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.

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.).

The impact of revascularization strategy on clinical failure, hemodynamic failure, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia symptoms in the BEST-CLI Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Sustained clinical and hemodynamic benefit after revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is needed to resolve symptoms and prevent limb loss. We sought to compare rates of clinical and hemodynamic failure as well as resolution of initial and prevention of recurrent CLTI after endovascular (ENDO) vs bypass (OPEN) revascularization in the Best-Endovascular-versus-best-Surgical-Therapy-in-patients-with-CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial. METHODS: As planned secondary analyses of the BEST-CLI trial, we examined the rates of (1) clinical failure (a composite of all-cause death, above-ankle amputation, major reintervention, and degradation of WIfI stage); (2) hemodynamic failure (a composite of above-ankle amputation, major and minor reintervention to maintain index limb patency, failure to an initial increase or a subsequent decrease in ankle brachial index of 0.15 or toe brachial index of 0.10, and radiographic evidence of treatment stenosis or occlusion); (3) time to resolution of presenting CLTI symptoms; and (4) incidence of recurrent CLTI. Time-to-event analyses were performed by intention-to-treat assignment in both trial cohorts (cohort 1: suitable single segment great saphenous vein [SSGSV], N = 1434; cohort 2: lacking suitable SSGSV, N = 396), and multivariate stratified Cox regression models were created. RESULTS: In cohort 1, there was a significant difference in time to clinical failure (log-rank P < .001), hemodynamic failure (log-rank P < .001), and resolution of presenting symptoms (log-rank P = .009) in favor of OPEN. In cohort 2, there was a significantly lower rate of hemodynamic failure (log-rank P = .006) favoring OPEN, and no significant difference in time to clinical failure or resolution of presenting symptoms. Multivariate analysis revealed that assignment to OPEN was associated with a significantly lower risk of clinical and hemodynamic failure in both cohorts and a significantly higher likelihood of resolving initial and preventing recurrent CLTI symptoms in cohort 1, including after adjustment for key baseline patient covariates (end-stage renal disease [ESRD], prior revascularization, smoking, diabetes, age >80 years, WIfI stage, tissue loss, and infrapopliteal disease). Factors independently associated with clinical failure included age >80 years in cohort 1 and ESRD across both cohorts. ESRD was associated with hemodynamic failure in cohort 1. Factors associated with slower resolution of presenting symptoms included diabetes in cohort 1 and WIfI stage in cohort 2. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical and hemodynamic benefit after revascularization for CLTI is important to avoid persistent and recurrent CLTI, reinterventions, and limb loss. When compared with ENDO, initial treatment with OPEN surgical bypass, particularly with available saphenous vein, is associated with improved clinical and hemodynamic outcomes and enhanced resolution of CLTI symptoms.

ACGME Interventional Cardiology Milestones 2.0-an overview: Endorsed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

This document provides an overview of the rationale, development, interpretation, and practical suggestions for implementation of the new Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Interventional Cardiology (IC) Milestones 2.0. Previously, IC programs used the general ACGME Milestones for internal medicine. The IC Milestones version 2.0 updates the ACGME competencies to be specific to training in IC. In 2019 an ACGME working group consisting of IC program directors, a lay representative, and representatives from the American Board of Internal Medicine met to develop the IC Milestones version 2.0. The ACGME IC Milestones 2.0 establishes a framework for formative feedback for trainees within domains of patient care, medical knowledge, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and interpersonal and communication skills. The 2021 IC Milestones 2.0 provides a framework for IC mentors and trainees to identify areas for improvement or commendation help stimulate meaningful educational discussions, and provide the basis for self-reflection and self-improvement.

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.

Racial and ethnic disparities in coronary, vascular, structural, and congenital heart disease.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States. However, percutaneous interventional cardiovascular therapies are often underutilized in Blacks, Hispanics, and women and may contribute to excess morbidity and mortality in these vulnerable populations. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) is committed to reducing racial, ethnic, and sex-based treatment disparities in interventional cardiology patients. Accordingly, each of the SCAI Clinical Interest Councils (coronary, peripheral, structural, and congenital heart disease [CHD]) participated in the development of this whitepaper addressing disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in underserved populations. The councils were charged with summarizing the available data on prevalence, treatment, and outcomes and elucidating potential reasons for any disparities. Given the huge changes in racial and ethnic composition by age in the United States (Figure 1), it was difficult to determine disparities in rates of diagnosis and we expected to find some racial differences in prevalence of disease. For example, since the average age of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is 80 years, one may expect 80% of TAVR patients to be non-Hispanic White. Conversely, only 50% of congenital heart interventions would be expected to be performed in non-Hispanic Whites. Finally, we identified opportunities for SCAI to advance clinical care and equity for our patients, regardless of sex, ethnicity, or race.

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.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions 2020 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 for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2020 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 (CHD). 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 dialogue from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI and the industry community in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Expanding opportunities to understand quality and outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions: The ACC NCDR PVI Registry.

Lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) are prevalent conditions in the United States, and both are associated with significant morbidity (eg, stroke, myocardial infarction, and limb loss) and increased mortality. With a growth in invasive procedures for PAD and CeVD, this demands a more clear responsibility and introduces an opportunity to study how patients are treated and evaluate associated outcomes. The American College of Cardiology (ACC) National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Peripheral Vascular Intervention (PVI) Registry is a prospective, independent collection of data elements from individual patients at participating centers, and it is a natural extension of the already robust NCDR infrastructure. As of September 20, 2018, data have been collected on 45,316 lower extremity PVIs, 12,417 carotid artery stenting procedures, and 11,027 carotid endarterectomy procedures at 208 centers in the United States. The purpose of the present report is to describe the patient and procedural characteristics of the overall cohort and the methods used to design and implement the registry. In collecting these data, ACC and ACC PVI Registry have the opportunity to play a pivotal role in scientific evidence generation, medical device surveillance, and creation of best practices for PVI and carotid artery revascularization.

SCAI 2018 Think Tank Proceedings: "What skillsets are required of vascular interventional cardiologists in evaluating and managing critical limb ischemia (CLI)? What role should SCAI play in supporting interventional cardiologists in their CLI practices, individually and collectively?"

The aim of this article is to discuss the poor outcomes associated with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and the required knowledge needed for optimal care. There is an opportunity for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) to assist interventional cardiologists in enhancing CLI care through creation of training standards and development of educational content.

Comparison of Inferior Vena Cava Filters Placed at the Bedside via Intravenous Ultrasound Guidance Versus Fluoroscopic Guidance.

BACKGROUND: IVCFs are usually placed under fluoroscopic guidance in dedicated angiography suites. Bedside placement of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) is possible in patients not suitable for transportation, but data regarding their use are limited. The objective of this study is to compare utilization, procedural outcomes, complications, and long-term patient outcomes associated with bedside placement of IVCFs using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and fluoroscopic placement of IVCF. METHODS: All patients receiving IVCF between January 2009 and December 2011 at a tertiary care institution were retrospectively identified. Data regarding patient characteristics, IVCF indications, complications, and outcomes were collected, and comparisons were made between patients receiving fluoroscopic-guided and IVUS-guided bedside IVCF. RESULTS: There were 117 bedside and 571 fluoroscopic-guided IVCF placed during this period. Patients receiving bedside IVCF were younger (50.8 vs. 60.7 years, P < 0.001), less often had malignancy (22.2% vs. 42.6%, P < 0.001), and received prophylactic filters more commonly (59.9% vs. 29.9%, P < 0.001). Placement-related complications occurred in 4.3% and 0.6%, respectively (bedside IVCF: 4 malpositions, 1 severe tilt; fluoroscopic-guided IVCF: 1 malposition, 1 severe tilt, P = 0.01). Indwelling IVCF-related complications occurred equally during median follow-up of 463 and 488 days, respectively (deep vein thrombosis: 13.7% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.92; pulmonary embolism: 5.1% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.61; filter thrombosis: 3.4% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.82). Time to indwelling complication was similar between groups (74 vs. 127 days, P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Bedside placement of IVUS-guided IVCF is safe, but with higher procedural complications when compared with fluoroscopic placement. Long-term indwelling complications are similar between IVCF placed via bedside IVUS guidance and fluoroscopic approach.

Unprotected carotid artery stenting in modern practice.

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Embolic protection devices (EPD) may provide a mechanism to reduce peri-procedural strokes. They are advocated by consensus guidelines and mandated for Medicare reimbursement. However, outcomes data remain mixed. We aimed to characterize the population of patients undergoing unprotected carotid artery stenting (CAS) and assess the utility of distal filter EPD (F-EPD) in elective CAS. METHODS: We analyzed patients enrolled in the CARE Registry® undergoing CAS between May, 2005 and January, 2012. We assessed the relationship between distal F-EPD use versus no use (No-EPD) and the composite of in-hospital death or stroke (MAE) in unadjusted and 1:3 propensity-matched analyses. RESULTS: Embolic protection was not attempted in a total of 579 out of 13,263 cases performed (4.4%). Patients in the No-EPD group had worse preprocedure neurologic risk factors including higher rates of acute evolving stroke, prior TIA/stroke, symptomatic lesion status, spontaneous carotid artery dissection, and use of general anesthesia intraprocedurally (all Standardized Differences{sd} >10). After exclusion of nonelective cases there was no significant difference in MAE between the No-EPD and F-EPD groups (1.6% vs. 2.3%, sd = 4.72). Additionally, after propensity matching, rates of MAE did not differ between the No-EPD (n = 355) and F-EPD (n = 1065) groups (1.7% vs. 2.5%, sd = 5.87). CONCLUSIONS: Patients selected to undergo unprotected CAS in contemporary practice have high rates of adverse preprocedure neurologic risk factors. Our propensity-matched analysis did not demonstrate evidence of significant benefit or harm associated with use of F-EPD in elective CAS patients.

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.

Anatomic correlates of supra-normal ankle brachial indices.

BACKGROUND: Supra-normal ankle brachial index (ABI) (>1.40), poses diagnostic challenges to determine the presence, location, and severity of peripheral artery disease (PAD). The anatomic distribution of PAD in patients with elevated ABI has not been previously described. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients referred to the Massachusetts General Hospital vascular diagnostic laboratory from 5 January 2006 to 12 January 2011 who had both a supra-normal ABI and contrast arteriography (CA) within 3 months of each other is reported. Angiographic patterns were described using the Trans Atlantic Inter Society Consensus II (TASC II) classification. RESULTS: One-hundred sixteen limbs were analyzed in 92 patients. Mean age was 71.6 years (± 11.2); 81.5% (75/92) were male; 85.9% Caucasian (79/92); 67.4% diabetics (62/92); 78.3% hypertensive (72/92); 67.4% hypercholesterolemic (62/92); and 64.1% were current or former tobacco users (59/92). Chronic hemodialysis was present in 18.5% (17/92) and 15.2% (14/92) received chronic corticosteroids. Intermittent claudication was present in 46.7% (43/92) and critical limb ischemia in 52.2% (48/92). Aortoiliac, femoral and infra-popliteal involvement per angiography occurred in 14.9% (15/101), 56.1% (60/107), and 84.0% (84/100), respectively. Multilevel disease was present in 48.8% (42/86) of patients. PAD was absent in 4.7% (4/86) of patients. Toe brachial index <0.7 was found in 92% (92/100) of patients with angiographically confirmed PAD. CONCLUSION: In symptomatic patients referred to a vascular laboratory who were found to have supra-normal ABI, nearly one half exhibited multilevel PAD, and over 80% had infrapopliteal involvement. A supra-normal ABI in such patients mandates evaluation for the presence and extent of PAD.

Novel usage of everolimus-eluting coronary stent for intracranial atherosclerotic disease: a technical report and case series.

Objectives: This report describes the use of an Everolimus-eluting stent (Xience Skypoint stent) for the treatment of medically-refractory ICAD. Design: Retrospective, case-series. Setting: In-hospital patients. Participants: All patients in this report had a history of stroke secondary to ICAD. All patients failed aggressive medical treatments and had recurrence of symptoms despite anticoagulation or dual-antiplatelet therapy plus a statin. Diagnostic angiogram in each case showed severe vessel stenosis, therefore patients were recommended for intracranial artery stenting. Main outcome measures: Technical feasibility of deploying Xience Skypoint stent for treatmet of ICAD. Results: The Xience Skypoint stent was safely and effectively deployed in the vertebral artery (x1) and the internal carotid artery (x2) using trans-ulnar (x1), trans-radial (x1), and trans-femoral (x1) approaches without the use of an intermediate catheter. Conclusion: Second-generation EES such as Xience Skypoint may be utilized for treatment of medically-refractory ICAD. This technical report serves as a proof of concept for further studies analysing long-term safety and efficacy of such stents for treatment of ICAD.

Outcomes of atherectomy in patients undergoing lower extremity revascularisation.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of real-world data on the in-hospital (IH) and post-discharge outcomes in patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) with adjunctive atherectomy. AIMS: In this retrospective, registry-based study, we evaluated IH and post-discharge outcomes among patients undergoing PVI, treated with or without atherectomy, in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PVI Registry. METHODS: The IH composite endpoint included procedural complications, bleeding or thrombosis. The primary out-of-hospital endpoint was major amputation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included repeat endovascular or surgical revascularisation and death. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of atherectomy use and its association with clinical endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 30,847 patients underwent PVI from 2014 to 2019, including 10,971 (35.6%) treated with atherectomy. The unadjusted rate of the IH endpoint occurred in 524 (4.8%) of the procedures involving atherectomy and 1,041 (5.3%) of non-atherectomy procedures (p=0.07). After adjustment, the use of atherectomy was not associated with an increased risk of the combined IH endpoint (p=0.68). In the 6,889 (22.4%) patients with out-of-hospital data, atherectomy was associated with a reduced risk of amputation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.85; p<0.01) and surgical revascularisation (aHR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.89; p=0.017), no difference in death rates (p=0.10), but an increased risk of endovascular revascularisation (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06-1.39; p<0.01) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The use of atherectomy during PVI is common and is not associated with an increase in IH adverse events. Longitudinally, patients treated with atherectomy undergo repeat endovascular reintervention more frequently but experience a reduced risk of amputation and surgical revascularisation.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.