Faculty Bibliography

Importance/UNASSIGNED:In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.

Purpose: In the U.S., heart transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasing. We present our institutional experience of DCD transplantation by using a thoracoabdominal-normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) protocol and compare the results to a cohort concomitantly transplanted, from standard brain death (

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.

BACKGROUND:Bleeding is a common and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) are used paradoxically less in patients at high-risk of bleeding: "bleeding risk-treatment paradox" (RTP). We determined whether hospitals and physicians, who do not align BAS to PCI patients' bleeding risk (ie, exhibit a RTP) have higher bleeding rates. METHODS:We examined 28,005 PCIs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry for 7 hospitals comprising BJC HealthCare. BAS included transradial intervention, bivalirudin, and vascular closure devices. Patients' predicted bleeding risk was based on National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model and categorized as low (<2.0%), moderate (2.0%-6.4%), or high (≥6.5%) risk tertiles. BAS use was considered risk-concordant if: at least 1 BAS was used for moderate risk; 2 BAS were used for high risk and bivalirudin or vascular closure devices were not used for low risk. Absence of risk-concordant BAS use was defined as RTP. We analyzed inter-hospital and inter-physician variation in RTP, and the association of RTP with post-PCI bleeding. RESULTS:Amongst 28,005 patients undergoing PCI by 103 physicians at 7 hospitals, RTP was observed in 12,035 (43%) patients. RTP was independently associated with a higher likelihood of bleeding even after adjusting for predicted bleeding risk, mortality risk and potential sources of variation (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.44-1.92, P < .001). A higher prevalence of RTP strongly and independently correlated with worse bleeding rates, both at the physician-level (Wilk's Lambda 0.9502, F-value 17.21, P < .0001) and the hospital-level (Wilk's Lambda 0.9899, F-value 35.68, P < .0001). All the results were similar in a subset of PCIs conducted since 2015 - a period more reflective of the contemporary practice. CONCLUSIONS:Bleeding RTP is a strong, independent predictor of bleeding. It exists at the level of physicians and hospitals: those with a higher rate of RTP had worse bleeding rates. These findings not only underscore the importance of recognizing bleeding risk upfront and using BAS in a risk-aligned manner, but also inform and motivate national efforts to reduce PCI-related bleeding.

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.