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

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

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

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

The Impact of Revascularization Strategy on Clinical Failure, Hemodynamic Failure and Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia Symptoms in the BEST-CLI Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Sustained clinical and hemodynamic benefit following 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 following endovascular (ENDO) vs bypass (OPEN) revascularization in the BEST-CLI trial. METHODS: As planned secondary analyses of the BEST-CLI trial, we examined the rates of A) clinical failure (a composite of all-cause death, above-ankle amputation, major reintervention, and degradation of WIfI stage); B) hemodynamic failure (a composite of above-ankle amputation, major and minor reintervention to maintain index limb patency, failure to initially 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); C) time to resolution of presenting CLTI symptoms; and D) incidence of recurrent CLTI. Time-to-event analyses were 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<0.001), hemodynamic failure (log-rank p<0.001), and resolution of presenting symptoms (log-rank p=0.009) in favor of OPEN. In cohort 2, there was a significantly lower rate of hemodynamic failure (log-rank p=0.006) 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 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, WIfI stage, tissue loss, infrapopliteal disease). Factors independently associated with clinical failure included age>80 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 following 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of Computerized Tomography Utilization in Comparison to Digital Subtraction Angiography in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease.

BACKGROUND: Perform literature review to analyze current practices in imaging patient with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and examine patterns in our practice in order to assess whether a lower extremity computed tomography angiography (CTA) in addition to digital subtraction angiography enhanced the assessment of vessel calcification, percentage of stenosis, and affected outcomes in patients with PAD. METHODS: The study included patients who underwent lower extremity imaging and were followed up to 12 months. This population was divided into cases who had both an angiogram and CTA performed within 30 days (n = 20), and controls who underwent angiography only (n = 19). Baseline characteristics, imaging results, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients met study criteria (mean age was 58.4 years, 69.2% were males, and 33.3% had diabetes). Patients mostly presented with tissue loss/rest pain (10.3%), claudication (15.4%), acute limb (10.3%), and trauma (15.4%). We have not observed any statistically significant differences in various examined blood vessels when their features (e.g., vessel diameter, stenosis, calcifications) were assessed by CTA combined with angiography versus angiography alone. The exceptions were external iliac artery, superficial femoral artery and dorsalis pedis vessels. In external iliac artery percentage of stenosis was 1.11% as determined by computed tomography (CT) scan versus 30% by angiography (P = 0.009). For superficial femoral artery stenosis, the percentage determined by CT was 48.68% vs. 81.41% by angiography, and observed difference between 2 modalities was statistically significant (P = 0.025). For dorsalis pedis percentage of stenosis detected by CT scan was 60.63% vs. 22.73% by angiography, and the differences in findings by these modalities were statistically significant (P = 0.039). The most frequent perioperative complication was cardiac-related (35.5%). Nineteen patients were readmitted and 8 had reinterventions within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Both imaging modalities yielded similar results for assessing vessel calcification and percentage of stenosis regardless of anatomic vessel location. Overall, utilization of CTA in addition to angiography for large vessels above the knee (e.g., iliac artery, superficial femoral artery) and below the knee for dorsalis pedis provided more detailed information on the properties of these vessels. Therefore, during preoperative assessments, CTA may be helpful in addition to angiography for planning surgical and endovascular interventions for symptomatic PAD treatment in larger vessels.

Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: The AVATAR Trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represents a class I indication in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, indications for early SAVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal left ventricular function remain debated. METHODS: The AVATAR trial (Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) is an investigator-initiated international prospective randomized controlled trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of early SAVR in the treatment of asymptomatic patients with severe AS, according to common criteria (valve area ≤1 cm2 with aortic jet velocity >4 m/s or a mean transaortic gradient ≥40 mm Hg), and with normal left ventricular function. Negative exercise testing was mandatory for inclusion. The primary hypothesis was that early SAVR would reduce the primary composite end point of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure compared with a conservative strategy according to guidelines. The trial was designed as event-driven to reach a minimum of 35 prespecified events. The study was performed in 9 centers in 7 European countries. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and September 2020, 157 patients (mean age, 67 years; 57% men) were randomly allocated to early surgery (n=78) or conservative treatment (n=79). Follow-up was completed in May 2021. Overall median follow-up was 32 months: 28 months in the early surgery group and 35 months in the conservative treatment group. There was a total of 39 events, 13 in early surgery and 26 in the conservative treatment group. In the early surgery group, 72 patients (92.3%) underwent SAVR with operative mortality of 1.4%. In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomized to early surgery had a significantly lower incidence of primary composite end point than those in the conservative arm (hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23-0.90]; P=0.02). There was no statistical difference in secondary end points, including all-cause mortality, first heart failure hospitalizations, major bleeding, or thromboembolic complications, but trends were consistent with the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with severe AS, early surgery reduced a primary composite of all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure compared with conservative treatment. This randomized trial provides preliminary support for early SAVR once AS becomes severe, regardless of symptoms. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02436655.

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

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

Rationale and design of the safe and timely antithrombotic removal - ticagrelor (STAR-T) trial: A prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating reductions in postoperative bleeding with intraoperative removal of ticagrelor by the drugsorb™-ATR device in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery within 48 hours from last ticagrelor dose.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor is often administered to patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, when these patients require urgent or emergent cardiothoracic (CT) surgery the presence of ticagrelor significantly increases surgical bleeding. The goal of the current trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the DrugSorb-ATR hemoadsorption device for the intraoperative removal of ticagrelor to reduce postoperative bleeding in the above patient population. The Safe and Timely Antithrombotic Removal - Ticagrelor (STAR-T) Trial is a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial enrolling patients who require cardiothoracic surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) within 48 hours of last ticagrelor dose. METHODS: Subjects will be randomized 1:1 to receive either the DrugSorb-ATR device or an identical sham device during CPB. The study will enroll up to 120 subjects at 20 U.S centers, and the primary outcome is the composite of fatal perioperative bleeding, moderate/severe/massive bleeding according to the Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding in Cardiac Surgery (UDPB), and 24 hours chest tube drainage. The components of the composite are hierarchically ranked according to clinical significance and the primary analysis will utilize the Win Ratio method. Percent change in ticagrelor levels before and after CPB (drug removal) will be the key secondary endpoint. An independent Clinical Events Committee will adjudicate all clinical endpoints including safety endpoints relating to postoperative thrombotic events. Subjects will be followed through 30 days after the index operation. CONCLUSIONS: The results from STAR-T, if positive, will potentially support FDA market approval for DrugSorb-ATR, and provide a solution to an important unmet clinical need.

Predictors and outcomes of acute kidney injury during autologous stem cell transplantation in AL amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM/SCT) in patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. However, its incidence, predictors and outcomes are not well known. METHODS: This observational study included 223 patients with AL amyloidosis who underwent HDM/SCT. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine to ≥1.5 times the baseline occurring within the first 30 days of HDM/SCT. RESULTS: The median age was 58 years (range: 30-77). Kidney and cardiac involvement were present in 86.1% and 56.8%, respectively. The median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 83.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 (range: 9-213) and proteinuria was 2899 mg/day (range: 0-19 966). AKI occurred in 29.1% of patients. Dialysis was initiated in 15 patients (6.7%) and of these 12 (80%) were able to discontinue dialysis. Most of the episodes of AKI occurred within the first 2 weeks; with a median follow-up of 4.5 years (range: 0.1-16.5), AKI was associated with increased overall mortality [hazard rato (HR) = 4.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2-10.23]. The 10-year overall survival was 87.1% without AKI, versus 56.9% with AKI. AKI was also associated with an increased risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) (HR = 4.6, 95% CI 1.44-14.38). The risk of developing ESKD at 10 years was 18.9% with AKI, versus 8.1% without AKI. Several risk factors were found and using multivariate logistic regression, a prediction model was developed that included three readily available variables: eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, interventricular septal thickness in diastole >12 mm and albumin <3 g/dL. This model was able to predict AKI development with an area under the curve of 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: AKI is common in the post-HDM/SCT period and it leads to increased risk for ESKD and death. Our prediction model is an easily deployable tool in clinical settings as part of the discussion with patients who are being prepared for HDM/SCT.

Assessing treatment benefit in the presence of placebo response using the sequential parallel comparison design.

In clinical trials, placebo response is considered a beneficial effect arising from multiple factors, including the patient's expectations for the treatment. Its presence makes the classical parallel study design suboptimal and can bias the inference. The sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD), a two-stage design where the first stage is a classical parallel study design, followed by another parallel design among placebo subjects from the first stage, was proposed to address the shortcomings of the classical design. In SPCD, in lieu of treatment effect, a weighted average of the mean treatment difference in Stage I among all randomized subjects and the mean treatment difference in Stage II among placebo non-responders was proposed as the efficacy measure. However, by linking two possibly different populations, this weighted average lacks interpretability, and the choice of weight remains controversial. In this work, under the principal stratification framework, we propose a causal estimand for the treatment effect under each of three clinically important principal strata: Always Responders, Never Responders, and Drug-only Responders. To make the stratum treatment effect identifiable, we introduce a set of assumptions and two sensitivity parameters. By further considering the strata as latent characteristics, the sensitivity parameters can be estimated. An extensive simulation study is conducted to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method. Finally, we apply our method on the ADAPT-A study data to assess the benefit of low-dose aripiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant therapy treatment.

Development and validation of a survival staging system incorporating BNP in patients with light chain amyloidosis.

Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL amyloidosis) is caused by misfolded light chains that form soluble toxic aggregates that deposit in tissues and organs, leading to organ dysfunction. The leading determinant of survival is cardiac involvement. Current staging systems use N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and cardiac troponins T and I (TnT and TnI) for prognostication, but many centers do not offer NT-proBNP. We sought to derive a new staging system using brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) that would correlate with the Mayo 2004 staging system and be predictive for survival in AL amyloidosis. Two cohorts of patients were created: a derivation cohort of 249 consecutive patients who had BNP, NT-proBNP, and TnI drawn simultaneously to create the staging system and a complementary cohort of 592 patients with 10 years of follow-up to determine survival. In the derivation cohort, we found that a BNP threshold of more than 81 pg/mL best associated with Mayo 2004 stage and also best identified cardiac involvement. Three stages were developed based on a BNP higher than 81 pg/mL and a TnI higher than 0.1 ng/mL and compared with Mayo 2004 with high concordance (κ = 0.854). In the complementary cohort, 25% of patients had stage I, 44% had stage II, 15% had stage III, and 16% had stage IIIb disease with a median survival not reached in stage I, 9.4 years in stage II, 4.3 years in stage III, and 1 year in stage IIIb. This new Boston University biomarker scoring system will allow centers without access to NT-proBNP the ability to appropriately stage patients with AL amyloidosis. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00898235.

Access Type for Endovascular Repair in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Does Not Affect Major Morbidity or Mortality.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on access type when treating ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Our study's objective was to evaluate if the type of access in ruptured AAAs affected outcomes. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2009 to 2018 for all ruptured AAAs treated with an index EVAR. Procedures were grouped by access type: percutaneous, open, and failed percutaneous that converted to open access. Patients with iliac access, both percutaneous and open access, and concurrent bypass were excluded. Baseline characteristics, procedure details, and outcomes were collected. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: There were 1,206 ruptured AAAs identified-739 (61.3%) was performed by percutaneous access, 416 (34.5%) by open access, and 51 (4.2%) by failed percutaneous that converted to open access. Percutaneous access, compared with open access and failed percutaneous access, respectively, had the shortest operative time (min, median) (111 vs. 138 vs. 180, P < 0.001) and was most often performed under local anesthesia (16.7% vs. 5% vs. 9.8%, P < 0.001). The amount of contrast used was similar between the approaches. Univariable analysis comparing percutaneous access, open access, and failed percutaneous access showed differences in 30-day mortality (19.9% vs. 24.8% vs. 39.2%, P = 0.002), postoperative complications (33.7% vs. 40.2% vs. 54%, P = 0.003), and cardiac complications (18.2% vs. 19.8% vs. 34.7%, P = 0.018). However, multivariable analysis did not show access type to have a significant effect on cardiac complications, pulmonary complications, any complications, return to the operating room, or perioperative mortality. Open access was independently associated with a prolonged length of stay (means ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.33, P = 0.012). Factors independently associated with failed percutaneous were prior bypass (odds ratio (OR) 9.77, 95% CI 2.44-39.16, P = 0.001) and altered mental status (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.17-5.15, P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Access type for ruptured AAAs was not independently associated with major morbidity or mortality but did have a differential effect on length of stay. Access during these emergent procedures should be based on surgeon preference and experience.

The Association of the Day of the Week with Outcomes of Infrainguinal Lower Extremity Bypass.

BACKGROUND: The day of the week (DOW) for performing procedures and operations has been shown to affect clinical and resource utilization outcomes. Limited published data are available on vascular surgery operations. Our primary objective was to assess outcomes by DOW for infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB) performed for claudication or rest pain. The secondary objective was to assess outcomes by DOW for LEBs performed for tissue loss. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2003 to 2018 for all elective index infrainguinal LEBs performed for claudication or rest pain. Cases performed for acute limb ischemia as well as concomitant peripheral vascular intervention, nonelective LEBs, sequential grafts, and weekend cases were excluded. LEBs were grouped by DOW: Monday-Tuesday (early weekdays) versus Wednesday-Friday (later weekdays). Baseline data, operative details, and outcomes were collected. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. LEBs performed for claudication/rest pain were analyzed together while tissue loss was assessed separately. RESULTS: There were 12,084 LEBs identified-44.5% performed on Monday-Tuesday and 55.5% on Wednesday-Friday. Overall, the mean age was 65.6 years, 68.6% were male, and 82.8% were Caucasian. LEBs were performed for claudication in 57.4% of cases. An autogenous great saphenous vein was used in 58.8% of cases, whereas a prosthetic graft was used in 35.1% of cases. The most common bypass origin was the femoral artery (94.1%), and target was the popliteal artery (70.1%). Significant differences between Monday-Tuesday versus Wednesday-Friday, respectively, were mean body mass index (27.8 kg/m2 vs. 28 kg/m2), preoperative aspirin use (74.2% vs. 72.5%), continuous vein harvest technique (41.9% vs. 44%), and mean operative time (mins) (216.2 vs. 222.6) (all P < 0.05). Univariate postoperative outcomes were significantly different between Monday-Tuesday versus Wednesday-Friday, respectively, for mean length of stay (LOS) (days) (3.9 vs. 4.3), cardiac complications (myocardial infarction/dysrhythmia/congestive heart failure) (3.5% vs. 4.9%), stroke (0.3% vs. 0.6%), and respiratory complications (0.8% vs. 1.3%) (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that LEBs performed on Wednesday-Friday versus Monday-Tuesday for claudication/rest pain were independently associated with cardiac complications and prolonged LOS. There were also 8,491 LEBs performed for tissue loss which overall had similar findings to LEBs performed for claudication/rest pain such as increased LOS for LEBs performed for tissue loss on Wednesday-Friday (P < 0.001) and similar likeliness for respiratory complication, wound complication, return to the operating room, and mortality (all P > 0.05). However, LEBs performed for tissue loss on Wednesday-Friday versus Monday-Tuesday had similar cardiac complications (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Elective LEBs performed on later weekdays for claudication/rest pain were associated with cardiac complications and prolonged LOS, whereas tissue loss confirmed association with prolonged LOS. Further investigations are needed to identify whether increased resources or allocation of resources should be focused on later weekdays to optimize patient outcomes.

Establishment of brain natriuretic peptide - based criteria for evaluating cardiac response to treatment in light chain (AL) amyloidosis.

Severity of cardiac involvement remains the leading determinant of survival in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Until recently, cardiac response after treatment relied on reduction of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). In this study, 94 patients with AL amyloidosis (baseline BNP ≥150 pg/ml) had BNP measured at 6 months following treatment. Median overall survival was not reached for cardiac response (≥50 pg/ml and ≥ 30% decrease in BNP), 9·2 years for cardiac stability (<50 pg/ml and <30% change in BNP) and 2·8 years for cardiac progression (≥50 pg/ml or ≥30% increase in BNP) (log-rank P < 0·001). Cardiac response and progression, as measured by BNP values, are significantly associated with survival in AL amyloidosis.

Perioperative outcomes after lower extremity bypass and peripheral vascular interventions in patients with morbid obesity and superobesity.

OBJECTIVE: Although the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease has been reported, outcomes of patients on the upper end of the obesity spectrum, including morbid obesity (MO) and superobesity (SO), are unclear. Our goal was to analyze perioperative outcomes after lower extremity bypass (LEB) and peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) in this population of patients. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was reviewed for all infrainguinal peripheral artery disease interventions from 2010 to 2017. All patients were categorized into four groups: nonobese (BMI 18.5-29.9 kg/m2), obese (BMI 30-39.9 kg/m2), morbidly obese (BMI 40-49.9 kg/m2), and superobese (BMI ≥50 kg/m2). Patient and case details were recorded. Multivariable analysis was used to analyze outcomes. For statistical analysis, MO and SO groups were combined. RESULTS: We identified 29,138 LEB cases (68.5% nonobese, 28.3% obese, 2.9% morbidly obese, 0.3% superobese) and 81,405 PVI cases (66.6% nonobese, 29.2% obese, 3.6% morbidly obese, 0.5% superobese). For both LEB and PVI, patients with MO and SO were more likely to be younger, female, nonsmokers, and ambulatory (P < .05). They also more often had diabetes, end-stage renal disease, congestive heart failure, and fewer previous inflow procedures (P < .05). LEB and PVI interventions in patients with MO and SO were less often elective and more often performed for tissue loss. Multivariable analysis showed that LEB in patients with MO and SO was not significantly associated with increased perioperative cardiac complications, return to the operating room, or mortality. Patients with MO and SO were significantly associated with increased surgical site infection (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.98; P = .03) and increased respiratory complications (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.31; P = .01). Multivariable analysis showed that MO and SO were not significantly associated with periprocedural access site hematoma, access site stenosis or occlusion, or mortality after PVI. CONCLUSIONS: MO and SO were significantly associated with increased incidence of wound infections and respiratory complications after LEB but were not significantly associated with increased incidence after PVI. Overall, patients with MO and SO have more comorbidities and more advanced presentation of vascular disease at the time of intervention, but MO and SO alone should not deter necessary and appropriate revascularization.

Remission of type 2 diabetes following long-term treatment with injectable testosterone undecanoate in patients with hypogonadism and type 2 diabetes: 11-year data from a real-world registry study.

AIMS: To investigate whether testosterone therapy (TTh) in men with hypogonadism and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) improves glycaemic control and insulin sensitivity, and results in remission of T2DM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 356 men who had total testosterone levels ≤12.1 nmol/L (350 ng/dL) and symptoms of hypogonadism were included in the study and followed up for 11 years. All patients received standard diabetes treatment and 178 patients additionally received parenteral testosterone undecanoate 1000 mg every 12 weeks following an initial 6-week interval. A control group comprised 178 hypogonadal patients who opted not to receive TTh. RESULTS: Patients with hypogonadism and T2DM treated with testosterone had significant progressive and sustained reductions in fasting glucose, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting insulin over the treatment period. In the control group, fasting glucose, HbA1c and fasting insulin increased. Among the patients treated with testosterone 34.3% achieved remission of their diabetes and 46.6% of patients achieved normal glucose regulation. Of the testosterone-treated group, 83.1% reached the HbA1c target of 47.5 mmol/mol (6.5%) and 90% achieved the HbA1c target of 53.0 mmol/mol (7%). In contrast, no remission of diabetes or reductions in glucose or HbA1c levels were noted in the control group. There were fewer deaths, myocardial infarctions, strokes and diabetic complications in the testosterone-treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term TTh in men with T2DM and hypogonadism improves glycaemic control and insulin resistance. Remission of diabetes occurred in one-third of the patients. TTh is potentially a novel additional therapy for men with T2DM and hypogonadism.

Long-term treatment with testosterone undecanoate injections in men with hypogonadism alleviates erectile dysfunction and reduces risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, prostate cancer, and mortality.

Objective: The association between erectile dysfunction (ED), hypogonadism, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes is well documented, but long-term data are limited. The aim of this study is to investigate effects of long-term testosterone therapy (TTh) with testosterone undecanoate in men with hypogonadism and ED.Patients and methods: Observational, prospective registry of 805 hypogonadal men with different degrees of ED, evaluated by the International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function Domain. Four hundred and twelve patients underwent TTh, 393 patients served as controls, with an observation period up to 12 years.Results: TTh led to substantial and sustained reduction of ED; improvement in erectile function was significant for each successive year until year 9. This was accompanied by improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors and urinary function throughout the 12-year follow-up period. Benefits of TTh were stronger for patients with moderate/severe ED than for patients with no/minor ED. Incidence of prostate cancer, major adverse cardiovascular events, and mortality were significantly lower in men on TTh compared with untreated men.Conclusion: Long-term TTh for up to 12 years alleviates ED, improves cardiometabolic risk factors, and reduces prostate cancer. Patients must stay on TTh consistently for a long time to achieve maximum benefits of TTh.

A multicenter randomized placebo controlled trial of rifampin to reduce pedal amputations for osteomyelitis in veterans with diabetes (VA INTREPID).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of diabetes mellitus continues to inexorably rise in the United States and throughout the world. Lower limb amputations are a devastating comorbid complication of diabetes mellitus. Osteomyelitis increases the risk of amputation fourfold and commonly presages death. Antimicrobial therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) varies greatly, indicating that high quality data are needed to inform clinical decision making. Several small trials have indicated that the addition of rifampin to backbone antimicrobial regimens for osteomyelitis outside the setting of the diabetic foot results in 28 to 42% higher cure rates. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation of the addition of 6 weeks of rifampin, 600 mg daily, vs. matched placebo (riboflavin) to standard-of-care, backbone antimicrobial therapy for DFO. The study population are patients enrolled in Veteran Health Administration (VHA), ages ≥18 and ≤ 89 years with diabetes mellitus and definite or probable osteomyelitis of the foot for whom an extended course of oral or intravenous antibiotics is planned. The primary endpoint is amputation-free survival. The primary hypothesis is that using rifampin as adjunctive therapy will lower the hazard rate compared with the group that does not use rifampin as adjunctive therapy. The primary hypothesis will be tested by means of a two-sided log-rank test with a 5% significance level. The test has 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.67 or lower with a total of 880 study participants followed on average for 1.8 years. DISCUSSION: VA INTREPID will test if a rifampin-adjunctive antibiotic regimen increases amputation-free survival in patients seeking care in the VHA with DFO. A positive finding and its adoption by clinicians would reduce lower extremity amputations and their associated physical and emotional impact and reduce mortality for Veterans and for the general population with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Given that rifampin-adjunctive regimens are currently employed for therapy for the majority of DFO cases in Europe, and only in a small minority of cases in the United States, the trial results will impact therapeutic decisions, even if the null hypothesis is not rejected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered January 6, 2017 at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03012529.