2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Liver Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit-risk profile of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfarin, and between DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic liver disease is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a new-user, retrospective cohort study of patients with AF and chronic liver disease who were enrolled in a large, US-based administrative database between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of DOACs (as a class and individually) compared with warfarin, and between DOACs in patients with AF and chronic liver disease. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and hospitalization for major bleeding. Inverse probability treatment weights were used to balance the treatment groups on measured confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 10 209 participants were included, with 4421 (43.2%) on warfarin, 2721 (26.7%) apixaban, 2211 (21.7%) rivaroxaban, and 851 (8.3%) dabigatran. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism were 2.2, 1.4, 2.6, and 4.4 for DOACs as a class, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin, respectively. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for major bleeding were 7.9, 6.5, 9.1, and 15.0 for DOACs as a class, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin, respectively. After inverse probability treatment weights, the risk of hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism was significantly lower between DOACs as a class (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.90]) or apixaban (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.19-0.82]) compared with warfarin, but not significantly different between rivaroxaban versus warfarin (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.47-1.21]) or rivaroxaban versus apixaban (HR, 1.73 [95% CI, 0.91-3.29]). Compared with warfarin, the risk of hospitalization for major bleeding was lower with DOACs as a class (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.58-0.82]), apixaban (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.46-0.78]), and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.62-1.0]). However, the risk of hospitalization for major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban versus apixaban (HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.18-2.14]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF and chronic liver disease, DOACs as a class were associated with lower risks of hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding versus warfarin. However, the incidence of clinical outcomes among patients with AF and chronic liver disease varied between individual DOACs and warfarin, and in head-to-head DOAC comparisons.

Intravascular Ultrasound Use in Peripheral Arterial and Deep Venous Interventions: Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion From SCAI/AVF/AVLS/SIR/SVM/SVS.

Percutaneous revascularization is the primary strategy for treating lower extremity venous and arterial disease. Angiography is limited by its ability to accurately size vessels, precisely determine the degree of stenosis and length of lesions, characterize lesion morphology, or correctly diagnose postintervention complications. These limitations are overcome with use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). IVUS has demonstrated the ability to improve outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention, and there is increasing evidence to support its benefits in the setting of peripheral vascular intervention. At this stage in its evolution, there remains a need to standardize the use and approach to peripheral vascular IVUS imaging. This manuscript represents considerations and consensus perspectives that emerged from a roundtable discussion including 15 physicians with expertise in interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery, representing 6 cardiovascular specialty societies, held on February 3, 2023. The roundtable's aims were to assess the current state of lower extremity revascularization, identify knowledge gaps and need for evidence, and determine how IVUS can improve care and outcomes for patients with peripheral arterial and deep venous pathology.

Recapturing the Team Approach to Vascular Care.

BACKGROUND: The care of the vascular patient remains decentralized rather than coordinated. METHODS: We reviewed the current state of practice and published competency and care documents created by vascular professional societies. RESULTS: Vascular professional societies routinely and repeatedly endorse both a team approach and the competency of specialists from disparate training backgrounds. The care of the vascular patient does not always reflect these public endorsements. CONCLUSIONS: Centering the vascular patient as the mode of organization of care should improve care processes, expertise brought to bear, and outcomes.

COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: Review of the Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

COVID-19 is associated with endothelial activation in the setting of a potent inflammatory reaction and a hypercoagulable state. The end result of this thromboinflammatory state is an excess in thrombotic events, in particular venous thromboembolism. Pulmonary embolism (PE) has been of special interest in patients with COVID-19 given its association with respiratory deterioration, increased risk of intensive care unit admission, and prolonged hospital stay. The pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-associated PE may differ from the conventional non-COVID-19-associated PE. In addition to embolic events from deep vein thrombi, in situ pulmonary thrombosis, particularly in smaller vascular beds, may be relevant in patients with COVID-19. Appropriate prevention of thrombotic events in COVID-19 has therefore become of critical interest. Several changes in viral biology, vaccination, and treatment management during the pandemic may have resulted in changes in incidence trends. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of COVID-19-associated PE. Furthermore, we briefly summarize the results from randomized controlled trials of preventive antithrombotic therapies in COVID-19, focusing on their findings related to PE. We discuss the acute treatment of COVID-19-associated PE, which is substantially similar to the management of conventional non-COVID-19 PE. Ultimately, we comment on the current knowledge gaps in the evidence and the future directions in the treatment and follow-up of COVID-19-associated PE, including long-term management, and its possible association with long-COVID.

The Cardiovascular Manifestations of COVID-19.

The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has resulted in unprecedented morbidity and mortality worldwide. While COVID-19 typically presents as viral pneumonia, cardiovascular manifestations such as acute coronary syndromes, arterial and venous thrombosis, acutely decompensated heart failure (HF), and arrhythmia are frequently observed. Many of these complications are associated with poorer outcomes, including death. Herein we review the relationship between cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes among patients with COVID-19, cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, and cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Health Screening Program to Enhance Enrollment of Women and Minorities in CREST-2.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The CREST-2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial) consists of 2 parallel randomized stroke prevention trials in patients with asymptomatic high-grade stenosis of the cervical carotid artery. The purpose of this report is to detail the outcomes of a health screening effort to increase trial enrollment of women and minorities. METHODS: Life Line screening (LLS) conducts nationwide screening for vascular disease. Screenings within a 50-mile radius of each CREST-2 center were identified for participation in a joint CREST-LLS program over the course of one year (November 2018 to October 2019) whereby patients with an abnormal carotid ultrasound were referred to the local CREST-2 center for further workup, management, and potential consideration for trial enrollment. RESULTS: LLS completed the screening of 588 198 individuals in 29 732 zip codes across the United States. Of those, 230 021 individuals were screened at events occurring near a CREST-2 clinical center and 646 (0.3%) were found to have abnormal carotid ultrasound findings. Each of the 646 individuals was contacted by CREST-LLS program staff for permission to be referred to their local CREST-2 center; 200 (31%) consented to be contacted by CREST-2. Of those, 39 (19.5%) agreed to be, and were, evaluated at their local CREST-2 center. High-grade stenosis was confirmed in 27 patients. A total of 3 patients were eligible for the trial and were enrolled, one woman but no racial/ethnic minorities. CONCLUSIONS: The LLS program appears to identify community-living individuals with high-grade carotid stenosis through ultrasonography. However, the prevalence of abnormal carotid findings was low. In addition, screening and offering participation into the CREST-2 trial had no substantial impact on the proportion of women and minorities enrolled in the trial. Additional innovative strategies are needed to promote enrollment of diverse patients with carotid stenosis into stroke prevention trials.

Addressing Posttreatment Selection Bias in Comparative Effectiveness Research, Using Real-World Data and Simulation.

To examine methodologies that address imbalanced treatment switching and censoring, 6 different analytical approaches were evaluated under a comparative effectiveness framework: intention-to-treat, as-treated, intention-to-treat with censor-weighting, as-treated with censor-weighting, time-varying exposure, and time-varying exposure with censor-weighting. Marginal structural models were employed to address time-varying exposure, confounding, and possibly informative censoring in an administrative data set of adult patients who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome and treated with either clopidogrel or ticagrelor. The effectiveness endpoint included first occurrence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. These methodologies were then applied across simulated data sets with varying frequencies of treatment switching and censoring to compare the effect estimate of each analysis. The findings suggest that implementing different analytical approaches has an impact on the point estimate and interpretation of analyses, especially when censoring is highly unbalanced.

Early versus late discharge after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and readmissions for permanent pacemaker implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the rate of readmission for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation with early versus late discharge after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: There is a current trend toward early discharge after TAVR. However, paucity of data exists on the impact of such practice on readmissions for PPM implantation. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmission Database 2016-2018 was queried for all hospitalizations where patients underwent TAVR. Hospitalizations were stratified into early (Days 0 and 1) versus late (≥Day 2) discharge groups. Observations in which PPM was required in the index admission were excluded. Multivariable regression analyses involving patient- and hospital-related variables were utilized. The primary outcome was 90-day readmission for PPM implantation. RESULTS: The final analysis included 68,482 TAVR hospitalizations, 20,261 (29.6%) with early versus 48,221 (70.4%) with late discharge. Early discharge after TAVR increased over the study period (16.2% in 2016 vs. 37.9% in 2018, Ptrend < 0.01). Nevertheless, 90-day readmission for PPM implantation remained stable (1.8% in 2016 vs. 2.0% in 2018, Ptrend = 0.32). The 90-day readmission rate for PPM implantation (2.0% vs. 1.8%; adjusted odds ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.39; p = 0.15) and median time-to-readmission (5 days [interquartile range, IQR 3-9] vs. 5 days [IQR 3-14], p = 0.92) were similar with early versus late discharge. Similar rates were observed regardless of whether readmission was elective versus not. Early discharge was associated with lower hospitalization cost ($39,990 ± $13,681 vs. $46,750 ± $18,218, p < 0.01) compared with late discharge. CONCLUSION: In patients who did not require PPM during the index TAVR hospitalization, the rate of readmission for PPM implantation was similar with early versus late discharge.

Impact of malnutrition and frailty on mortality and major amputation in patients with CLTI.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the prevalence of malnutrition and its association with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) outcomes; to clarify the differential impact of revascularization methods on outcomes; to assess the ability of the CLTI Frailty Risk Score (CLTI-FRS) to predict adverse events in patients hospitalized with CLTI. BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the management of CLTI, a majority still undergo major amputation, and a minority heal within 6 months. There is a lack of validated assessment tools for the identification and management of frailty and malnutrition in these patients. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample from January 2012 to September 2015, we identified all patients with CLTI using International Classification of Diseases Ninth Edition Clinical Modification codes. The cohort was divided into three groups according to nutritional status. Multivariable regression analysis was used to analyze the interaction between malnutrition and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 1,414,080 CLTI-related hospitalizations, 163,835 (11.6%) were malnourished, 332,855 (23.5%) patients were frail, 917,390 (64.9%) were well-nourished. In-hospital mortality, major amputation, the average length of stay, and hospital costs were highest among malnourished or frail patients and lowest in well-nourished patients (p < 0.001). Malnourished and frail patients were observed to have lower rates of mortality with endovascular revascularization as compared to surgical (adjusted odds ratios: 0.675 [0.533-0.854; p = 0.001]). CONCLUSION: Many patients with CLTI are malnourished or frail, and this is associated with mortality and amputation. Both malnourished and frail patients were observed to have a mortality benefit with a less invasive approach to revascularization. Better assessment of nutritional and frailty status of CLTI patients may guide therapy and help prevent amputation and death.

Race Differences in High-Grade Carotid Artery Stenosis.

Background and Purpose: Despite a higher incidence of stroke and a more adverse cardiovascular risk factor profile in Blacks and Hispanics compared with Whites, carotid artery revascularization is performed less frequently among these subpopulations. We assessed racial differences in high-grade (≥70% diameter-reducing) carotid stenosis. Methods: Consecutive clients in a Nationwide Life Line for-Profit Service to screen for vascular disease, 2005 to 2019 were evaluated in a cross-sectional study. The prevalence of high-grade stenosis, defined by a carotid ultrasound peak systolic velocity of ≥230 cm/s, was assessed. Participants self-identified as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or other. Race/ethnic differences were assessed using Poisson regression. The number of individuals in the United States with high-grade stenosis was estimated by applying prevalence estimates to 2015 US Census population estimates. Results: The prevalence of high-grade carotid stenosis was estimated in 6 130 481 individuals. The prevalence of high-grade stenosis was higher with increasing age in all race-sex strata. Generally, Blacks and Hispanics had a lower prevalence of high-grade stenosis compared with Whites, while Native Americans had a higher prevalence. For example, for men aged 55 to 65, the relative risk of stenosis compared with Whites was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.29­0.55) and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46­0.81) for Blacks and Hispanics, respectively; and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.12­2.10) for Native Americans. When these prevalence estimates were applied to the Census estimates of the US population, an estimated 327 721 individuals have high-grade stenosis, of whom 7% are Black, 7% Hispanic, and 43% women. Conclusions: Despite their having a more adverse cardiovascular risk profile, there was a lower prevalence of high-grade carotid artery stenosis for both the Black and Hispanic relative to the White clients. This lower prevalence of high-grade stenosis is a potential contributor to the lower use of carotid revascularization procedures in these minority populations.

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

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

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

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

#SoMe for #IC: Optimal use of social media in interventional cardiology.

Social media allows interventional cardiologists to disseminate and discuss research and clinical cases in real-time, to demonstrate and learn innovative techniques, to build professional networks, and to reach out to patients and the general public. Social media provides a democratic platform for all participants to influence the conversation and demonstrate their expertise. This review addresses the use of social media for these purposes in interventional cardiology, as well as respect for patient privacy, how to get started on social media, the creation of high-impact social media content, and the role of traditional journals in the age of social media. In the future, we hope that interventional cardiology fellowship programs will incorporate social media training into their curricula. In addition, professional societies may adapt to the rapid dissemination of data on social media by developing processes to update guidelines more rapidly and more frequently.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Health Care Utilization Following Inpatient Femoropopliteal Revascularization With Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty: A Nationwide Cohort Analysis.

PURPOSE: To examine nationwide variations in inpatient use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for treating femoropopliteal segment occlusive disease and whether DCBs are associated with reduced early out-of-hospital health care utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 24,022 patients who survived hospitalization for femoropopliteal revascularization using DCB angioplasty (n=7850) or uncoated balloon angioplasty (n=16,172) in the 2016-2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Differences in patient, hospitalization, and institutional characteristics were compared between treatment strategies. Adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine differences in 6-month rates of readmission, amputation, and repeat intervention. Results are presented as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Patients treated with DCBs had a higher prevalence of chronic limb-threatening ischemia, diabetes, hypertension, and tobacco use. Revascularization with a DCB was associated with shorter hospitalizations, lower median hospitalization costs, and fewer inpatient lower extremity amputations. Readmissions at 6 months were decreased in patients treated with DCBs compared with uncoated balloon angioplasty (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98, p=0.014). The most common reasons for readmission were complications related to procedures (15.4%) and diabetes (15.4%). Compared to patients treated with DCBs, patients treated with uncoated balloon angioplasty were more often readmitted with early procedure-related complications (13.3% vs 17.5%). There were no between-group differences in readmission for sepsis, myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure. CONCLUSION: DCBs are less often used compared to uncoated balloons during inpatient femoropopliteal procedures. While DCB utilization is associated with more severe comorbidities and advanced peripheral artery disease, readmission rates are decreased through the first 6 months.

North American lower-extremity revascularization and amputation during COVID-19: Observations from the Vascular Quality Initiative.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's impact on vascular procedural volumes and outcomes has not been fully characterized. METHODS: Volume and outcome data before (1/2019 - 2/2020), during (3/2020 - 4/2020), and following (5/2020 - 6/2020) the initial pandemic surge were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Volume changes were determined using interrupted Poisson time series regression. Adjusted mortality was estimated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The final cohort comprised 57,181 patients from 147 US and Canadian sites. Overall procedure volumes fell 35.2% (95% CI 31.9%, 38.4%, p < 0.001) during and 19.8% (95% CI 16.8%, 22.9%, p < 0.001) following the surge, compared with presurge months. Procedure volumes fell 71.1% for claudication (95% CI 55.6%, 86.4%, p < 0.001) and 15.9% for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) (95% CI 11.9%, 19.8%, p < 0.001) but remained unchanged for acute limb ischemia (ALI) when comparing surge to presurge months. Adjusted mortality was significantly higher among those with claudication (0.5% vs 0.1%; OR 4.38 [95% CI 1.42, 13.5], p = 0.01) and ALI (6.4% vs 4.4%; OR 2.63 [95% CI 1.39, 4.98], p = 0.003) when comparing postsurge with presurge periods. CONCLUSION: The first North American COVID-19 pandemic surge was associated with a significant and sustained decline in both elective and nonelective lower-extremity vascular procedural volumes. When compared with presurge patients, in-hospital mortality increased for those with claudication and ALI following the surge.

Association Between COVID-19 Diagnosis and In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

IMPORTANCE: There has been limited research on patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients with STEMI with vs without COVID-19 infection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted between January 2019 and December 2020 (end of follow-up in January 2021) with out-of-hospital or in-hospital STEMI at 509 US centers in the Vizient Clinical Database (N = 80 449). EXPOSURES: Active COVID-19 infection present during the same encounter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Patients were propensity matched on the likelihood of COVID-19 diagnosis. In the main analysis, patients with COVID-19 were compared with those without COVID-19 during the previous calendar year. RESULTS: The out-of-hospital STEMI group included 76 434 patients (551 with COVID-19 vs 2755 without COVID-19 after matching) from 370 centers (64.1% aged 51-74 years; 70.3% men). The in-hospital STEMI group included 4015 patients (252 with COVID-19 vs 756 without COVID-19 after matching) from 353 centers (58.3% aged 51-74 years; 60.7% men). In patients with out-of-hospital STEMI, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention by COVID-19 status; patients with in-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 were significantly less likely to undergo invasive diagnostic or therapeutic coronary procedures than those without COVID-19. Among patients with out-of-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 vs out-of-hospital STEMI without COVID-19, the rates of in-hospital mortality were 15.2% vs 11.2% (absolute difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 1.1%-7.0%]; P = .007). Among patients with in-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 vs in-hospital STEMI without COVID-19, the rates of in-hospital mortality were 78.5% vs 46.1% (absolute difference, 32.4% [95% CI, 29.0%-35.9%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with out-of-hospital or in-hospital STEMI, a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19 was significantly associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality compared with patients without a diagnosis of COVID-19 from the past year. Further research is required to understand the potential mechanisms underlying this association.

Perfusion Assessment in Critical Limb Ischemia: Principles for Understanding and the Development of Evidence and Evaluation of Devices: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

There are >12 million patients with peripheral artery disease in the United States. The most severe form of peripheral artery disease is critical limb ischemia (CLI). The diagnosis and management of CLI is often challenging. Ethnic differences in comorbidities and presentation of CLI exist. Compared with white patients, black and Hispanic patients have higher prevalence rates of diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease and are more likely to present with gangrene, whereas white patients are more likely to present with ulcers and rest pain. A thorough evaluation of limb perfusion is important in the diagnosis of CLI because it can not only enable timely diagnosis but also reduce unnecessary invasive procedures in patients with adequate blood flow or among those with other causes for ulcers, including venous, neuropathic, or pressure changes. This scientific statement discusses the current tests and technologies for noninvasive assessment of limb perfusion, including the ankle-brachial index, toe-brachial index, and other perfusion technologies. In addition, limitations of the current technologies along with opportunities for improvement, research, and reducing disparities in health care for patients with CLI are discussed.

Cardiac implantable electronic device placement following alcohol septal ablation for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are sometimes required after alcohol septal ablation (ASA) for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The primary objectives of this study were to characterize the incidence, timing, and predictors of CIED placement after ASA for HCM. METHODS: Patients were identified from the 2010-2015 Nationwide Readmissions Databases. Incidence, timing and independent predictors of CIED placement, as well as 30-day readmission rates were examined. RESULTS: There were 1296 patients (national estimate = 2864) with HCM who underwent ASA. CIED were implanted in 322 (25% overall; 14% permanent pacemaker, 11% implantable cardioverter defibrillator) during the index hospitalization. Of these, 21%, 23%, 21%, and 18% occurred on postprocedure day 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Only 17 (1.3%) patients underwent CIED implantation between discharge and 30-day follow up. Independent predictors of index hospitalization CIED implantation included older age, diabetes, heart failure, nonelective index hospital admission and hospitalization at a privately owned hospital. Nonelective 30-day readmission rates among those who did and did not undergo CIED placement during their index hospitalization, were 6.8% and 7.9%, respectively (p = .53); median time to readmission was also similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: One in four HCM patients undergoing ASA underwent CIED implantation during their index hospitalization; nearly 2/3rd during the first 48 h postprocedure. Private hospital ownership independently predicted CIED placement. More data are needed to better understand the unexpectedly high rates of CIED placement, earlier than anticipated timing of implantation and differential rates by hospital ownership.