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.

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.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID): Registry assessment of peripheral interventional devices core data elements.

OBJECTIVE: The current state of evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease and more specifically of evaluating medical devices used for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of the disease process, the multiple physician specialties that perform PVI, the multitude of devices available to treat peripheral artery disease, and the lack of consensus about the best treatment approaches. Because PVI core data elements are not standardized across clinical care, clinical trials, and registries, aggregation of data across different data sources and physician specialties is currently not feasible. METHODS: Under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Medical Device Epidemiology Network initiative-and its PASSION (Predictable and Sustainable Implementation of the National Registries) program, in conjunction with other efforts to align clinical data standards-the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) workgroup was convened. RAPID is a collaborative, multidisciplinary effort to develop a consensus lexicon and to promote interoperability across clinical care, clinical trials, and national and international registries of PVI. RESULTS: The current manuscript presents the initial work from RAPID to standardize clinical data elements and definitions, to establish a framework within electronic health records and health information technology procedural reporting systems, and to implement an informatics-based approach to promote the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials and registry efforts in PVI. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, we hope this work will facilitate and improve device evaluation and surveillance for patients, clinicians, health outcomes researchers, industry, policymakers, and regulators.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging-Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 2: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection.

The stimulus to create this document was the recognition that ionizing radiation-guided cardiovascular procedures are being performed with increasing frequency, leading to greater patient radiation exposure and, potentially, to greater exposure to clinical personnel. While the clinical benefit of these procedures is substantial, there is concern about the implications of medical radiation exposure. ACC leadership concluded that it is important to provide practitioners with an educational resource that assembles and interprets the current radiation knowledge base relevant to cardiovascular procedures. By applying this knowledge base, cardiovascular practitioners will be able to select procedures optimally, and minimize radiation exposure to patients and to clinical personnel. "Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging - Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness" is a comprehensive overview of ionizing radiation use in cardiovascular procedures and is published online. To provide the most value to our members, we divided the print version of this document into 2 focused parts. "Part I: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology" addresses radiation physics, dosimetry and detrimental biologic effects. "Part II: Radiologic Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection" covers the basics of operation and radiation delivery for the 3 cardiovascular imaging modalities (x-ray fluoroscopy, x-ray computed tomography, and nuclear scintigraphy). For each modality, it includes the determinants of radiation exposure and techniques to minimize exposure to both patients and to medical personnel.

2018 ACC/HRS/NASCI/SCAI/SCCT Expert Consensus Document on Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging-Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness, Part 1: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways Developed in Collaboration With Mended Hearts.

The stimulus to create this document was the recognition that ionizing radiation-guided cardiovascular procedures are being performed with increasing frequency, leading to greater patient radiation exposure and, potentially, to greater exposure for clinical personnel. Although the clinical benefit of these procedures is substantial, there is concern about the implications of medical radiation exposure. The American College of Cardiology leadership concluded that it is important to provide practitioners with an educational resource that assembles and interprets the current radiation knowledge base relevant to cardiovascular procedures. By applying this knowledge base, cardiovascular practitioners will be able to select procedures optimally, and minimize radiation exposure to patients and to clinical personnel. Optimal Use of Ionizing Radiation in Cardiovascular Imaging: Best Practices for Safety and Effectiveness is a comprehensive overview of ionizing radiation use in cardiovascular procedures and is published online. To provide the most value to our members, we divided the print version of this document into 2 focused parts. Part I: Radiation Physics and Radiation Biology addresses the issue of medical radiation exposure, the basics of radiation physics and dosimetry, and the basics of radiation biology and radiation-induced adverse effects. Part II: Radiological Equipment Operation, Dose-Sparing Methodologies, Patient and Medical Personnel Protection covers the basics of operation and radiation delivery for the 3 cardiovascular imaging modalities (x-ray fluoroscopy, x-ray computed tomography, and nuclear scintigraphy) and will be published in the next issue of the Journal.

Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID)　- Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices Core Data Elements.

BACKGROUND: The current state of evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease and more specifically of evaluating medical devices used for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of the disease process, the multiple physician specialties that perform PVI, the multitude of devices available to treat peripheral artery disease, and the lack of consensus about the best treatment approaches. Because PVI core data elements are not standardized across clinical care, clinical trials, and registries, aggregation of data across different data sources and physician specialties is currently not feasible.Methods and Results:Under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Medical Device Epidemiology Network initiative-and its PASSION (Predictable and Sustainable Implementation of the National Registries) program, in conjunction with other efforts to align clinical data standards-the Registry Assessment of Peripheral Interventional Devices (RAPID) workgroup was convened. RAPID is a collaborative, multidisciplinary effort to develop a consensus lexicon and to promote interoperability across clinical care, clinical trials, and national and international registries of PVI. The current manuscript presents the initial work from RAPID to standardize clinical data elements and definitions, to establish a framework within electronic health records and health information technology procedural reporting systems, and to implement an informatics-based approach to promote the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials and registry efforts in PVI. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, we hope this work will facilitate and improve device evaluation and surveillance for patients, clinicians, health outcomes researchers, industry, policymakers, and regulators.

Depression and long-term prognostic outcomes following peripheral endovascular interventions in the VA Healthcare System.

The association between depression and peripheral artery disease (PAD) outcomes remains widely understudied. In patients with PAD undergoing a peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) who have a recent diagnosis of depression, it is unknown what their long-term outcomes are and what factors may mediate an adverse risk. We therefore studied 797 consecutive patients undergoing PVI across 33 Veterans Affairs (VA) centers. Depression and outcomes were documented from patients' medical records. Outcomes included: (1) all-cause death; (2) non-fatal cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke); and (3) PAD-related events (including repeat PVI or amputation). Cox proportional hazards frailty models were constructed, adjusting for age. Additional covariates were selected if they resulted in at least 5% change in the age-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for depression on outcomes. Overall, 265 (33%) patients had a diagnosis of depression. After a median follow-up of 955 days (range 1-6.25 years), 52 (6.5%) patients died, 30 (3.8%) experienced non-fatal cardiovascular events, and 176 (22.1%) had PAD-related events. Compared to patients without depression, depressed patients had higher rates of non-fatal cardiovascular events (6.4% vs 2.4%, p-value 0.0055). No differences for the other outcomes were noted. Higher risk for non-fatal cardiovascular events persisted after adjustment for age (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.05-2.47). The only additional covariate that met our selection criteria was hypertension. After adjusting for hypertension, the association between depression and non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes attenuated (HR 1.53, 95% CI 0.99-2.35). In conclusion, a diagnosis of depression in veterans undergoing PVI was associated with increased risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events, mediated by age and hypertension.

The Contemporary Safety and Effectiveness of Lower Extremity Bypass Surgery and Peripheral Endovascular Interventions in the Treatment of Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for symptomatic peripheral artery disease includes lower extremity bypass surgery (LEB) and peripheral endovascular interventions (PVIs); however, limited comparative effectiveness data exist between the 2 therapies. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of LEB and PVI in patients with symptomatic claudication and critical limb ischemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a community-based clinical registry at 2 large integrated healthcare delivery systems, we compared 883 patients undergoing PVI and 975 patients undergoing LEB between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2011. Rates of target lesion revascularization were greater for PVI than for LEB in patients presenting with claudication (12.3±2.7% and 19.0±3.5% at 1 and 3 years versus 5.2±2.4% and 8.3±3.1%, log-rank P<0.001) and critical limb ischemia (19.1±4.8% and 31.6±6.3% at 1 and 3 years versus 10.8±2.5% and 16.0±3.2%, log-rank P<0.001). However, in comparison with PVI, LEB was associated with increased rates of complications up to 30 days following the procedure (37.1% versus 11.9%, P<0.001). There were no differences in amputation rates between the 2 groups. Findings remained consistent in sensitivity analyses by using propensity methods to account for treatment selection. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease, in comparison with LEB, PVI was associated with fewer 30-day procedural complications, higher revascularization rates at 1 and 3 years, and no difference in subsequent amputations.

Predicting in-hospital mortality in acute type B aortic dissection: evidence from International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of patients with acute type B aortic dissection (ABAD) is strongly related to their clinical presentation. The purpose of this study was to investigate predictors for mortality among patients presenting with ABAD and to create a predictive model to estimate individual risk of in-hospital mortality using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients with ABAD enrolled in IRAD between 1996 and 2013 were included for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to investigate predictors of in-hospital mortality. Significant risk factors for in-hospital death were used to develop a prediction model. A total of 1034 patients with ABAD were included for analysis (673 men; mean age, 63.5±14.0 years), with an overall in-hospital mortality of 10.6%. In multivariable analysis, the following variables at admission were independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality: increasing age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.06; P=0.044), hypotension/shock (OR, 6.43; 95% CI, 2.88-18.98; P=0.001), periaortic hematoma (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.38-6.78; P=0.006), descending diameter ≥5.5 cm (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.87-12.73; P<0.001), mesenteric ischemia (OR, 9.03; 95% CI, 3.49-23.38; P<0.001), acute renal failure (OR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.68-7.75; P=0.001), and limb ischemia (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.05-8.68; P=0.040). Based on these multivariable results, a reliable and simple bedside risk prediction tool was developed. CONCLUSIONS: We present a simple prediction model using variables that are independently associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with ABAD. Although it needs to be validated in an independent population, this model could be used to assist physicians in their choice of management and for informing patients and their families.