Faculty Bibliography

Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remain the most frequently used conduits in coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Despite advances in surgical techniques and pharmacotherapy, SVG failure rates remain high, often leading to repeat coronary revascularization. The no-touch SVG harvesting technique (minimal graft manipulation with preservation of vasa vasorum and nerves) reduces the risk of SVG failure, whereas the effect of the off-pump technique on SVG patency remains unclear. Use of buffered storage solutions, intraoperative graft flow measurement, careful selection of the target vessels, and physiological assessment of the native coronary circulation before CABG may also reduce the incidence of SVG failure. Perioperative aspirin and high-intensity statin administration are the cornerstones of secondary prevention after CABG. Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for off-pump CABG and in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. Intermediate (30%-60%) SVG stenoses often progress rapidly. Stenting of intermediate SVG stenoses failed to improve outcomes; hence, treatment focuses on strict control of coronary artery disease risk factors. Redo CABG is associated with higher perioperative mortality compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); hence, the latter is preferred for most patients requiring repeat revascularization after CABG. SVG PCI is limited by high rates of no-reflow and a high incidence of restenosis during follow-up. Drug-eluting and bare metal stents provide similar long-term outcomes in SVG PCI. Embolic protection devices reduce no-reflow and should be used when feasible. PCI of the corresponding native coronary artery is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes and is preferred over SVG PCI, if technically feasible.

OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to describe trends and hospital variation in same-day discharge following elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to evaluate the association between trends in same-day discharge and patient outcomes. BACKGROUND:Insights on contemporary use of same-day discharge following elective PCI are limited. METHODS:In a sequential cross-sectional analysis of 819,091 patients undergoing elective PCI at 1,716 hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017, overall and hospital-level trends in same-day discharge were assessed. Among the 212,369 patients who linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, the association between same-day discharge and 30-day mortality and rehospitalization was assessed. RESULTS:A total of 114,461 patients (14.0%) were discharged the same day as PCI. The proportion of patients with same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in the third quarter of 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017. From 2009 to 2017, the rate of same-day discharge increased from 4.3% to 19.5% for femoral-access PCI and from 9.9% to 39.7% for radial-access PCI. Hospital-level variation in the use of same-day discharge persisted throughout (median odds ratio adjusted for year and radial access: 4.15). Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change over time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly for same-day discharge (P for interaction <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In the past decade, a large increase in the use of same-day discharge following elective PCI was not associated with worse 30-day mortality or rehospitalization. Hospital-level variation in same-day discharge may represent an opportunity to reduce costs without compromising patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND:The COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multi-Vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) demonstrated that staged nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced major cardiovascular events in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. It is unclear whether consistent benefit is observed in patients undergoing a pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with primary PCI. METHODS:Following culprit lesion PCI, 4041 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomized to either routine nonculprit lesion PCI or culprit lesion only PCI. In a prespecified analysis, we determined the treatment effect in 303 patients undergoing a pharmacoinvasive strategy versus 3738 patients undergoing primary PCI on the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and the second coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS:=0.07). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, complete revascularization with multivessel PCI consistently reduces major cardiovascular events in patients undergoing an initial pharmacoinvasive strategy as well as in those undergoing primary PCI. REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01740479.

Importance:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are critical in advancing patient care, yet conducting such large-scale trials requires tremendous resources and coordination. Clinical site start-up performance metrics can provide insight into opportunities for improved trial efficiency but have not been well described. Objective:To measure the start-up time needed to reach prespecified milestones across sites in large cardiovascular RCTs in North America and to evaluate how these metrics vary by time and type of regulatory review process. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study evaluated cardiovascular RCTs conducted from July 13, 2004, to February 1, 2017. The RCTs were coordinated by a single academic research organization, the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Nine consecutive trials with completed enrollment and publication of results in their target journal were studied. Data were analyzed from December 4, 2019, to January 11, 2021. Exposures:Year of trial enrollment initiation (2004-2007 vs 2008-2012) and use of a central vs local institutional review board (IRB). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the median start-up time (from study protocol delivery to first participant enrollment) as compared by trial year and type of IRB used. The median start-up time for the top 10% of sites was also reported. Secondary outcomes included time to site regulatory approval, time to contract execution, and time to site activation. Results:For the 9 RCTs included, the median site start-up time shortened only slightly over time from 267 days (interquartile range [IQR], 185-358 days) for 2004-2007 trials to 237 days (IQR, 162-343 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 255 days [IQR, 177-350 days]; P < .001). For the top 10% of sites, median start-up time was 107 days (IQR, 95-121 days) for 2004-2007 trials vs 104 days (IQR, 84-118 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 106 days [IQR, 90-120 days]; P = .04). The median start-up time was shorter among sites using a central IRB (199 days [IQR, 140-292 days]) than those using a local IRB (287 days [IQR, 205-390 days]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:This cohort study of North American research sites in large cardiovascular RCTs found a duration of nearly 9 months from the time of study protocol delivery to the first participant enrollment; this metric was only slightly shortened during the study period but was reduced to less than 4 months for top-performing sites. These findings suggest that the use of central IRBs has the potential to improve RCT efficiency.

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 &amp; 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.