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.).

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.

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.

Coronary slow flow--prevalence and clinical correlations.

BACKGROUND: Coronary slow flow phenomenon (CSFP) is defined as delayed coronary opacification in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. In the present study, we sought to define its prevalence and clinical features. METHODS AND RESULTS: The 1,741 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography (CAG) were identified. Those with normal left ventricular ejection fraction and normal coronary arteries were included in the study (n=158). TIMI frame counts were calculated, and data on demographics, comorbidities, and medication use were collected. CSFP was defined as frame count > 27. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of CSFP. CSFP was identified in 96 (5.5%) subjects referred for CAG. Subjects with CSFP were more obese (body mass index [BMI] 33.9 vs. 29.8 kg/m², P=0.003) and had lower high-density lipoprotein levels (39.7 vs. 45.7 mg/dl, P=0.04). In the CSFP group, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein and frame counts increased significantly with increasing vessel involvement (1-, vs. 2-, vs. 3-vessel involvement; P<0.05 for each variable). By multivariate analysis, male sex (odds ratio 3.36, 95% confidence interval 1.17-8.61, P=0.02) and higher BMI independently predicted the presence of CSFP (odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.15, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CSFP is associated with male sex and obesity. Multivessel involvement may be a marker of more severe, diffuse disease. Further studies are needed to investigate this hypothesis.

Temporal Trends, Practice Variation, and Associated Outcomes With IVUS Use During Peripheral Arterial Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been shown in limited prospective studies to improve procedural outcomes for patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral arterial intervention (PVI). OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to study temporal trends, practice variation, and associated outcomes with the use of IVUS during PVI among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: All PVIs performed from 2016 to 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries aged >65 years were included. Temporal trends in IVUS use were stratified by procedural location (inpatient, outpatient, or ambulatory surgery center [ASC]/office-based laboratory [OBL]) and physician specialty. The primary outcome was major adverse limb events (MALE). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Cox regression with competing risks was used to estimate weighted hazard ratios. RESULTS: During the study period, 543,488 PVIs were included, of which 63,372 (11.7%) used IVUS. A substantial growth in IVUS use was observed, which was driven by procedures performed in ASCs/OBLs (23.6% increase from quarter 1 of 2016 through quarter 4 of 2019). Among operators who used IVUS, there was also notable variation in use (median operator use 5.4% of cases; IQR: 2.2%-15.0%; range, <1%-100%). In weighted analysis, IVUS use during PVI was associated with a lower risk of MALE through a median of 514 days (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.70-0.75; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary nationwide data, IVUS use during PVI has increased since 2016, driven by growth in the ASC/OBL setting. However, there remains substantial variation in operator practice. When used during PVI, IVUS was associated with a lower risk of short- and long-term MALE.

Appropriate Use of Intravascular Ultrasound During Arterial and Venous Lower Extremity Interventions.

BACKGROUND: There has been growing use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during lower extremity arterial and venous revascularization. Observational data suggest that the use of IVUS can improve periprocedural and long-term outcomes, but largescale prospective data remain limited. Consensus opinion regarding the appropriate use of IVUS during peripheral intervention is needed. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this consensus document is to provide guidance on the appropriate use of IVUS in various phases of peripheral arterial and venous interventions. METHODS: A 12-member writing committee was convened to derive consensus regarding the appropriate clinical scenarios for use of peripheral IVUS. The group iteratively created a 72-question survey representing 12 lower extremity arterial interventional scenarios. Separately, a 40-question survey representing 8 iliofemoral venous interventional scenarios was constructed. Clinical scenarios were categorized by interventional phases: preintervention, intraprocedure, and postintervention optimization. Thirty international vascular experts (15 for each survey) anonymously completed the survey instrument. Results were categorized by appropriateness using the median value and disseminated to the voting panel to reevaluate for any disagreement. RESULTS: Consensus opinion concluded that IVUS use may be appropriate during the preintervention phase for evaluating the etiology of vessel occlusion and plaque morphology in the iliac and femoropopliteal arteries. IVUS was otherwise rated as appropriate during iliac and femoropopliteal revascularization in most other preintervention scenarios, as well as intraprocedural and postprocedural optimization phases. IVUS was rated appropriate in all interventional phases for the tibial arteries. For iliofemoral venous interventions, IVUS was rated as appropriate in all interventional phases. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus can help define clinical procedural scenarios in which peripheral IVUS may have value during lower extremity arterial and venous intervention while additional prospective data are collected.

Cardiovascular and Limb Events Following Endovascular Revascularization Among Patients ≥65 Years Old: An American College of Cardiology PVI Registry Analysis.

Background We aimed to characterize the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events (MACE and MALE) among patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI), as well as associated factors in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI). Methods and Results Patients undergoing PVI in the American College of Cardiology's (ACC) National Cardiovascular Data Registry's PVI Registry who could be linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were included. The primary outcomes were MACE, MALE, and readmission within 1 month and 1 year following index CLTI-PVI or non-CLTI-PVI. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify factors associated with the development of the primary outcomes among patients undergoing CLTI-PVI. There were 1758 (49.7%) patients undergoing CLTI-PVI and 1779 (50.3%) undergoing non-CLTI-PVI. By 1 year, MACE occurred in 29.5% of patients with CLTI (n=519), and MALE occurred in 34.0% of patients with CLTI (n=598). By 1 year, MACE occurred in 8.2% of patients with non-CLTI (n=146), and MALE occurred in 26.1% of patients with non-CLTI (n=465). Predictors of MACE at 1 year in CLTI-PVI included end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, congestive heart failure, prior CABG, and severe lung disease. Predictors of MALE at 1 year in CLTI-PVI included treatment of a prior bypass graft, profunda femoral artery treatment, end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, and treatment of a previously treated lesion. Conclusions Patients ≥65 years old undergoing PVI experience high rates of MACE and MALE. A range of modifiable and non-modifiable patient factors, procedural characteristics, and medications are associated with the occurrence of MACE and MALE following CLTI-PVI.

Endovascular treatment of mesenteric ischemia.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to describe a single-center's experience in managing acute and chronic mesenteric ischemia with endovascular therapies. BACKGROUND: Open surgical revascularization has been considered the historical gold standard treatment for mesenteric ischemia though it poses considerable morbidity and mortality risk. An aging population with increased comorbidities makes endovascular treatment a more attractive treatment option. METHODS: Consecutive subjects receiving percutaneous mesenteric interventions for acute and chronic mesenteric ischemia from 2004 to 2010 were identified retrospectively. Information on comorbidities, symptoms, screening tests, procedural outcomes, and follow up was obtained. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received percutaneous mesenteric interventions during this period. The mean age of the population was 65.0 years with roughly equal proportions of males (48.4%) and females (51.6%). Traditional cardiovascular risk factors were highly prevalent (hypertension 45.2%, diabetes 25.8%, dyslipidemia 38.7%, nicotine use 45.2%). Procedural success was 93.5%; no periprocedural complications were reported. During a mean follow up of 13 months, 16.1% required repeat revascularization and 22.6% died. Endovascular treatment of acute mesenteric ischemia was successful (n = 8) and no patient required open surgical revascularization acutely or during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of mesenteric ischemia is a safe and effective therapy with acceptable long-term results. Our experience with acute mesenteric ischemia suggests that percutaneous treatment may be an effective alternative to surgical revascularization in appropriately selected patients.

Aorto-iliac peripheral artery disease.

Aorto-iliac disease is a common manifestation of atherosclerosis. Individuals with this condition are at heightened cardiovascular risk, and may have limb symptoms ranging from claudication to limb-threatening ischemia. A regimen of medical therapy, risk factor modification, and exercise is first line therapy. Revascularization is reserved for individuals with lifestyle-limiting claudication despite conservative therapy and in those with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Multiple endovascular therapies are now available that enable even the most complex aorto-iliac lesions to be approached and treated with safe and durable results.