Status and Future Directions for Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Disease With and Without Pulmonary Hypertension: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Balloon pulmonary angioplasty continues to gain traction as a treatment option for patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease with and without pulmonary hypertension. Recent European Society of Cardiology guidelines on pulmonary hypertension now give balloon pulmonary angioplasty a Class 1 recommendation for inoperable and residual chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Not surprisingly, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension centers are rapidly initiating balloon pulmonary angioplasty programs. However, we need a comprehensive, expert consensus document outlining critical concepts, including identifying necessary personnel and expertise, criteria for patient selection, and a standardized approach to preprocedural planning and establishing criteria for evaluating procedural efficacy and safety. Given this lack of standards, the balloon pulmonary angioplasty skill set is learned through peer-to-peer contact and training. This document is a state-of-the-art, comprehensive statement from key thought leaders to address this gap in the current clinical practice of balloon pulmonary angioplasty. We summarize the current status of the procedure and provide a consensus opinion on the role of balloon pulmonary angioplasty in the overall care of patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease with and without pulmonary hypertension. We also identify knowledge gaps, provide guidance for new centers interested in initiating balloon pulmonary angioplasty programs, and highlight future directions and research needs for this emerging therapy.

Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Treated With Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: In the BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia), a prespecified secondary objective was to assess the effects of revascularization strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia were randomized to surgical bypass (Bypass) or endovascular intervention (Endo) in 2 parallel trials. Cohort 1 included patients with single-segment great saphenous vein; cohort 2 included those lacking suitable single-segment great saphenous vein. HRQoL was assessed over the trial duration using Vascular Quality-of-Life (VascuQoL), European Quality-of-Life-5D (EQ-5D), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), Utility Index Score (SF-6D R2), and numeric rating scales of pain. HRQoL was summarized by cohort and compared within and between groups using mixed-model linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 1193 and 335 patients in cohorts 1 and 2 with a mean follow-up of 2.9 and 2.0 years, respectively, were analyzed. In cohort 1, HRQoL significantly improved from baseline to follow-up for both groups across all measures. For example, mean (SD) VascuQoL scores were 3.0 (1.3) and 3.0 (1.2) for Bypass and Endo at baseline and 4.7 (1.4) and 4.8 (1.5) over follow-up. There were significant group differences favoring Endo when assessed with VascuQoL (difference, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.02]; P=0.02), SF-12 MCS (difference, -1.03 [95% CI, -1.89 to -0.18]; P=0.02), SF-6D R2 (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.02 to -0.001]; P=0.03), numeric rating scale pain at present (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49]; P=0.03), usual level during previous week (difference, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48]; P=0.02), and worst level during previous week (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.56]; P=0.04). There was no difference between treatment arms on the basis of EQ-5D (difference, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.004]; P=0.12) or SF-12 PCS (difference, -0.41 [95% CI, -1.2 to 0.37]; P=0.31). In cohort 2, HRQoL also significantly improved from baseline to the end of follow-up for both groups based on all measures, but there were no differences between Bypass and Endo on any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia deemed eligible for either Bypass or Endo, revascularization resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL. In patients with an available single-segment great saphenous vein for bypass, but not among those without one, Endo was statistically superior on some HRQoL measures; however, these differences were below the threshold of clinically meaningful difference.

Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) require revascularization to improve limb perfusion and thereby limit the risk of amputation. It is uncertain whether an initial strategy of endovascular therapy or surgical revascularization for CLTI is superior for improving limb outcomes. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we enrolled 1830 patients with CLTI and infrainguinal peripheral artery disease in two parallel-cohort trials. Patients who had a single segment of great saphenous vein that could be used for surgery were assigned to cohort 1. Patients who needed an alternative bypass conduit were assigned to cohort 2. The primary outcome was a composite of a major adverse limb event - which was defined as amputation above the ankle or a major limb reintervention (a new bypass graft or graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis) - or death from any cause. RESULTS: In cohort 1, after a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a primary-outcome event occurred in 302 of 709 patients (42.6%) in the surgical group and in 408 of 711 patients (57.4%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.79; P<0.001). In cohort 2, a primary-outcome event occurred in 83 of 194 patients (42.8%) in the surgical group and in 95 of 199 patients (47.7%) in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = 0.12) after a median follow-up of 1.6 years. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups in the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BEST-CLI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02060630.).

Characterization of cardiovascular serious adverse events after bypass or endovascular revascularization for limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular complications after revascularization to treat chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are a major concern that guides treatment. Our goal was to assess periprocedural cardiac and vascular serious adverse events (SAEs) in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing surgical (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization for patients with CLTI. Thirty-day SAEs, classified as cardiac or vascular, were analyzed. Adverse events are defined as serious when they affect safety in the trial, require prolonged hospitalization, result in significant disability or incapacitation, are life-threatening, or result in death. Interventions were analyzed in a per protocol fashion. RESULTS: In the BEST-CLI trial, 850 OPEN and 896 ENDO interventions were evaluated. Forty (4.7%) and 34 (3.8%) patients experienced at least one cardiac SAE after OPEN and ENDO intervention, respectively (P = .35). Overall, there were 53 cardiac SAEs (0.06 per patient) after OPEN and 40 (0.045 per patient) after ENDO interventions. Cardiac SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as related to ischemia (50.9%), arrhythmias (17%), heart failure (15.1%), arrest (13.2%), and heart block (3.8%); in the ENDO arm, they were classified as ischemia (47.5%), heart failure (17.5%), arrhythmias (15%), arrest (15%), and heart block (5%). Approximately half of SAEs were classified as severe for both OPEN and ENDO. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 30.2% and 25% in the OPEN and ENDO arms, respectively (P = .2). Vascular SAEs occurred in 58 (6.8%) and 86 (9.6%) of patients after OPEN and ENDO revascularization, respectively (P = .19). In total, there were 59 (0.07 per patient) and 87 (0.097 per patient) vascular SAEs after OPEN and ENDO procedures. Vascular SAEs in the OPEN arm were classified as distal ischemia/infection (44.1%), bleeding (16.9%), occlusive (15.3%), thromboembolic (15.3%), cerebrovascular (5.1%), and other (3.4%); in the ENDO arm, they were distal ischemia/infection (40.2%), occlusive (31%), bleeding (12.6%), thromboembolic (8%), cerebrovascular (1.1%), and other (4.6%). SAEs were classified as severe for OPEN in 45.8% and ENDO in 46%. SAEs were definitely or probably related to the procedure in 23.7% and 35.6% in the OPEN and ENDO arms (P = .35), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing OPEN and ENDO revascularization experienced similar degrees of cardiac and vascular SAEs. The majority were not related to the index intervention, but approximately half were severe.

Investigator attitudes on equipoise and practice patterns in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: There has been significant variability in practice patterns and equipoise regarding treatment approach for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). We aimed to assess treatment preferences of Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) investigators prior to and following the trial. METHODS: An electronic 60-question survey was sent to 1180 BEST-CLI investigators in 2022, after trial conclusion and before announcement of results. Investigators' preferences were assessed across clinical scenarios for both open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies. Vascular surgeon (VS) surgical and ENDO preferences were compared with a 2010 survey administered to prospective investigators before trial funding. RESULTS: For the 2022 survey, the response rate was 20.2% and was comprised of VSs (76.3%), interventional cardiologists (11.4%) and interventional radiologists (11.6%). The majority (72.6%) were in academic practice and 39.1% were in practice for >20 years. During initial CLTI work-up, 65.8%, 42.6%, and 55.9% of respondents always or usually ordered an arterial duplex, computed tomography angiography, and vein mapping, respectively. The most common practice distribution between ENDO and OPEN procedures was 70/30. Postoperatively, a majority reported performing routine duplex surveillance of vein bypass (99%), prosthetic bypass (81.9%), and ENDO interventions (86%). A minority reported always or usually using the wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI) criteria (25.8%), GLASS (8.3%), and a risk calculator (14.8%). More than one-half (52.9%) agreed that the statement "no bridges are burned with an ENDO-first approach" was false. Intervention choice was influenced by availability of the operating room or ENDO suite, personal schedule, and personal skill set in 30.1%, 18.0%, and 45.9% of respondents, respectively. Most respondents reported routinely using paclitaxel-coated balloons (88.1%) and stents (67.5%); however, 73.3% altered practice when safety concerns were raised. Among surgeons, 17.8%, 2.9%, and 10.3% reported performing >10 annual alternative autogenous vein bypasses, composite vein composite vein bypasses, and bypasses to pedal targets, respectively. Among all interventionalists, 8%, 24%, and 8% reported performing >10 annual radial access procedures, pedal or tibial access procedures, and pedal loop revascularizations. The majority (89.1%) of respondents felt that CLTI teams improved care; however, only 23.2% had a defined team. The effectiveness of the teamwork at institutions was characterized as highly effective in 42.5%. When comparing responses by VSs to the 2010 survey, there were no changes in preferred treatment based on Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) II classification or conduit preference. In 2022, OPEN surgery was preferred more for a popliteal occlusion. For clinical scenarios, there were no differences except a decreased proportion of respondents who felt there was equipoise for major tissue loss for major tissue loss (43.8% vs 31.2%) and increased ENDO choice for minor tissue loss (17.6% vs 30.8%) (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of practice patterns among vascular specialists treating CLTI. The majority of investigators in BEST-CLI had experience in both advanced OPEN and ENDO techniques and represent a real-world sample of technical expertise. Over the course of the decade of the BEST-CLI trial, there was overall similar equipoise among VSs.

Surgery or endovascular therapy for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia requiring infrapopliteal interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The recent publication of randomized trials comparing open bypass surgery to endovascular therapy in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia, namely, Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) and Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2), has resulted in potentially contradictory findings. The trials differed significantly with respect to anatomical disease patterns and primary end points. We performed an analysis of patients in BEST-CLI with significant infrapopliteal disease undergoing open tibial bypass or endovascular tibial interventions to formulate a relevant comparator with the outcomes reported from BASIL-2. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients in BEST-CLI with adequate single segment saphenous vein conduit randomized to open bypass or endovascular intervention (cohort 1) who additionally had significant infrapopliteal disease and underwent tibial level intervention. The primary outcome was major adverse limb event (MALE) or all-cause death. MALE included any major limb amputation or major reintervention. Outcomes were evaluated using Cox proportional regression models. RESULTS: The analyzed subgroup included a total of 665 patients with 326 in the open tibial bypass group and 339 in the tibial endovascular intervention group. The primary outcome of MALE or all-cause death at 3 years was significantly lower in the surgical group at 48.5% compared with 56.7% in the endovascular group (P = .0018). Mortality was similar between groups (35.5% open vs 35.8% endovascular; P = .94), whereas MALE events were lower in the surgical group (23.3% vs 35.0%; P<.0001). This difference included a lower rate of major reinterventions in the surgical group (10.9%) compared with the endovascular group (20.2%; P = .0006). Freedom from above ankle amputation or all-cause death was similar between treatment arms at 43.6% in the surgical group compared with 45.3% the endovascular group (P = .30); however, there were fewer above ankle amputations in the surgical group (13.5%) compared with the endovascular group (19.3%; P = .0205). Perioperative (30-day) death rates were similar between treatment groups (2.5% open vs 2.4% endovascular; P = .93), as was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (5.3% open vs 2.7% endovascular; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suitable single segment great saphenous vein who underwent infrapopliteal revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia, open bypass surgery was associated with a lower incidence of MALE or death and fewer major amputation compared with endovascular intervention. Amputation-free survival was similar between the groups. Further investigations into differences in comorbidities, anatomical extent, and lesion complexity are needed to explain differences between the BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 reported outcomes.

Secondary interventions following open vs endovascular revascularization for chronic limb threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia experience a high burden of target limb reinterventions. We analyzed data from the Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST-CLI) randomized trial comparing initial open bypass (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) treatment strategies, with a focus on reintervention-related study endpoints. METHODS: In a planned secondary analysis, we examined the rates of major reintervention, any reintervention, and the composite of any reintervention, amputation, or death by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1 with suitable single-segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], n = 1434; cohort 2 lacking suitable SSGSV, n = 396). We also compared the cumulative number of major and all index limb reinterventions over time. Comparisons between treatment arms within each cohort were made using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: In cohort 1, assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of a major limb reintervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.49; P < .001), any reintervention (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P < .001), or any reintervention, amputation, or death (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78; P < .001). Findings were similar in cohort 2 for major reintervention (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = .007) or any reintervention (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; P = .04). In both cohorts, early (30-day) limb reinterventions were notably higher for patients assigned to ENDO as compared with OPEN (14.7% vs 4.5% of cohort 1 subjects; 16.6% vs 5.6% of cohort 2 subjects). The mean number of major (mean events per subject ratio [MR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.58; P < .001) or any target limb reinterventions (MR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .001) per year was significantly less in the OPEN arm of cohort 1. The mean number of reinterventions per limb salvaged per year was lower in the OPEN arm of cohort 1 (MR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57; P < .001 and MR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79; P < .001 for major and all, respectively). The majority of index limb reinterventions occurred during the first year following randomization, but events continued to accumulate over the duration of follow-up in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention is common following revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Among patients deemed suitable for either approach, initial treatment with open bypass, particularly in patients with available SSGSV conduit, is associated with a significantly lower number of major and minor target limb reinterventions.

Reduction of Major Amputations after Surgery Versus Endovascular Intervention: The BEST-CLI Randomised Trial.

OBJECTIVE: BEST-CLI, an international randomised trial, compared bypass surgery with endovascular treatment in chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI). In this substudy, overall amputation rates and risk of major amputation as an initial or subsequent outcome were evaluated. METHODS: A total of 1 830 patients were randomised to receive surgical or endovascular treatment:(1) patients with adequate single segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV) (n = 1 434); and (2) patients without adequate SSGSV (n = 396). Differences in time to first event and number of amputations were evaluated. RESULTS: In cohort 1, 410 (45.6%) total amputation events occurred in the surgical group vs. 490 (54.4%) in the endovascular group (p = .001) during mean follow up of 2.7 years. Every third patient underwent minor amputation after index revascularisation: 31.5% of the surgical group vs. 34.9% in the endovascular group (p = .17). Subsequent major amputation was required significantly less often in the surgical group compared with the endovascular group (15.0% vs. 25.6%; p = .002). The first amputation was major in 5.6% of patients in the surgical and 6.0% in the endovascular group (p = .72). Major amputation was required in 10.3% (n = 74/718) of patients in the surgical group and 14.9% (n = 107/716) in the endovascular group (p = .008). In cohort 2, 199 amputation events occurred in 132 (33.3%) patients during mean follow up of 1.6 years: 95 (47.7%) in the surgical vs. 104 (52.3%) in the endovascular group (p = .49). Major amputation was required in 15.2% (n = 30/197) of the patients in the surgical and 14.1% (n = 28/199) in the endovascular group (p = .74). CONCLUSION: In patients with CLTI, surgical bypass with SSGSV was more effective than endovascular treatment in preventing major amputations because of a decrease in major amputations subsequent to minor amputations.

Relationship between WIfI stage and quality of life at revascularization in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVE: The WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, foot Infection) stage measures the extent of wounds, ischemia, and foot infection in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) and has been associated with the risk of major amputation. Patients with CLTI have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be multifactorial. We hypothesized that the severity of the limb threat (WIfI stage) would be associated with poor HRQoL among patients with CLTI presenting for revascularization. METHODS: The dataset of the BEST-CLI (best endovascular versus best surgical therapy in patients with CLTI) trial, a prospective, randomized trial comparing open and endovascular revascularization strategies, was queried for HRQoL assessments at patient enrollment. The HRQoL assessments included (1) Vascular Quality of Life; (2) 12-item short form survey (SF-12), containing the utility index score (short-form six-dimension R2 utility index, incorporating physical, emotional, and mental well-being) and mental and physical components; and (3) the EQ-5D. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify the independent associations with the baseline HRQoL assessments. RESULTS: A total of 1568 patients with complete WIfI data were analyzed, of whom 71.5% were men. The WIfI distribution was 35.5% with stage 4, 29.6% with stage 3, 28.6% with stage 2, and 6.3% with stage 1. Patients presenting with WIfI stage 4, compared with stage 1 to 3, were more often men (74.9% vs 69.6%) and current smokers (25.4% vs. 17.6%), had had end-stage renal disease (13.3% vs 8.5%) and diabetes (83.6% vs 60.2%), were not independently ambulatory (56.8% vs 38.5%), and had had higher median morbidity scores (4 vs 3; P < .05 for all). On multivariable analysis, WIfI stage 4, compared with stage 1 to 3, was associated with lower SF-12 mental component scale scores (estimate, -2.43; 95% confidence interval, -3.73 to -1.13; P < .001) and short-form six-dimension R2 utility index scores (estimate, -0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.03 to 0.001; P = .04). The WIfI stage was not independently associated with the baseline Vascular Quality of Life, SF-12 physical component scale, or EQ-5D assessments. CONCLUSIONS: WIfI stage was independently associated with poorer quality of life because of mental, rather than physical, health for patients with CLTI. Clinicians should be aware of the burden of mental stress borne by those with the greatest limb impairment.

Baseline modern medical management in the BEST-CLI trial.

OBJECTIVES: The use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has not been well-studied. The Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI study (BEST-CLI) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLTI. We evaluated the use of guideline-based OMT among patients with CLTI at the time of their enrollment into the trial. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee defined OMT criteria related to blood pressure and diabetic management, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medication use, and smoking status for patients enrolled in BEST-CLI. Status reports indicating adherence to OMT were provided to participating sites at regular intervals. Baseline demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and use of OMT at trial entry were evaluated for all randomized patients. A linear regression model was used to identify the relationship of predictors to the use of OMT. RESULTS: At the time of randomization (n = 1830 total enrolled), 87% of patients in BEST-CLI had hypertension, 69% had diabetes, 73% had hyperlipidemia, and 35% were currently smoking. Adherence to four OMT components (controlled blood pressure, not currently smoking, use of one lipid-lowering medication, and use of an antiplatelet agent) was modest. Only 25% of patients met all four OMT criteria; 38% met three, 24% met two, 11% met only one, and 2% met none. Age ≥80 years, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and Hispanic ethnicity were positively associated, whereas Black race was negatively associated, with the use of OMT. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients in BEST-CLI did not meet OMT guideline-based recommendations at time of entry. These data suggest a persistent major gap in the medical management of patients with advanced peripheral atherosclerosis and CLTI. Changes in OMT adherence over the course of the trial and their impact on clinical outcomes and quality of life will be assessed in future analyses.

Perioperative complications following open or endovascular revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the BEST-CLI Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Anticipated perioperative morbidity is an important factor for choosing a revascularization method for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Our goal was to assess systemic perioperative complications of patients treated with surgical and endovascular revascularization in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies for patients with CLTI. Two parallel cohorts were studied: Cohort 1 included patients with adequate single-segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV), whereas Cohort 2 included those without SSGSV. Data were queried for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE-composite myocardial infarction, stroke, death), non-serious (non-SAEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (criteria-death/life-threatening/requiring hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization/significant disability/incapacitation/affecting subject safety in trial) 30 days after the procedure. Per protocol analysis was used (intervention received without crossover), and risk-adjusted analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 1367 patients (662 OPEN, 705 ENDO) in Cohort 1 and 379 patients (188 OPEN, 191 ENDO) in Cohort 2. Thirty-day mortality in Cohort 1 was 1.5% (OPEN 1.8%; ENDO 1.3%) and in Cohort 2 was 1.3% (2.7% OPEN; 0% ENDO). MACE in Cohort 1 was 4.7% for OPEN vs 3.13% for ENDO (P = .14), and in Cohort 2, was 4.28% for OPEN and 1.05% for ENDO (P = .15). On risk-adjusted analysis, there was no difference in 30-day MACE for OPEN vs ENDO for Cohort 1 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-2.64; P = .16) or Cohort 2 (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 0.48-9.88; P = .31). The incidence of acute renal failure was similar across interventions; in Cohort 1 it was 3.6% for OPEN vs 2.1% for ENDO (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.85-3.12; P = .14), and in Cohort 2, it was 4.2% OPEN vs 1.6% ENDO (HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 0.75-10.8; P = .12). The occurrence of venous thromboembolism was low overall and was similar between groups in Cohort 1 (OPEN 0.9%; ENDO 0.4%) and Cohort 2 (OPEN 0.5%; ENDO 0%). Rates of any non-SAEs in Cohort 1 were 23.4% in OPEN and 17.9% in ENDO (P = .013); in Cohort 2, they were 21.8% for OPEN and 19.9% for ENDO (P = .7). Rates for any SAEs in Cohort 1 were 35.3% for OPEN and 31.6% for ENDO (P = .15); in Cohort 2, they were 25.5% for OPEN and 23.6% for ENDO (P = .72). The most common types of non-SAEs and SAEs were infection, procedural complications, and cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: In BEST-CLI, patients with CLTI who were deemed suitable candidates for open lower extremity bypass surgery had similar peri-procedural complications following either OPEN or ENDO revascularization: In such patients, concern about risk of peri-procedure complications should not be a deterrent in deciding revascularization strategy. Rather, other factors, including effectiveness in restoring perfusion and patient preference, are more relevant.

Ultrasound-facilitated, catheter-directed thrombolysis vs anticoagulation alone for acute intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism: Rationale and design of the HI-PEITHO study.

BACKGROUND: Due to the bleeding risk of full-dose systemic thrombolysis and the lack of major trials focusing on the clinical benefits of catheter-directed treatment, heparin antiocoagulation remains the standard of care for patients with intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Higher-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis (HI-PEITHO) study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790370) is a multinational multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group comparison trial. Patients with: (1) confirmed acute PE; (2) evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction on imaging; (3) a positive cardiac troponin test; and (4) clinical criteria indicating an elevated risk of early death or imminent hemodynamic collapse, will be randomized 1:1 to treatment with a standardized protocol of ultrasound-facilitated catheter-directed thrombolysis plus anticoagulation, vs anticoagulation alone. The primary outcome is a composite of PE-related mortality, cardiorespiratory decompensation or collapse, or non-fatal symptomatic and objectively confirmed PE recurrence, within 7 days of randomization. Further assessments cover, apart from bleeding complications, a broad spectrum of functional and patient-reported outcomes including quality of life indicators, functional status and the utilization of health care resources over a 12-month follow-up period. The trial plans to include 406 patients, but the adaptive design permits a sample size increase depending on the results of the predefined interim analysis. As of May 11, 2022, 27 subjects have been enrolled. The trial is funded by Boston Scientific Corporation and through collaborative research agreements with University of Mainz and The PERT Consortium. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the outcome, HI-PEITHO will establish the first-line treatment in intermediate-high risk PE patients with imminent hemodynamic collapse. The trial is expected to inform international guidelines and set the standard for evaluation of catheter-directed reperfusion options in the future.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Mobile Health Intervention in Patients With Heart Failure and Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) platforms can affect health behaviors but have not been rigorously tested in randomized trials. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a pragmatic mHealth intervention in patients with heart failure (HF) and diabetes (DM). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized trial in 187 patients with both HF and DM to assess an mHealth intervention to improve physical activity and medication adherence compared to usual care. The primary endpoint was change in mean daily step count from baseline through 3 months. Other outcomes included medication adherence, health-related quality of life and metabolomic profiling. RESULTS: The mHealth group had an increase in daily step count of 151 steps/day at 3 months, whereas the usual-care group had a decline of 162 steps/day (least squares mean between-group difference = 313 steps/day; 95% CI: 8 619; P = 0.044). Medication adherence, measured using the Voils Adherence Questionnaire, did not change from baseline to 3 months (LS-mean change -0.08 in mHealth vs -0.15 in usual care; P = 0.47). The mHealth group had an improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score compared to the usual-care group (LS-mean difference = 5.5 points, 95% CI: 1.4, 9.6; P = 0.009). Thirteen metabolites, primarily medium- and long-chain acylcarnitines, changed differently between treatment groups from baseline to 3 months (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF and DM, a 3-month mHealth intervention significantly improved daily physical activity, health-related quality of life and metabolomic markers of cardiovascular health but not medication adherence. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: Heart failure (HF) and diabetes (DM) have overlapping biological and behavioral risk factors. We conducted a multicenter randomized, clinical trial in 187 patients with both HF (regardless of ejection fraction) and DM to assess whether an mHealth intervention could improve physical activity and medication adherence. The mHealth group had an increase in mean daily step count and quality of life but not in medication adherence. Medium- and long-chain acylcarnitines changed differently in treatment groups from baseline to 3 months (P < 0.05). These data have important implications for designing effective lifestyle interventions in HF and DM.

Treatment of carotid stenosis in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian, standard risk patients with stenting versus endarterectomy trials.

OBJECTIVE: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is the most frequent indication for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the United States. Published trials and guidelines support CEA indications in selected patients with longer projected survival and when periprocedural complications are low. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting with embolic protection (CAS) is a newer treatment option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients treated with CAS vs CEA. METHODS: Patient-level data was analyzed from 2544 subjects with ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard medical therapy. One trial enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and another enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility). Independent neurologic assessment and routine cardiac enzyme screening were performed. The prespecified, primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between CAS and CEA (5.3% vs 5.1%; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.5; P = .91). Periprocedural rates for the components are (CAS vs CEA): any stroke (2.7% vs 1.5%; P = .07), myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 1.7%; P = .01), death (0.1% vs 0.2%; P = .62), and any stroke or death (2.7% vs 1.6%; P = .07). After this period, the rates of ipsilateral stroke were similar (2.3% vs 2.2%; P = .97). CONCLUSIONS: In a pooled analysis of two large randomized trials of CAS and CEA in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients, CAS achieves comparable short- and long-term results to CEA.

Safety of the transradial approach to carotid stenting.

BACKGROUND: The multicenter prospective CREST-2 Registry (C2R) provides recent experience in performing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for interventionists to ensure safe performance of CAS. OBJECTIVE: To determine the periprocedural safety of CAS performed using a transradial approach relative to CAS performed using a transfemoral approach. METHODS: Patients with ≥70% asymptomatic and ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are eligible for the C2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of severe access-related complications. Comparisons were made using propensity-score matched logistic regression. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 67.6 ± 8.2 years and 1906 (35.1%) were female. Indications for CAS included 4063 (74.9%) for primary atherosclerosis. A total of 2868 (52.8%) cases underwent CAS for asymptomatic disease. Transradial access was used in 213 (3.9%) patients. The transradial cohort had lower use of general anesthesia (1.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.007) and higher use of distal embolic protection (96.7% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between radial and femoral access groups in terms of a composite of major access-related complications (0% vs. 1.1%) or a composite of periprocedural stroke or death (3.3% vs. 2.4%; OR = 1.4 [confidence intervals 0.6, 3.1]; p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in rates of major access-related complications or periprocedural stroke or death with CAS performed using transradial compared to transfemoral access. Our results support incorporation of the transradial approach to clinical trials comparing CAS to other revascularization techniques.

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.

Closing the Gaps in Racial Disparities in Critical Limb Ischemia Outcome and Amputation Rates: Proceedings from a Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation Research Consensus Panel.

Minority patients such as Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are disproportionately impacted by critical limb ischemia and amputation due to multiple factors such as socioeconomic status, type or lack of insurance, lack of access to health care, capacity and expertise of local hospitals, prevalence of diabetes, and unconscious bias. The Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation recognizes that it is imperative to close the disparity gaps and funded a Research Consensus Panel to prioritize a research agenda. The following research priorities were ultimately prioritized: (a) randomized controlled trial with peripheral arterial disease screening of at-risk patients with oversampling of high-risk racial groups, (b) prospective trial with the introduction of an intervention to alter a social determinant of health, and (c) a prospective trial with the implementation of an algorithm that requires criteria be met prior to an amputation. This article presents the proceedings and recommendations from the panel.

Intravascular ultrasound in peripheral venous and arterial interventions: A contemporary systematic review and grading of the quality of evidence.

Although angiography has been the primary imaging modality used in peripheral vascular intervention, this technique has major limitations due to the evaluation of three-dimensional vessels in two dimensions. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is an important adjunctive tool that can address some of these limitations. This systematic review assesses the appropriateness of IVUS as an imaging modality for guiding peripheral intervention through evidence collection and clinical appraisal of studies. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a cohort of 48 studies (29 arterial; 19 venous) detailing IVUS use in peripheral vascular intervention were extracted. Qualitative assessment of the studies evaluated pre- and postprocedure efficacy of IVUS and revealed that IVUS-guided peripheral intervention in arterial and venous diagnosis and treatment was superior to other imaging techniques alone. Each study in the cohort was further assessed for reliability and validity using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) level of evidence scale. The majority of both arterial (79.3%) and venous (73.7%) studies received a 2b rating, the second highest level of evidence rating. The evidence to date indicates that IVUS results in better clinical outcomes overall and should be more widely adopted as an adjunctive imaging modality during peripheral intervention. (PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42021232353).

Participation in a Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia Randomized Trial Is Inversely Correlated With Regional Amputation Rate in Limb Threatening Ischemia Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The National Health Service demonstrated that regions of the United Kingdom with the highest number of patients enrolled in research studies had the lowest risk-adjusted mortality when patients were admitted to the hospital. Our goal was to investigate if this correlation was evident for patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLI) treated in the United States (US). Accordingly, we examined correlations among sites participating in the Best Endovascular versus best Surgical Therapy in patients with Critical (BEST-CLI) trial, a multicenter, National Institute of Health-sponsored, international randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLI, and regional rates of major amputation from CLI. METHODS: We measured regional participation in the BEST-CLI trial by evaluating trial participation and enrollment rosters. To determine regional rates of lower limb amputation, we queried the Medicare database (2007-2016) for patients with concurrent peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and diabetes, then assessed how many had lower extremity amputations. Correlation of regional amputation rates with distribution of BEST-CLI sites in four US geographical regions was calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficients. Simple regression equations were used to calculate the significance of these correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Of 9,231,909 CLI patients, 342,406 underwent amputation in the Medicare dataset. Amputation rates per 1000 CLI patients differed by region (South 40.42, Midwest 40.12, West 34.81, Northeast 31.14). There were 116 US vascular centers, selected by volume and expertise that participated in BEST-CLI with the following distribution: South (n = 30, 26%), Midwest (n = 26, 22%), West (n = 29, 25%), and Northeast (n = 31, 27%). There was a negative correlation between the number of amputations per 1000 for Medicare CLI patients with diabetes and PAD and the number of BEST-CLI sites in the region which trended toward significance (Pearson R= -0.61, P = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Amputation rate among Medicare CLI patients is inversely correlated with US BEST-CLI site distribution. Higher participation in clinical research, especially within large RCTs, may be a marker of optimal PAD management.