Faculty Bibliography

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at heightened risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE), though there is no data examining when these events occur following a COVID-19 diagnosis. We therefore sought to characterize the incidence, timecourse of events, and outcomes of VTE during the COVID-19 pandemic in a national healthcare system using data from Veterans Affairs Administration.

[Figure: see text].

Cardiac catheterization procedures have rapidly evolved and expanded in scope and techniques over the past few decades. However, although some practices have emerged based on evidence, many traditions have persisted based on beliefs and theoretical concerns. The aim of this review is to highlight common preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure catheterization laboratory practices where evidence has accumulated over the past few decades to support or discount traditionally held practices.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To model the safety and effectiveness of drug-coated stents (DCS) vs. bare-metal stents (BMS) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients according to the Academic Research Criteria (ARC) criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:Participants from the LEADERS FREE (LF) and LEADERS FREE (LFII) studies were pooled into one dataset. Participants were treated with 30 days of DAPT. The primary safety (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) and effectiveness (target-lesion revascularization) endpoints were compared between DCS and BMS in the subgroup of patients satisfying the ARC-HBR definition using propensity-score modelling. From the 3,635 participants included in the combined LF & LFII dataset, 2,898 (79.7%) satisfied the ARC-HBR criteria (DCS: 1,923; BMS: 975). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 184 (9.8%) and in 132 (13.8%) participants in the DCS and BMS groups, respectively (adjusted HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.57-0.91; p=0.006). The risk of the primary effectiveness endpoint was also significantly lower with DCS (6.2%) vs. BMS (8.8%) (adjusted HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.94; p=0.016). Safety and effectiveness of DCS vs. BMS were consistent according to ARC-HBR status (p interaction = 0.206 and 0.260, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:DCS are safer and more effective than BMS in an ARC-defined HBR population.

Optimal treatment of stable ischemic heart disease for those in the transportation industry is considered in the context of the individual's health, as well as with the perspective that sudden impairment could have catastrophic consequences for others. This article focuses on two high risk occupations that one may encounter in practice: commercial motor vehicle drivers and commercial pilots. This article discusses coronary heart disease in patients in high risk occupations and covers current guideline recommendations for screening, treatment, and secondary prevention. The importance of the complimentary perspectives of the regulatory agency, medical examiners, physicians, and pilot or driver are considered in this narrative review, as are considerations for future guideline updates.

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices maintain or improve hemodynamic profiles in patients at risk for hemodynamic deterioration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or those in cardiogenic shock. Clinical trials of MCS have been difficult to complete due to challenges with equipoise; however, there are several "real-world" comparative effectiveness analyses of outcomes of patients undergoing high-risk PCI or cardiogenic shock with different MCS. This review summarizes the real-world data on Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump, 2 of the most commonly used MCS, and provides insight into the limitations of such data and challenges to completing clinical trials.

BACKGROUND:Interventional cardiologists receive feedback on their clinical care from a variety of sources including registry-based quality measures, case conferences, and informal peer interactions. However, the impact of this feedback on clinical care is unclear. METHODS:We interviewed interventional cardiologists regarding the use of feedback to improve their care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. Interviews were assessed with template analysis using deductive and inductive techniques. RESULTS:Among 20 interventional cardiologists from private, academic, and Department of Veterans Affairs practice, 85% were male, 75% performed at least 100 PCIs annually, and 55% were in practice for 5 years or more. All reported receiving feedback on their practice, including formal quality measures and peer learning activities. Many respondents were critical of quality measure reporting, citing lack of trust in outcomes measures and poor applicability to clinical care. Some respondents reported the use of process measures such as contrast volume and fluoroscopy time for benchmarking their performance. Case conferences and informal peer feedback were perceived as timelier and more impactful on clinical care. Respondents identified facilitators of successful feedback interventions including transparent processes, respectful and reciprocal peer relationships, and integration of feedback into collective goals. Hierarchy and competitive environments inhibited useful feedback. CONCLUSIONS:Despite substantial resources dedicated to performance measurement and feedback for PCI, interventional cardiologists perceive existing quality measures to be of only modest value for improving clinical care. Catherization laboratories should seek to integrate quality measures into a holistic quality program that emphasizes peer learning, collective goals and mutual respect.