Randomized Trials of Renal Denervation for Uncontrolled Hypertension: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite optimal medical therapy, a significant proportion of patients' blood pressure remains uncontrolled. Catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) has been proposed as a potential intervention for uncontrolled hypertension. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of RDN in patients with uncontrolled hypertension, with emphasis on the differential effect of RDN in patients on and off antihypertensive medications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Online databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety of RDN versus control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Subgroup analyses were conducted for sham-controlled trials and studies that used RDN devices that have gained or are currently seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval. Fifteen trials with 2581 patients (RDN, 1723; sham, 858) were included. In patients off antihypertensive medications undergoing RDN, a significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory (-3.70 [95% CI, -5.41 to -2.00] mm Hg), office (-4.76 [95% CI, -7.57 to -1.94] mm Hg), and home (-3.28 [95% CI, -5.96 to -0.61] mm Hg) systolic blood pressures was noted. In patients on antihypertensive medications, a significant reduction was observed in 24-hour ambulatory (-2.23 [95% CI, -3.56 to -0.90] mm Hg), office (-6.39 [95% CI, -11.49 to -1.30]), home (-6.08 [95% CI, -11.54 to -0.61] mm Hg), daytime (-2.62 [95% CI, -4.14 to -1.11]), and nighttime (-2.70 [95% CI, -5.13 to -0.27]) systolic blood pressures, as well as 24-hour ambulatory (-1.16 [95% CI, -1.96 to -0.35]), office (-3.17 [95% CI, -5.54 to -0.80]), and daytime (-1.47 [95% CI, -2.50 to -0.27]) diastolic blood pressures. CONCLUSIONS: RDN significantly lowers blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension, in patients off and on antihypertensive medications, with a favorable safety profile. The efficacy of RDN was consistent in sham-controlled trials and contemporary trials using US Food and Drug Administration-approved devices.

Intravascular Ultrasound Use in Peripheral Arterial and Deep Venous Interventions: Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion From SCAI/AVF/AVLS/SIR/SVM/SVS.

Percutaneous revascularization is the primary strategy for treating lower extremity venous and arterial disease. Angiography is limited by its ability to accurately size vessels, precisely determine the degree of stenosis and length of lesions, characterize lesion morphology, or correctly diagnose postintervention complications. These limitations are overcome with use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). IVUS has demonstrated the ability to improve outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention, and there is increasing evidence to support its benefits in the setting of peripheral vascular intervention. At this stage in its evolution, there remains a need to standardize the use and approach to peripheral vascular IVUS imaging. This manuscript represents considerations and consensus perspectives that emerged from a roundtable discussion including 15 physicians with expertise in interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery, representing 6 cardiovascular specialty societies, held on February 3, 2023. The roundtable's aims were to assess the current state of lower extremity revascularization, identify knowledge gaps and need for evidence, and determine how IVUS can improve care and outcomes for patients with peripheral arterial and deep venous pathology.

Outcomes following TAVR in patients with cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has broadened treatment options for critically ill patients, outcomes among those with concomitant cardiogenic shock (CS) are not well-explored. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of major databases for studies comparing outcomes following TAVR in patients with and without CS since inception up to October 31, 2023. Our meta-analysis included five non-randomized observational. Dichotomous outcomes were assessed using the Mantel-Haenszel method (risk ratio, 95 % CI), and continuous outcomes were evaluated using mean difference and 95 % CI with the inverse variance method. Statistical heterogeneity was determined using the inconsistency test (I2). RESULTS: Among 26,283 patients across five studies, 30-day mortality was higher in the CS group (7267 patients; 27.6 %) compared to those without CS (OR 3.41, 95 % CI [2.01, 5.76], p < 0.01), as well as 30-day major vascular complications (OR 1.72, 95 % CI [1.54, 1.92], p < 0.01). At 1-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality rates between the compared groups (OR 2.68, 95 % CI [0.53, 13.46], p = 0.12). No significant between-group differences were observed in the likelihood of 30-day aortic valve reintervention (OR 3.20, 95 % CI [0.63, 16.22], p = 0.09) or post-TAVR aortic insufficiency (OR 0.91, 95 % CI [0.33, 2.51], p = 0.73). Furthermore, 30-day stroke, pacemaker implantation, and in-hospital major bleeding were comparable between both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing TAVR, short-term mortality is higher but one-year outcomes are similar when comparing those with, to those without, CS. Future studies should examine whether TAVR outcomes are improved when the procedure is delayed to optimize CS and when delay is not possible, whether particular management strategies lead to more favorable periprocedural outcomes.

Limited English proficiency, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular risk factors and history of cardiovascular disease are associated with greater morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Limited English proficiency (LEP) has also been associated with worse outcomes in this setting, including requiring intensive care unit (ICU) level of care and in-hospital death. Whether non-English-language preference (NELP) modifies the association between cardiovascular risk factors or disease and outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a large New England health system between March 1 and December 31, 2020, who tested positive for COVID-19. NELP was defined as having a preferred language that was not English noted in the electronic health record. METHODS: Cardiovascular risk factors, history of cardiovascular disease, and NELP were related to the primary composite clinical outcome-death or ICU admission-using multivariable binary logistic regression adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. Interaction terms for NELP and model covariates were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 3582 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1024 (28.6%) had NELP; 812 (79.3%) of the patients with NELP received interpreter services. Death or ICU admission occurred in 794 (22.2%) of the hospitalized patients. NELP was not significantly associated with the primary composite outcome in unadjusted or adjusted analyses. In the adjusted analyses, only male gender, coronary artery disease, pulmonary circulatory disease, and liver disease significantly predicted the primary outcome. NELP did not modify the effect of these associations. CONCLUSIONS: NELP was not significantly associated with odds of death or ICU admission, nor did it modify the association between cardiovascular risk factors or history of cardiovascular disease and this composite outcome. Because most patients with NELP received interpreter services, these findings may support the role of such services in ensuring equitable outcomes.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Patients with High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common acute cardiovascular condition. Within this review, we discuss the incidence, pathophysiology, and treatment options for patients with high-risk and massive pulmonary embolisms. In particular, we focus on the role of mechanical circulatory support devices and their possible therapeutic benefits in patients who are unresponsive to standard therapeutic options. Moreover, attention is given to device selection criteria, weaning protocols, and complication mitigation strategies. Finally, we underscore the necessity for more comprehensive studies to corroborate the benefits and safety of MCS devices in PE management.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Intravascular Ultrasound Use in Peripheral Arterial and Deep Venous Interventions: Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion From SCAI/AVF/AVLS/SIR/SVM/SVS.

Percutaneous revascularization is the primary strategy for treating lower extremity venous and arterial disease. Angiography is limited by its ability to accurately size vessels, precisely determine the degree of stenosis and length of lesions, characterize lesion morphology, or correctly diagnose postintervention complications. These limitations are overcome with use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). IVUS has demonstrated the ability to improve outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention, and there is increasing evidence to support its benefits in the setting of peripheral vascular intervention. At this stage in its evolution, there remains a need to standardize the use and approach to peripheral vascular IVUS imaging. This manuscript represents considerations and consensus perspectives that emerged from a roundtable discussion including 15 physicians with expertise in interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery, representing 6 cardiovascular specialty societies, held on February 3, 2023. The roundtable's aims were to assess the current state of lower extremity revascularization, identify knowledge gaps and need for evidence, and determine how IVUS can improve care and outcomes for patients with peripheral arterial and deep venous pathology.

Treatment Variability Among Patients Hospitalized for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: An Analysis of the 2016 to 2018 US National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about treatment variability across US hospitals for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected from the 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample. All patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to nonfederal US hospitals with a primary diagnosis of CLTI, were identified. Patients were classified according to their clinical presentation (rest pain, skin ulceration, or gangrene) and were further characterized according to the treatment strategy used. The primary outcome of interest was variability in CLTI treatment, as characterized by the median odds ratio. The median odds ratio is defined as the likelihood that 2 similar patients would be treated with a given modality at 1 versus another randomly selected hospital. There were 15 896 (weighted n=79 480) hospitalizations identified where CLTI was the primary diagnosis. Medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, and amputation alone were used in 4057 (25%), 5390 (34%), 3733 (24%), and 2716 (17%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for both patient- and hospital-related factors, the median odds ratio (95% CI) for medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, any revascularization, and amputation alone were 1.28 (1.19-1.38), 1.86 (1.77-1.95), 1.65 (1.55-1.74), 1.37 (1.28-1.45), and 1.42 (1.27-1.55), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability in CLTI treatment exists across US hospitals and is not fully explained by patient or hospital characteristics.

An Endovascular- Versus a Surgery-First Revascularization Strategy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Timely revascularization is essential for limb salvage and to reduce mortality in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). In patients who are candidates for endovascular therapy and surgical bypass, the optimal revascularization strategy remains uncertain. Recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have presented conflicting results. We conducted a trial-level meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between endovascular-first and surgery-first strategies for revascularization. PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs comparing the outcomes of endovascular-first versus surgery-first strategies for revascularization in patients with CLTI. Data were pooled for major outcomes and their aggregate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Kaplan-Meier curves for amputation-free survival and overall survival time were plotted using the pooled aggregated data from published curves, with their corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals reported for up to 5 years of follow-up. A total of 3 RCTs with 2,627 patients (1,312 endovascular-first and 1,315 surgery-first) were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 1,864 patients (70.9%) were men and 347 (13.2%) were older than 80 years. Comparing the endovascular-first and surgery-first approaches, there was no significant difference in the overall (HR 0.92 [0.83 to 1.01], p = 0.09) or amputation-free survival (HR 0.98 [0.92 to 1.03], p = 0.42), reintervention (RR 1.24 [0.74 to 2.07], p = 0.41), major amputation, (RR 1.16 [0.87 to 1.54], p = 0.31), or therapeutic crossover (RR 0.92 [0.37 to 2.26], p = 0.85). In conclusion, data from available RCTs suggest that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between endovascular-first and surgery-first revascularization strategies for CLTI. A planned patient-level meta-analysis may provide further insight.

Approval, Evidence, and "Off-Label" Device Utilization: The Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Story.

BACKGROUND: Following regulatory approval, medical devices may be used "off-label." Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is indicated to reduce recurrent stroke but has been proposed for other indications, including migraine, transient ischemic attack, and diving decompression illness. We sought to evaluate PFO closure rates and indications relative to the timing of regulatory approval and publication of key randomized trials. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse of US commercial insurance enrollees from 2006 to 2019. We quantified PFO closure among individuals with ≥2 years of preprocedure coverage to establish indications, classified hierarchically as stroke/systemic embolism, migraine, transient ischemia attack, or other. RESULTS: We identified 5315 patients undergoing PFO closure (51.8% female, 29.2%≥60 years old), which increased from 4.75 per 100 000 person-years in 2006 to 6.60 per 100 000 person-years in 2019. Patients aged ≥60 years accounted for 29.2% of closures. Procedure volumes corresponded weakly with supportive clinical publications and device approval. Among patients with PFO closure, 58.6% underwent closure for stroke/systemic embolism, 10.2% for transient ischemia attack, 8.8% for migraine, and 22.4% for other indications; 17.6% of patients had atrial fibrillation at baseline; and 11.9% developed atrial fibrillation postprocedure. Those aged ≥60 years and male were less likely to undergo closure for migraine than stroke/systemic embolism. CONCLUSIONS: From 2006 to 2019, PFO closure use was consistently low and corresponded weakly with clinical trial publications and regulatory status. Nearly half of patients underwent PFO closure for indications unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration. Regulators and payers should coordinate mechanisms to promote utilization for approved indications to ensure patient safety and should facilitate clinical trials for other possible indications.

Venous thromboembolism, chronic liver disease and anticoagulant choice: effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin.

Background: Little to no data exist to guide treatment decision in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and chronic liver disease. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-individually and as a class-vs warfarin and between 2 DOACs in patients with acute VTE and chronic liver disease. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, US claims-based, propensity score-matched cohort study in adults with acute VTE and chronic liver disease who had newly initiated oral anticoagulants between 2011 and 2017. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for recurrent VTE and hospitalization for major bleeding. Results: The cohorts included 2361 DOAC-warfarin, 895 apixaban-warfarin, 2161 rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 895 apixaban-rivaroxaban matched pairs. Lower risk of the primary outcome was seen with DOACs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85), apixaban (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35-0.66) or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88) vs warfarin but not apixaban-rivaroxaban (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43-1.08). The HRs of hospitalization for major bleeding were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.84) for DOAC-warfarin, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.30-0.63) for apixaban-warfarin, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.89) for rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.35-1.06) for apixaban-rivaroxaban. Recurrent VTE risk was lower with apixaban (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86), but not DOACs (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.12) or rivaroxaban vs warfarin (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57-1.14) or apixaban-rivaroxaban (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.42-2.02). Conclusion: While the magnitude of clinical benefit varied across individual DOACs, in adults with acute VTE and chronic liver disease, oral factor Xa inhibitors (as a class or individually) were associated with lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding.

Recapturing the Team Approach to Vascular Care.

BACKGROUND: The care of the vascular patient remains decentralized rather than coordinated. METHODS: We reviewed the current state of practice and published competency and care documents created by vascular professional societies. RESULTS: Vascular professional societies routinely and repeatedly endorse both a team approach and the competency of specialists from disparate training backgrounds. The care of the vascular patient does not always reflect these public endorsements. CONCLUSIONS: Centering the vascular patient as the mode of organization of care should improve care processes, expertise brought to bear, and outcomes.