings were demonstrated for preprocedural ticagrelor and prasugrel. Results from a subgroup analysis of patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (n = 28,072) were consistent with the overall findings. CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial decline in the rate of preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitor administration during the study. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in outcomes between patients treated with preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitors and those who were not.

The comparative safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in patients on dialysis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan cardiovascular consortium.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients are at a higher risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, due to their exclusion from randomized clinical trials, the optimal antithrombotic regimen for this population remains unknown. We sought to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin monotherapy versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) monotherapy in dialysis patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: We included dialysis patients who underwent PCI in a multicenter registry between January 2010 and September 2015 at 47 Michigan hospitals. We compared in-hospital outcomes between bivalirudin versus UFH; excluding those treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Optimal full matching was used to account for the nonrandom use of these drugs. RESULTS: Of 177,963 patients who underwent PCI, 4,303 (2.4%) were on dialysis. Among those, 1,257 (29.2%) received bivalirudin monotherapy and 2,112 (49.1%) received UFH monotherapy. Patients treated with bivalirudin had fewer comorbidities. After matching, there were no significant differences in outcomes between those who received bivalirudin versus UFH: bleeding (adjusted odds ratio: 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-1.07; P = 0.093); major bleeding (0.81; 0.19-3.50; P = 0.77); transfusion (1.01; 0.77-1.33; P = 0.96); repeat PCI (0.57; 0.14-2.24; P = 0.42); stent thrombosis (0.56; 0.05-5.83; P = 0.63); and death (0.84; 0.46-1.51; P = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences in in-hospital outcomes between bivalirudin and UFH monotherapy among dialysis patients undergoing PCI. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the optimal anticoagulant regimen for this population. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Radial PCI and the obesity paradox: Insights from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2).

OBJECTIVE: To examine if transradial approach (TRA) negates the increased risk associated with femoral access in lean and morbidly obese patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Patients at extremes of body mass are at increased risk of bleeding after PCI. TRA has been associated with lower overall rates of bleeding compared to femoral approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied patients undergoing emergent and elective PCI from 2010 to 2012 across 47 hospitals in Michigan who participate in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry. The primary outcomes were the incidences of bleeding and postprocedure transfusion. Propensity matching (PM) was used to adjust for nonrandomized use of TRA. TRA was used in 10,235 procedures. In PM analyses, use of TRA was associated with a reduction in bleeding (0.80 vs. 1.9%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.32-0.54, P < 0.001) and need for transfusion (1.4 vs. 2.5%, OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.45-0.69, P < 0.001) compared with femoral access. The absolute difference in bleeding and transfusion associated with TRA was largest in patients with lean body mass (BMI < 25 kg/m(2)) and morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m(2)): Lean patients undergoing TRA had a rate of bleeding of 1.2 versus 2.8% for femoral access (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.24-0.77, P = 0.002); and rate of transfusion of 2.4 versus 3.9% (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.40-0.94, P = 0.019). The morbidly obese had a rate of bleeding of 0.8% for TRA versus 2.4% for femoral access (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.44-0.72, P = 0.004); and rate of transfusion of 1.7 versus 3.0%, (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.30-1.0, P = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the femoral approach, TRA is associated with a reduction in bleeding across all patients undergoing PCI and the absolute benefit was greatest in those with extremely low or high BMI.

Differences in sex-related bleeding and outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) registry.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is more common in women than in men. However, the relationship of sex and bleeding with outcomes is less well studied. METHODS: We examined the sex-related differences in the incidence of bleeding and its association with in-hospital outcomes among 96,637 patients undergoing PCI enrolled in the BMC2 registry (2010-2012). RESULTS: Women had higher bleeding rate than did men (3.9% vs 1.8%) and thus received more blood transfusions (59% vs 41%). Both men (odds ratio [OR] 2.25, 95% CI 1.70-2.97) and women (OR 3.13, 95% CI 2.42-4.07) who bled had higher risk-adjusted death compared with their counterparts without bleeding. Although there was no difference in adjusted mortality between women and men without bleeding (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.99-1.32), among patients who bled, adjusted death was higher in women (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.47). Among patients with bleeding, transfusion was associated with similar increased risk of death in both men (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.23-3.25) and women (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.31-3.63) compared with their counterparts without transfusion(s). CONCLUSIONS: Post-PCI bleeding was more common and associated with higher-than-expected in-hospital death in women compared with men with bleeding. This trend for higher death in women with bleeding was independent of transfusion. Quality efforts geared toward reducing bleeding in general, with a special focus on women, need to be explored to help reduce post PCI-bleeding and mortality and decrease sex-related disparity in adverse events.

Impact of worsening renal dysfunction on the comparative efficacy of bivalirudin and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors: insights from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Use of bivalirudin has been associated with a reduction in the incidence of bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients with chronic kidney disease, a known predictor of post-percutaneous coronary intervention bleeding, are under-represented in clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the outcome of 64,052 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention from 2007 to 2009 at 33 hospitals in Michigan and were treated with bivalirudin (28,378) or with heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (35,674). Propensity-matched analysis was adjusted for the nonrandomized use of the 2 strategies. Patients treated with bivalirudin were older, had a lower glomerular filtration rate, and had more comorbidities. Use of bivalirudin was associated with fewer transfusions (2.8% versus 4.2%; P<0.0001), gastrointestinal bleeds (0.5% versus 1.3%; P<0.0001), and vascular complications (1.0% versus 2.5%; P<0.0001), with no difference in survival. Bleeding complications were more common with worsening renal function, but use of bivalirudin was associated with less bleeding across the continuum of renal dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention increases with worsening chronic kidney disease. Bivalirudin was associated with a dramatically reduced risk of bleeding across all categories of renal dysfunction. Our study findings suggest that bivalirudin monotherapy is an acceptable, if not the more appropriate alternative, to heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with chronic kidney disease.