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 chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients, BEST-CLI and BASIL-2, has resulted in potentially contradictory findings. The trials differed significantly with respect to anatomic disease patterns and primary endpoints. We performed an analysis of BEST-CLI patients with significant infrapopliteal disease undergoing open tibial bypass or endovascular tibial interventions to formulate a relevant comparator to the outcomes reported from BASIL-2. METHODS: The study population consisted of BEST-CLI patients 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 re-intervention. 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 to 56.7% in the endovascular group (p=0.0018). Mortality was similar between groups (35.5% open vs. 35.8% endovascular; p=0.94 whereas MALE events were lower in the surgical group (23.3% vs. 35.0%; p<0.0001). This included a lower rate of major reinterventions in the surgical group (10.9%) compared to the endovascular group (20.2%; p=0.0006). Freedom from above ankle amputation or all-cause death was similar between treatment arms at 43.6% in the surgical group compared to 45.3% the endovascular group (p=0.30) however there were fewer above ankle amputations in the surgical group (13.5%) compared to the endovascular group (19.3%; p=0.0205). Perioperative (30-day) death was similar between treatment groups (2.5% open vs 2.4% endovascular; p=0.93) as was 30-day MACE (5.3% open vs 2.7% endovascular; p=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suitable single segment great saphenous vein who underwent infrapopliteal revascularization for CLTI, open bypass surgery was associated with a lower incidence of MALE or death and less major amputation compared to endovascular intervention. Amputation free survival was similar between the groups. Further investigations into differences in comorbidities, anatomic extent, and lesion complexity are needed to explain differences between the BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 reported outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Outcomes after surgical revascularization in diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been repeatedly demonstrated to have worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without DM. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of DM on 1-year clinical outcomes after isolated CABG. METHODS: The European DuraGraft registry included 1130 patients (44.6%) with and 1402 (55.4%) patients without DM undergoing isolated CABG. Intra-operatively, all free venous and arterial grafts were treated with an endothelial damage inhibitor. Primary end point in this analysis was the incidence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, repeat revascularization or myocardial infarction at 1 year post-CABG. To balance between differences in baseline characteristics (n = 1072 patients in each group), propensity score matching was used. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to identify independent predictors of MACE. RESULTS: Diabetic patients had a higher cardiovascular risk profile and EuroSCORE II with overall more comorbidities. Patients were comparable in regard to surgical techniques and completeness of revascularization. At 1 year, diabetics had a higher MACE rate {7.9% vs 5.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.95], P = 0.02}, driven by increased rates of death [5.6% vs 3.5%, HR 1.61 (95% CI 1.10-2.36), P = 0.01] and myocardial infarction [2.8% vs 1.4%, HR 1.99 (95% CI 1.12-3.53) P = 0.02]. Following propensity matching, no statistically significant difference was found for MACE [7.1% vs 5.7%, HR 1.23 (95% CI 0.87-1.74) P = 0.23] or its components. Age, critical operative state, extracardiac arteriopathy, ejection fraction ≤50% and left main disease but not DM were identified as independent predictors for MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 1-year outcomes in diabetics undergoing isolated CABG were comparable to patients without DM.

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.

Quantitative imaging biomarkers of coronary plaque morphology: insights from EVAPORATE.

Aims: Residual cardiovascular risk persists despite statin therapy. In REDUCE-IT, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced total events, but the mechanisms of benefit are not fully understood. EVAPORATE evaluated the effects of IPE on plaque characteristics by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Given the conclusion that the IPE-treated patients demonstrate that plaque burden decreases has already been published in the primary study analysis, we aimed to demonstrate whether the use of an analytic technique defined and validated in histological terms could extend the primary study in terms of whether such changes could be reliably seen in less time on drug, at the individual (rather than only at the cohort) level, or both, as neither of these were established by the primary study result. Methods and Results: EVAPORATE randomized the patients to IPE 4 g/day or placebo. Plaque morphology, including lipid-rich necrotic core (LRNC), fibrous cap thickness, and intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), was assessed using the ElucidVivo® (Elucid Bioimaging Inc.) on CCTA. The changes in plaque morphology between the treatment groups were analyzed. A neural network to predict treatment assignment was used to infer patient representation that encodes significant morphological changes. Fifty-five patients completed the 18-month visit in EVAPORATE with interpretable images at each of the three time points. The decrease of LRNC between the patients on IPE vs. placebo at 9 months (reduction of 2 mm3 vs. an increase of 41 mm3, p = 0.008), widening at 18 months (6 mm3 vs. 58 mm3 increase, p = 0.015) were observed. While not statistically significant on a univariable basis, reductions in wall thickness and increases in cap thickness motivated multivariable modeling on an individual patient basis. The per-patient response assessment was possible using a multivariable model of lipid-rich phenotype at the 9-month follow-up, p < 0.01 (sustained at 18 months), generalizing well to a validation cohort. Conclusion: Plaques in the IPE-treated patients acquired more characteristics of stability. Reliable assessment using histologically validated analysis of individual response is possible at 9 months, with sustained stabilization at 18 months, providing a quantitative basis to elucidate drug mechanism and assess individual patient response.

Safety and Efficacy of Propylene Glycol-Free Melphalan in Patients with AL Amyloidosis Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation: Results of a Phase II Study.

Patients with systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis undergoing treatment with high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM/SCT) may develop renal and cardiac toxicities potentially exacerbated by the co-solvent propylene glycol in conventional melphalan formulations. We investigated the safety and efficacy of propylene glycol-free melphalan (PGF-Mel) during HDM/SCT in patients with AL amyloidosis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02994784). The primary objective of this phase II, open-label study was evaluation for renal dysfunction, new cardiac arrhythmias, and postural hypotension related to autonomic dysfunction. Secondary objectives included time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, treatment-related mortality (TRM), overall hematologic response, organ response, and number of peritransplantation hospitalizations. Twenty-eight patients with AL amyloidosis enrolled, of whom 27 underwent HDM/SCT. PGF-Mel at 140 to 200 mg/m2 was administered i.v. in 2 equally divided doses. Patients were monitored for up to 30 days after the last administration of PGF-Mel to assess for treatment-related toxicity. Patients were followed for 12 months from the time of treatment with HDM/SCT for evaluation of hematologic and organ responses. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate progression-free survival. Two patients (7%) developed renal dysfunction, 5 (19%) experienced new cardiac arrhythmias, and 3 (11%) developed orthostatic hypotension. All patients achieved neutrophil and platelet engraftment, at a median of 10 days and 17 days post-HDM/SCT, respectively. TRM on day +100 was 0%. Peritransplantation hospitalization was required for 23 patients (85%). The most common nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea (93%), fatigue (82%), and nausea (74%). At 6 months post-HDM/SCT, hematologic complete response or very good partial response occurred in 66% of the patients. At 12 months post-HDM/SCT, renal response occurred in 12 of 23 (52%) patients with renal involvement, and cardiac response occurred in 3 of 11 (27%) patients with evaluable cardiac involvement. Our data indicate that PGF-Mel is safe and efficacious as a high-dose conditioning regimen for autologous SCT in patients with AL amyloidosis.

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.

Benefit of icosapent ethyl on coronary physiology assessed by computed tomography angiography fractional flow reserve: EVAPORATE-FFRCT.

AIMS: Icosapent ethyl (IPE) significantly reduced ischaemic events in statin-treated patients with atherosclerosis or diabetes and elevated triglycerides in REDUCE-IT, including large reductions in myocardial infarction and elective, urgent, and emergent coronary revascularization. However, the mechanisms driving this clinical benefit are not fully known. The EVAPORATE trial demonstrated that IPE significantly reduced plaque burden. No study to date has assessed the impact of IPE on coronary physiology. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) data sets (FFRCT) applies computational fluid dynamics to calculate FFR values in epicardial coronary arteries. Our objective was to assess the impact of IPE on coronary physiology assessed by FFRCT using imaging data from EVAPORATE. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and of 507 coronary lesions at baseline, 9 months, and 18 months with coronary CTA and FFRCT were studied in a blinded core lab. The pre-specified primary endpoint was the FFRCT value in the distal coronary segment from baseline to follow-up in the most diseased vessel per patient using IPE compared with placebo. The pre-specified secondary endpoint was the change in translesional FFRCT (ΔFFRCT) across the most severe (minimum 30% diameter stenosis) coronary lesion per vessel. Baseline FFRCT was similar for IPE compared with placebo (0.83 ± 0.08 vs. 0.84 ± 0.08, P = 0.55). There was significant improvement in the primary endpoint, as IPE improved mean distal segment FFRCT at 9- and 18-month follow-up compared with placebo (0.01 ± 0.05 vs. -0.05 ± 0.09, P = 0.02, and -0.01 ± 0.09 vs. -0.09 ± 0.12, P = 0.03, respectively). ΔFFRCT in 140 coronary lesions was improved, although not statistically significant, with IPE compared with placebo (-0.06 ± 0.08 vs. -0.09 ± 0.1, P = 0.054). CONCLUSION: Icosapent ethyl demonstrated significant benefits in coronary physiology compared with placebo. This early and sustained improvement in FFRCT at 9- and 18-month follow-up provides mechanistic insight into the clinical benefit observed in the REDUCE-IT trial. Furthermore, this is the first assessment of FFRCT to determine drug effect.

Patients and Their Physician's Perspectives About Oral Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Not Receiving an Anticoagulant.

Importance: The underuse of oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major issue that is not well understood. Objective: To understand the lack of anticoagulation by assessing the perceptions of patients with AF who are not receiving anticoagulation and their physician's about the risk of stroke and the benefits and risks of anticoagulation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more (calculated as congestive heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years and older, diabetes, stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, and sex category) who were not receiving anticoagulation and were enrolled from 19 sites within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry (PINNACLE Registry) between January 18, 2017, and May 7, 2018. Data were collected from January 18, 2017, to September 30, 2019, and analyzed from April 2022 to March 2023. Exposure: Each patient enrolled in the study completed a survey, and their treating physician then conducted a clinical review of their care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Assessment of willingness for anticoagulation treatment and its appropriateness after central review by a panel of 4 cardiologists. Use of anticoagulation at 1 year follow-up was compared vs similar patients at other centers in the PINNACLE Registry. Results: Of the 817 patients enrolled, the median (IQR) age was 76.0 (69.0-83.0) years, 369 (45.2%) were women, and the median (IQR) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.0 (3.0-6.0). The top 5 reasons physicians cited for no anticoagulation were low AF burden or successful rhythm control (278 [34.0%]), patient refusal (272 [33.3%]), perceived low risk of stroke (206 [25.2%]), fall risk (175 [21.4%]), and high bleeding risk (167 [20.4%]). After rereview, 221 physicians (27.1%) would reconsider prescribing oral anticoagulation as compared with 311 patients (38.1%), including 67 (24.6%) whose physician cited patient refusal. Of 647 patients (79.2%) adjudicated as appropriate or may be appropriate for anticoagulation, physicians would reconsider anticoagulation for only 177 patients (21.2%), while 527 patients (64.5%) would either agree to starting anticoagulation (311 [38.1%]) or were neutral (216 [27.3%]) to starting anticoagulation. Upon follow-up, 119 patients (14.6%) in the BOAT-AF study were prescribed anticoagulation, as compared with 55 879 of 387 975 similar patients (14.4%) at other centers in the PINNACLE Registry. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that patients with AF who are not receiving anticoagulation are more willing to consider anticoagulation than their physicians. These data emphasize the need to revisit any prior decision against anticoagulation in a shared decision-making manner.

Clinical outcomes and quality of life after contemporary isolated coronary bypass grafting: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the European Multicenter Registry to Assess Outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients (DuraGraft Registry) was to determine clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after contemporary CABG that included isolated CABG and combined CABG/valve procedures, using an endothelial damage inhibitor (DuraGraft) intraoperatively for conduit preservation. Here, we report outcomes in the patient cohort undergoing isolated CABG. METHODS: The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or repeat revascularization (RR) [major adverse cardiac events (MACE)] at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included the composite of all-cause death, MI, RR, or stroke [major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)], and QoL. QoL was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire. Independent risk factors for MACE at 1 year were determined using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2532 patients (mean age, 67.4±9.2 years; 82.5% male) underwent isolated CABG. The median EuroScore II was 1.4 [interquartile range (IQR), 0.9-2.3]. MACE and MACCE rates at 1 year were 6.6% and 7.8%, respectively. The rates of all-cause death, MI, RR, and stroke were 4.4, 2.0, 2.2, and 1.9%, respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.3%. Age, extracardiac arteriopathy, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%, critical operative state, and left main disease were independent risk factors for MACE. QoL index values improved from 0.84 [IQR, 0.72-0.92] at baseline to 0.92 [IQR, 0.82-1.00] at 1 year ( P <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Contemporary European patients undergoing isolated CABG have a low 1-year clinical event rate and an improved QoL.

Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V Final 5-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents compared with alternative stent designs. Whether these differences persist over late-term follow-up is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare late-term (5-year) clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES). METHODS: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international, 2:1 randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin strut BP SES versus thin strut DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Prespecified outcomes through 5 years were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 5-year rates of TLF were 12.3% for BP SES and 15.3% for DP EES (P = 0.108). Revascularization with BP SES was associated with a significantly lower target vessel-related myocardial infarction (6.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.015) and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.6%, P = 0.021). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was numerically but not significantly lower with BP SES (5.9% vs 7.7%, P = 0.202). Cardiac death rates were 2.6% versus 1.9% (P = 0.495) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, randomized trial, TLF and the individual outcomes of cardiac death and target lesion revascularization at 5 years were similar among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. Both target vessel-related myocardial infarction and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP SES. These results confirm the durability of safety and the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin BP SES.

Determinants of Drug-Coated Balloon Failure in Patients Undergoing Femoropopliteal Arterial Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are frequently used to treat femoropopliteal artery disease. However, patency loss occurs in ≥10% of patients within 12 months posttreatment with poor understanding of the underlying mechanisms. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate the determinants of DCB failure in femoropopliteal disease. METHODS: Data from randomized clinical trials (IN.PACT SFA, MDT-2113 SFA Japan) and 2 prespecified imaging cohorts of the IN.PACT Global Clinical Study were included. Influential procedural characteristics were evaluated by an independent angiographic core laboratory. The primary endpoint was DCB failure (patency loss during follow-up). Additional endpoints were binary restenosis and clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Multivariable analyses evaluated the clinical, anatomical, and procedural predictors of DCB failure. RESULTS: Included were 557 participants with single lesions and 12-month core laboratory-adjudicated duplex ultrasonography. Key clinical characteristics were as follows: mean age 68.8 years, 67.5% male, 87.6% with hypertension, 76.9% with hyperlipidemia, 40.5% with diabetes mellitus, 90.5% in Rutherford Classification Category (RCC) 2 to 3, and 9.5% in RCC 4 to 5. Average length and reference vessel diameter (RVD) were 16.37 cm and 4.66 mm, respectively; 49.7% of lesions were totally occluded. In multivariable analysis, only residual stenosis >30% was associated with patency loss, whereas residual stenosis >30% and smaller preprocedure RVD were associated with increased binary restenosis risk. RCC >3 and residual stenosis >30% were associated with increased 12-month clinically driven target lesion revascularization risk. CONCLUSIONS: Patency loss after DCB treatment was influenced by procedural and clinical factors. Residual stenosis >30%, smaller preprocedure RVD, and higher RCC may be considered predictors of increased risk of DCB failure and its components in femoropopliteal artery disease. (Randomized Trial of IN.PACT Admiral® Drug Coated Balloon vs Standard PTA for the Treatment of SFA and Proximal Popliteal Arterial Disease [INPACT SFA I]; NCT01175850; IN.PACT Admiral Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Standard Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Superficial Femoral Artery [SFA] and Proximal Popliteal Artery [PPA] [INPACT SFA II]; NCT01566461; MDT-2113 Drug-Eluting Balloon vs. Standard PTA for the Treatment of Atherosclerotic Lesions in the Superficial Femoral Artery and/or Proximal Popliteal Artery [MDT-2113 SFA]; NCT01947478; IN.PACT Global Clinical Study; NCT01609296).

Outcomes of renal transplantation in patients with AL amyloidosis: an international collaboration through The International Kidney and Monoclonal Gammopathy Research Group.

Effective systemic therapies suppress toxic light chain production leading to an increased proportion of patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis who survive longer albeit with end-stage renal disease. There is a critical need to identify patients in this population who benefit from renal transplantation. This multicenter, observational study from five countries includes 237 patients with AL amyloidosis who underwent renal transplantation between 1987 and 2020. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, the median overall survival from renal transplantation was 8.6 years and was significantly longer in patients with complete and very good partial hematologic responses (CR + VGPR) compared to less than VGPR (9 versus 6.8 years; HR: 1.5, P = 0.04 [95% CI: 1-2.1]) at renal transplantation. Median graft survival was 7.8 years and was better in the CR + VGPR group (8.3 vs 5.7 years, HR: 1.4, P = 0.05 [95% CI: 1-2]). The frequency and time to amyloid recurrence in the graft was also lower (16% vs 37%, p = 0.01) and longer (median time not achieved vs 10 years, p = 0.001) in the CR + VGPR group. Comparing CR vs. VGPR there was no difference in overall or graft survival. Although 69 patients (29%) experienced hematologic relapse, treatment effectively prevented graft loss in the majority (87%). Renal transplantation in selected AL amyloidosis patients is associated with extended overall and renal graft survival. Patients with hematologic CR or VGPR have the most favorable outcomes, and these patients should be considered for renal transplantation.

Smartphone-Guided Self-prone Positioning vs Usual Care in Nonintubated Hospital Ward Patients With COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm. INTERPRETATION: Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.