Association Between Diagnosis-to-Limb Revascularization Time and Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: Insights From the CLIPPER Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The extent and consequences of ischemia in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) may change rapidly, and delays from diagnosis to revascularization may worsen outcomes. We sought to describe the association between time from diagnosis to endovascular lower extremity revascularization (diagnosis-to-limb revascularization [D2L] time) and clinical outcomes in outpatients with CLTI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the CLIPPER cohort, comprising patients between 66 and 86 years old diagnosed with CLTI betweeen 2010 and 2019, we used Medicare claims data to identify patients who underwent outpatient endovascular revascularization within 180 days of diagnosis. We described the risk-adjusted association between D2L time and clinical outcomes. Among 1 130 065 patients aged between 66 and 86 years with CLTI, 99 221 (8.8%) underwent outpatient endovascular lower extremity revascularization within 180 days of their CLTI diagnosis. Among patients with D2L time <30 days, there was no association between D2L time and all-cause death or major lower extremity amputation. However, among patients with D2L time >30 days, each additional 10-day increase in D2L time was associated with a 2.5% greater risk of major amputation (hazard ratio, 1.025 [95% CI, 1.014-1.036]). There was no association between D2L time and all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: A delay of >30 days from CLTI diagnosis to lower extremity endovascular revascularization was associated with an increased risk of major lower extremity amputation among patients undergoing outpatient endovascular revascularization. Improving systems of care to reduce D2L time could reduce amputations.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

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

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

Temporal Trends, Practice Variation, and Associated Outcomes With IVUS Use During Peripheral Arterial Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been shown in limited prospective studies to improve procedural outcomes for patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral arterial intervention (PVI). OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to study temporal trends, practice variation, and associated outcomes with the use of IVUS during PVI among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: All PVIs performed from 2016 to 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries aged >65 years were included. Temporal trends in IVUS use were stratified by procedural location (inpatient, outpatient, or ambulatory surgery center [ASC]/office-based laboratory [OBL]) and physician specialty. The primary outcome was major adverse limb events (MALE). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Cox regression with competing risks was used to estimate weighted hazard ratios. RESULTS: During the study period, 543,488 PVIs were included, of which 63,372 (11.7%) used IVUS. A substantial growth in IVUS use was observed, which was driven by procedures performed in ASCs/OBLs (23.6% increase from quarter 1 of 2016 through quarter 4 of 2019). Among operators who used IVUS, there was also notable variation in use (median operator use 5.4% of cases; IQR: 2.2%-15.0%; range, <1%-100%). In weighted analysis, IVUS use during PVI was associated with a lower risk of MALE through a median of 514 days (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.70-0.75; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary nationwide data, IVUS use during PVI has increased since 2016, driven by growth in the ASC/OBL setting. However, there remains substantial variation in operator practice. When used during PVI, IVUS was associated with a lower risk of short- and long-term MALE.

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

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

Outcomes Associated With Peripheral Artery Disease in Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) remain high despite advances in revascularization strategies and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to elucidate the association between comorbid lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) and outcomes in CS and AMI. METHODS: PAD status was defined in Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with CS and AMI from October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. Primary outcomes ascertained through December 31, 2018 included in- and out-of-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, amputation, stroke, and lower extremity revascularization. Multivariable regression models with adjustment for confounders were used to estimate risk. Subgroup analyses included patients treated with MCS and those who underwent coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Among 71,690 patients, 5.9% (N = 4,259) had PAD. Mean age was 77.8 ± 7.9 years, 58.7% were male, and 84.3% were White. Cumulative in-hospital mortality was 47.2%, with greater risk among those with PAD (56.3% vs 46.6% without PAD; adjusted OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.40-1.59). PAD patients also had greater risk of in-hospital amputation (1.6% vs 0.2%; adjusted OR: 7.0; 95% CI: 5.26-9.37) and out-of-hospital mortality (67.9% vs 40.7%; adjusted HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.67-1.90). MCS was less frequently utilized in PAD patients (21.5% vs 38.6% without PAD; P < 0.001) and was associated with higher mortality, need for lower extremity revascularization, and amputation risk. Findings were consistent in patients who underwent coronary revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with AMI and CS, PAD was associated with worse limb outcomes and survival. In addition to lower MCS utilization rates, those with PAD who received MCS had increased mortality, lower extremity revascularization, and amputation rates.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited data are available on the utilization of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) in the setting of the COVID-19 global pandemic. We performed a single-center study to evaluate treatment, mortality, and bleeding outcomes in patients who received PERT consultations in March and April 2020, compared to historical controls from the same period in 2019. Clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. The primary study endpoints were inpatient mortality and GUSTO moderate-to-severe bleeding. The frequency of PERT utilization was nearly threefold higher during March and April 2020 (n = 74) compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 26). During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was significantly less PERT-guided invasive treatment (5.5% vs 23.1%, p = 0.02) with a numerical but not statistically significant trend toward an increase in the use of systemic fibrinolytic therapy (13.5% vs 3.9%, p = 0.3). There were nonsignificant trends toward higher in-hospital mortality or moderate-to-severe bleeding in patients receiving PERT consultations during the COVID-19 period compared to historical controls (mortality 14.9% vs 3.9%, p = 0.18 and moderate-to-severe bleeding 35.1% vs 19.2%, p = 0.13). In conclusion, PERT utilization was nearly threefold higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than during the historical control period. Among patients evaluated by PERT, in-hospital mortality or moderate-to-severe bleeding were not significantly different, despite being numerically higher, while invasive therapy was utilized less frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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

Mortality Assessment of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons: Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of the ILLUMENATE Clinical Program at 3 Years.

BACKGROUND: A recent summary-level meta-analysis comprising randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of femoropopliteal paclitaxel-coated balloon and stent intervention identified excess late mortality in the paclitaxel-treated patients. METHODS: We evaluated the safety of the Stellarex drug-coated balloon (DCB) for femoropopliteal artery disease with an independently performed meta-analysis of patient-level data from all patients in the Stellarex femoropopliteal clinical program. To compare mortality after DCB or uncoated percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), we aggregated data from 2 RCTs comprising 419 patients treated with DCB and 170 patients treated with PTA. In an additional analysis, data were aggregated from 6 poolable Stellarex DCB studies (2 RCTs, 3 single-arm studies, and 1 registry). All serious adverse events including deaths were adjudicated by a blinded, third-party, independent Clinical Events Committee. Kaplan-Meier estimates in the RCTs were compared with restricted mean survival time. Predictors of death were assessed with hazard ratios (HRs) and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the patients treated with DCB and PTA in the pooled RCT analysis, with the exception that the DCB cohort was younger (67.4±9.7 versus 69.4±9.4 years, P=0.02), smoked more frequently (86.6% versus 78.8%, P=0.02), and were less often treated for recurrent lesions (8.8% versus 14.7%, P=0.04). In the RCTs, patients treated with DCB had all-cause mortality rates that were not different from those of patients treated with PTA (Kaplan-Meier estimates 1.8±0.7% versus 1.3±0.9%, 6.5±1.2% versus 5.9±1.9%, and 9.3±1.5% versus 9.9±2.4% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, P=0.86). All-cause mortality rates were similar in a 1906-patient pooled nonrandomized DCB data set (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 2.1%, 4.9%, and 7.0% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively). Clinical Events Committee-adjudicated causes of death were balanced between the DCB and PTA cohorts. Multivariable Cox modeling identified age (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08; P<0.001), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P=0.04), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.12-3.16; P=0.02), and renal insufficiency (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.33-3.01; P<0.001) as predictors of mortality. Paclitaxel exposure was unrelated to mortality (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.10; P=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rates for patients treated with the DCB and uncoated PTA were indistinguishable over 3-year follow-up. Additional patient-level, adequately powered meta-analyses with larger RCT data sets will be needed to confirm the generalizability of these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT02110524, NCT01858363, NCT01858428, NCT03421561, NCT01912937, NCT01927068, and NCT02769273.

Association of Survival With Femoropopliteal Artery Revascularization With Drug-Coated Devices.

Importance: In a recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, femoropopliteal artery revascularization with paclitaxel drug-coated devices was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality compared with non-drug-coated devices. However, to our knowledge, these findings have not been replicated in other data sources and may be subject to confounding from missing data associated with patient withdrawal and loss to follow-up. Objective: To evaluate differences in all-cause mortality between patients who were treated with drug-coated devices vs non-drug-coated devices for femoropopliteal artery revascularization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide, multicenter retrospective cohort study included 16 560 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries who were admitted for femoropopliteal artery revascularization from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. All-cause mortality was analyzed through September 30, 2017. Exposures: Drug-coated devices (drug-eluting stent [DES] or drug-coated balloon [DCB]) compared with non-drug-coated devices (bare metal stent or uncoated percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality analyzed through the end of follow-up. Results: Among 16 560 patients treated at 1883 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 72.9 (11) years, 7734 (46.7%) were men, 12 232 (73.9%) were white, 8222 (49.7%) currently or had previously used tobacco, 9817 (59.3%) had diabetes, and 8450 (51.0%) had critical limb ischemia (CLI). Drug-coated devices were used in 5989 participants (36.2%). The median follow-up was 389 days (interquartile range, 277-508 days). Among all patients, treatment with drug-coated devices was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality compared with treatment with non-drug-coated devices through 600 days postprocedure (32.5% vs 34.3%, respectively; log-rank P = .007). Similar survival trends were observed when treatment was stratified by using a DCB alone or DES with or without DCB. After multivariable adjustment, drug-coated devices were not associated with a difference in all-cause mortality compared with non-drug-coated devices (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = .43). These findings were consistent among those with CLI (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01; P = .09) or without CLI (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; P = .20), and for those treated with DCB alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03; P = .17) or DES with or without DCB (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.06; P = .48). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large nationwide analysis of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries, there was no evidence of increased all-cause mortality following femoropopliteal artery revascularization with drug-coated devices compared with non-drug-coated devices.

Modern Radiation Therapy and Cardiac Outcomes in Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant radiation therapy, which has proven benefit against breast cancer, has historically been associated with an increased incidence of ischemic heart disease. Modern techniques have reduced this risk, but a detailed evaluation has not recently been conducted. The present study evaluated the effect of current radiation practices on ischemia-related cardiac events and procedures in a population-based study of older women with nonmetastatic breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 29,102 patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2009 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Medicare claims were used to identify the radiation therapy and cardiac outcomes. Competing risk models were used to assess the effect of radiation on these outcomes. RESULTS: Patients with left-sided breast cancer had a small increase in their risk of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after radiation therapy-the 10-year cumulative incidence for these patients was 5.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9%-6.2%) and 4.5% (95% CI 4.0%-5.0%) for right-sided patients. This risk was limited to women with previous cardiac disease. For patients who underwent PCI, those with left-sided breast cancer had a significantly increased risk of cardiac mortality with a subdistribution hazard ratio of 2.02 (95% CI 1.23-3.34). No other outcome, including cardiac mortality for the entire cohort, showed a significant relationship with tumor laterality. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a history of cardiac disease, those with left-sided breast cancer who underwent radiation therapy had increased rates of PCI and a survival decrement if treated with PCI. The results of the present study could help cardiologists and radiation oncologists better stratify patients who need more aggressive cardioprotective techniques.