Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:The benefit of an electronic support system for the prescription and adherence to oral anticoagulation therapy among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter at heightened risk for of stroke and systemic thromboembolism is unclear. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of a combined alert intervention and shared decision-making tool to improve prescription rates of oral anticoagulation therapy and adherence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A prospective single arm study of 939 consecutive patients treated at a large tertiary healthcare system. EXPOSURES/METHODS:-VASc score ≥ 2, and not on oral anticoagulation and 2) electronic shared decision-making tool to promote discussions between providers and patients regarding therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/METHODS:The primary endpoint was prescription rate of anticoagulation therapy. The secondary endpoint was adherence to anticoagulation therapy defined as medication possession ratio ≥ 80% during the 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS:-VASc score among all patients identified by the alert was 2 and the median untreated duration prior to the alert was 495 days (interquartile range 123 - 1,831 days). Of the patients identified by the alert, 345 (36.7%) initiated anticoagulation therapy and 594 (63.3%) did not: 68.7% were treated with a non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), 22.0% with warfarin, and 9.3 % combination of NOAC and warfarin. Compared with historical anticoagulation rates, the electronic alert was associated with a 23.6% increase in anticoagulation prescriptions. The overall 1-year rate of adherence to anticoagulant therapy was 75.4% (260/345). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:An electronic automated alert can successfully identify patients with AF and atrial flutter at high risk for stroke, increase oral anticoagulation prescription, and support high rates of adherence.

BACKGROUND:The optimal access site for cardiac catheterization in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) continues to be debated. METHODS:We performed a random effects frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of 4 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, including 60,192 patients with prior CABG (27,236 in the radial group; 32,956 in the femoral group) that underwent cardiac catheterization. Outcomes included (1) access-site complications, (2) crossover to a different vascular access, (3) procedure time, and (4) contrast volume. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for binary outcomes. RESULTS:Among randomized trials, crossover (OR: 7.63; 95% CI: 2.04, 28.51; p = 0.003) was higher in the radial group, while access site complications (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.34, 2.87; p = 0.94) and contrast volume (MD: 15.08; 95% CI: -10.19, 40.35; p = 0.24) were similar. Among observational studies, crossover rates were higher (OR: 5.09; 95% CI: 2.43, 10.65; p < 0.001), while access site complication rates (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.89; p = 0.02) and contrast volume (MD: -7.52; 95% CI: -13.14, -1.90 ml; p = 0.009) were lower in the radial group. Bayesian analysis suggested that the odds of a difference existing between radial and femoral are small for all endpoints except crossover to another access site. CONCLUSION:In a frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of patients with prior CABG undergoing coronary catheterization, radial access was associated with lower incidence of vascular access complications and lower contrast volume but also higher crossover rate.

For many years, bleeding has been perceived as an unavoidable consequence of strategies aimed at reducing thrombotic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the paradigm has now shifted towards bleeding being recognized as a prognostically unfavourable event to the same extent as having a new or recurrent ischaemic or thrombotic complication. As such, in parallel with progress in device and drug development for PCI, there is clinical interest in developing strategies that maximize not only the efficacy but also the safety (for example, by minimizing bleeding) of any antithrombotic treatment or procedural aspect before, during or after PCI. In this Review, we discuss contemporary data and aspects of bleeding avoidance strategies in PCI, including risk stratification, timing of revascularization, pretreatment with antiplatelet agents, selection of vascular access, choice of coronary stents and antithrombotic treatment regimens.

AIM:The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE:Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

AIM:The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

AIM:The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE:Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) have high rates of in-stent restenosis (ISR). We compared the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of patients and lesions that did develop ISR with those who did not develop ISR during a median follow-up of 2.7 years in the DIVA study (NCT01121224). We also examined the ISR types using the Mehran classification. ISR developed in 119 out of the 575 DIVA patients (21%), with similar incidence among patients with drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents (BMS) (21% vs 21%, p = 0.957). Patients in the ISR group were younger (67 ± 7 vs 69 ± 8 years, p = 0.04) and less likely to have heart failure (27% vs 38%, p = 0.03) and SVG lesions with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow before the intervention (77% vs 83%, p <0.01), but had a higher number of target SVG lesions (1.33 ± 0.64 vs 1.16 ± 0.42, p <0.01), more stents implanted in the target SVG lesions (1.52 ± 0.80 vs 1.31 ± 0.66, p <0.01), and longer total stent length (31.37 ± 22.11 vs 25.64 ± 17.42 mm, p = 0.01). The incidence of diffuse ISR was similar in patients who received drug-eluting-stents and BMS (57% vs 54%, p = 0.94), but BMS patients were more likely to develop occlusive restenosis (17% vs 33%, p = 0.05).