The IMPact on Revascularization Outcomes of intraVascular ultrasound-guided treatment of complex lesions and Economic impact (IMPROVE) trial: Study design and rationale.

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown in clinical trials, registries, and meta-analyses to reduce recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events after PCI. However, IVUS utilization remains low. An increasing number of high-risk or complex coronary artery lesions are treated with PCI, and we hypothesize that the impact of IVUS in guiding treatment of these complex lesions will be of increased importance in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events while remaining cost-effective. The "IMPact on Revascularization Outcomes of intraVascular ultrasound-guided treatment of complex lesions and Economic impact" trial (registered on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04221815) is a multicenter, international, clinical trial randomizing subjects to IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided PCI in a 1:1 ratio. Patients undergoing PCI involving a complex lesion are eligible for enrollment. Complex lesion is defined as involving at least 1 of the following characteristics: chronic total occlusion, in-stent restenosis, severe coronary artery calcification, long lesion (≥28 mm), or bifurcation lesion. The clinical investigation will be conducted at approximately 120 centers in North America and Europe, enrolling approximately 2,500 to 3,100 randomized subjects with an adaptive design. The primary clinical end point is the rate of target vessel failure at 12 months, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. The co-primary imaging end point is the final post-PCI minimum stent area assessed by IVUS. The primary objective of this study is to assess the impact of IVUS guidance on the PCI treatment of complex lesions.

Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Revascularization Strategy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. BACKGROUND: An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 ± 0.51 vs. 0.43 ± 0.59; p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 ± 0.09 vs. 0.91 ± 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 ± 0.09 vs. 0.85 ± 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS: An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to guide Revascularization [DEFINE-FLAIR]; NCT02053038).

Reversing the "Risk-Treatment Paradox" of Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Risk-Concordant Use of Bleeding Avoidance Strategies Is Associated With Reduced Bleeding and Lower Costs.

Background Bleeding is a common, morbid, and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention. While bleeding avoidance strategies ( BAS ) are effective, they are used paradoxically less in patients at high risk of bleeding. Whether a patient-centered approach to specifically increase the risk-concordant use of BAS and, thus, reverse the risk-treatment paradox is associated with reduced bleeding and costs is unknown. Methods and Results We implemented an intervention to reverse the bleeding risk-treatment paradox at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, and examined: (1) the temporal trends in BAS use and (2) the association of risk-concordant BAS use with bleeding and hospital costs of percutaneous coronary intervention. Among 3519 percutaneous coronary interventions, there was a significantly increasing trend ( P=0.002) in risk-concordant use of BAS . The bleeding incidence was 2% in the risk-concordant group versus 9% in the risk-discordant group (absolute risk difference, 7%; number needed to treat, 14). Risk-concordant BAS use was associated with a 67% (95% confidence interval, 52-78%; P<0.001) reduction in the risk of bleeding and a $4738 (95% confidence interval, 3353-6122; P<0.001) reduction in per-patient percutaneous coronary intervention hospitalization costs (21.6% cost-savings). Conclusions In this study, patient-centered care directly aimed to make treatment-related decisions based on predicted risk of bleeding, led to more risk-concordant use of BAS and reversal of the risk-treatment paradox. This, in turn, was associated with a reduction in bleeding and hospitalization costs. Larger multicentered studies are needed to corroborate these results. As clinical medicine moves toward personalization, both patients and hospitals can benefit from a simple practice change that encourages objectivity and mitigates variability in care.

Association of Same-Day Discharge After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States With Costs and Outcomes.

Importance: Same-day discharge (SDD) after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower costs and preferred by patients. However, to our knowledge, contemporary patterns of SDD after elective PCI with respect to the incidence, hospital variation, trends, costs, and safety outcomes in the United States are unknown. Objective: To examine (1) the incidence and trends in SDD; (2) hospital variation in SDD; (3) the association between SDD and readmissions for bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or mortality at 30, 90, and 365 days after PCI; and (4) hospital costs of SDD and its drivers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cross-sectional cohort study included 672 470 patients enrolled in the nationally representative Premier Healthcare Database who underwent elective PCI from 493 hospitals between January 2006 and December 2015 with 1-year follow-up. Exposures: Same-day discharge, defined by identical dates of admission, PCI procedure, and discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Death, bleeding requiring a blood transfusion, AKI and AMI at 30, 90, or 365 days after PCI, and costs from hospitals' perspective, inflated to 2016. Results: Among 672 470 elective PCIs, 221 997 patients (33.0%) were women, 30 711 (4.6%) were Hispanic, 51 961 (7.7%) were African American, and 491 823 (73.1%) were white. The adjusted rate of SDD was 3.5% (95% CI, 3.0%-4.0%), which increased from 0.4% in 2006 to 6.3% in 2015. We observed substantial hospital variation for SDD from 0% to 83% (median incidence rate ratio, 3.82; 95% CI, 3.48-4.23), implying an average (median) 382% likelihood of SDD at one vs another hospital. Among SDD (vs non-SDD) patients, there was no higher risk of death, bleeding, AKI, or AMI at 30, 90, or 365 days. Same-day discharge was associated with a large cost savings of $5128 per procedure (95% CI, $5006-$5248), driven by reduced supply and room and boarding costs. A shift from existing SDD practices to match top-decile SDD hospitals could annually save $129 million in this sample and $577 million if adopted throughout the United States. However, residual confounding may be present, limiting the precision of the cost estimates. Conclusions and Relevance: Over 2006 to 2015, SDD after elective PCI was infrequent, with substantial hospital variation. Given the safety and large savings of more than $5000 per PCI associated with SDD, greater and more consistent use of SDD could markedly increase the overall value of PCI care.

Novel Patient-Centered Approach to Facilitate Same-Day Discharge in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge (SDD) after elective percutaneous coronary intervention is safe, less costly, and preferred by patients, but it is usually performed in low-risk patients, if at all. To increase the appropriate use of SDD in more complex patients, we implemented a "patient-centered" protocol based on risk of complications at Barnes-Jewish Hospital. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our objectives were as follows: (1) to evaluate time trends in SDD; (2) to compare (a) mortality, bleeding, and acute kidney injury, (b) patient satisfaction, and (c) hospital costs by SDD versus no SDD (NSDD); and (3) to compare SDD eligibility by our patient-centered approach versus Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines. Our patient-centered approach was based on prospectively identifying personalized bleeding, mortality, and acute kidney injury risks, with a personalized safe contrast limit and mitigating those risks. We analyzed Barnes-Jewish Hospital's National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data from July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2015 (N=1752). SDD increased rapidly from 0% to 77% (P<0.001), independent of radial access. Although SDD patients were comparable to NSDD patients, SDD was not associated with adverse outcomes (0% mortality, 0% bleeds, and 0.4% acute kidney injury). Patient satisfaction was high with SDD. Propensity score-adjusted costs were $7331 lower/SDD patient (P<0.001), saving an estimated $1.8 million annually. Only 16 patients (6.95%) met the eligibility for SDD by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines, implying our patient-centered approach markedly increased SDD eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: With a patient-centered approach, SDD rapidly increased and was safe in 75% of patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention, despite patient complexity. Patient satisfaction was high, and hospital costs were lower. Patient-centered decision making to facilitate SDD is an important opportunity to improve the value of percutaneous coronary intervention.

Risk model for estimating the 1-year risk of deferred lesion intervention following deferred revascularization after fractional flow reserve assessment.

AIMS: Although lesions deferred revascularization following fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment have a low risk of adverse cardiac events, variability in risk for deferred lesion intervention (DLI) has not been previously evaluated. The aim of this study was to develop a prediction model to estimate 1-year risk of DLI for coronary lesions where revascularization was not performed following FFR assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prediction model for DLI was developed from a cohort of 721 patients with 882 coronary lesions where revascularization was deferred based on FFR between 10/2002 and 7/2010. Deferred lesion intervention was defined as any revascularization of a lesion previously deferred following FFR. The final DLI model was developed using stepwise Cox regression and validated using bootstrapping techniques. An algorithm was constructed to predict the 1-year risk of DLI. During a mean (±SD) follow-up period of 4.0 ± 2.3 years, 18% of lesions deferred after FFR underwent DLI; the 1-year incidence of DLI was 5.3%, while the predicted risk of DLI varied from 1 to 40%. The final Cox model included the FFR value, age, current or former smoking, history of coronary artery disease (CAD) or prior percutaneous coronary intervention, multi-vessel CAD, and serum creatinine. The c statistic for the DLI prediction model was 0.66 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.61-0.70). CONCLUSION: Patients deferred revascularization based on FFR have variation in their risk for DLI. A clinical prediction model consisting of five clinical variables and the FFR value can help predict the risk of DLI in the first year following FFR assessment.