Faculty Bibliography

Advanced age is directly related to worse outcomes following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and higher complication rates from antithrombotic therapies and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Often excluded from clinical trials, seniors presenting with STEMI remain an understudied population despite contributing to 140,000 hospital admissions annually. The SAFE-STEMI for Seniors study is a prospective, multicenter, unblinded, randomized clinical trial designed to examine the efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided complete revascularization in multivessel disease, while also investigating other components of STEMI care for patients ≥60 years including the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents for primary PCI and transradial PCI with the Glidesheath Slender and TR band. The SAFE-STEMI trial represents North America's first and only prospective randomized investigational device exemption study to use a Coordinated Registry Network infrastructure with collaborative partnering across industry manufacturers, promoting both efficiency and reduced cost of evidence development for regulatory decisions related to both diagnostic and therapeutic technologies in a single study design. The study has been powered to evaluate 2 independent co-primary end points in a population of older patients with STEMI: (1) third-generation drug-eluting stents for primary PCI and (2) instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided complete revascularization versus infarct-related artery-only revascularization.

BACKGROUND:Medicare insurance claims may provide an efficient means to ascertain follow-up of older participants in clinical research. We sought to determine the accuracy and completeness of claims- versus site-based follow-up with clinical event committee (+CEC) adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS:We performed a retrospective study using linked Medicare and Duke Database of Clinical Trials data. Medicare claims were linked to clinical data from 7 randomized cardiovascular clinical trials. Of 52,476 trial participants, linking resulted in 5,839 (of 10,497 linkage-eligible) Medicare-linked trial participants with fee-for-service A and B coverage. Death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and revascularization incidences were compared using Medicare inpatient claims only, site-reported events (+CEC) only, or a combination of the 2. Randomized treatment effects were compared as a function of whether claims-based, site-based (+CEC), or a combined system was used for event detection. RESULTS:Among the 5,839 study participants, the annual event rates were similar between claims- and site-based (+CEC) follow-up: death (overall rate 5.2% vs 5.2%; adjusted κ 0.99), MI (2.2% vs 2.3%; adjusted κ 0.96), stroke (0.7% vs 0.7%; adjusted κ 0.99), and any revascularization (7.4% vs 7.9%; adjusted κ 0.95). Of events detected by claims yet not reported by CEC, a minority were reported by sites but negatively adjudicated by CEC (39% of MIs and 18% of strokes). Differences in individual case concordance led to higher event rates when claims- and site-based (+CEC) systems were combined. Randomized treatment effects were similar among the 3 approaches for each outcome of interest. CONCLUSIONS:Claims- versus site-based (+CEC) follow-up identified similar overall cardiovascular event rates despite meaningful differences in the events detected. Randomized treatment effects were similar using the 2 methods, suggesting claims data could be used to support clinical research leveraging routinely collected data. This approach may lead to more effective evidence generation, synthesis, and appraisal of medical products and inform the strategic approaches toward the National Evaluation System for Health Technology.

BACKGROUND:Available data suggest that same-day discharge (SDD) after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is safe in select patients. Yet, little is known about contemporary adoption rates, safety, and costs in a universal health care system like the Veterans Affairs Health System. METHODS:Using data from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program linked with Health Economics Resource Center data, patients undergoing elective PCI for stable angina between October 1, 2007 and Sepetember 30, 2016, were stratified by SDD versus overnight stay. We examined trends of SDD, and using 2:1 propensity matching, we assessed 30-day rates of readmission, mortality, and total costs at 30 days. RESULTS:Of 21,261 PCIs from 67 sites, 728 were SDDs (3.9% of overall cohort). The rate of SDD increased from 1.6% in 2008 to 9.7% in 2016 (P < .001). SDD patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation, peripheral arterial disease, and prior coronary artery bypass grafting and were treated at higher-volume centers. Thirty-day readmission and mortality did not differ significantly between the groups (readmission: 6.7% SDD vs 5.6% for overnight stay, P = .24; mortality: 0% vs. 0.07%, P = .99). The mean (SD) 30-day cost accrued by patients undergoing SDD was $23,656 ($15,480) versus $25,878 ($17,480) for an overnight stay. The accumulated median cost savings for SDD was $1503 (95% CI $738-$2,250). CONCLUSIONS:Veterans Affairs Health System has increasingly adopted SDD for elective PCI procedures, and this is associated with cost savings without an increase in readmission or mortality. Greater adoption has the potential to reduce costs without increasing adverse outcomes.

Transradial access (TRA) is increasingly used worldwide for percutaneous interventional procedures and associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most frequent post-procedural complication of TRA, restricting the use of the same radial artery for future procedures and as a conduit for coronary artery bypass graft. The authors review recent advances in the prevention of RAO following percutaneous TRA diagnostic or interventional procedures. Based on the available data, the authors provide easily applicable and effective recommendations to prevent periprocedural RAO and maximize the chances of access in case of repeat catheterization or coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.

BACKGROUND:The role of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases remains controversial, particularly in the context of contemporary aggressive preventive strategies. METHODS:Relevant randomized clinical trials were included, and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models. Additional moderator analyses were performed to compare the pooled treatment effects from recent trials (those reported after the guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program Third Adult Treatment Panel were published in 2001; thus, conducted on the background of contemporary preventive strategies) to the results of older trials. RESULTS:Data from 14 randomized controlled trials involving 164,751 patients were included. Aspirin use decreased myocardial infarction risk by 16% compared with placebo (RR 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.94); however, in the moderator analyses, aspirin was not associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction in recent trials, but was in older trials (P-interaction = .02). Overall, aspirin use significantly increased the occurrence of major bleeding (RR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32-1.69) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.54). In moderator analyses, the risk of major bleeding (P-interaction = .12) or hemorrhagic stroke (P-interaction = .44) with aspirin was not significantly different between the older and new trials. Differences between aspirin and placebo in the risks for all-cause stroke, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality were not found. CONCLUSIONS:In the context of contemporary primary prevention guidelines, the effect of aspirin on myocardial infarction risk was significantly attenuated, whereas its major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke complications were retained. Therefore, in contemporary practice, routine use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events may have a net harmful effect.

BACKGROUND:It remains uncertain how advances in revascularization techniques, availability of new evidence, and updated guidelines have influenced the annual rates of coronary revascularization in the United States. METHODS:We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data from 2005 to 2014 with appropriate weighting to determine national procedural volumes. To present accurately overall percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rates, PCI with same-day discharge numbers per year were estimated from the available literature and added to annual PCI procedures performed. RESULTS:Annual PCI rate declined from 353 per 100,000 adults in 2005 to 277 per 100,000 adults in 2009 (P < .001) but remained stable thereafter (P = .50). Annual coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) rate declined steadily, at a shallower slope than PCI, from 120 per 100,000 in 2005 to 93 per 100,000 in 2009 (P = .02) but remained stable thereafter (P = .60). Similar trends were seen in men and women. Both PCI and CABG rates were lower in women than men over the study period (PCI, 482 to 324/100,000 in men vs 232 to 153/100,000 in women; CABG, 172 to 118/100,000 in men vs 64 to 38/100,000 in women). Annual PCI rates were higher than CABG rates in patients of all age groups including in younger patients (age < 50) and octogenarians. The proportion of coronary revascularization procedures performed per insurance type remained relatively similar across the study period. CONCLUSIONS:Annual rates of coronary revascularization have changed significantly over time, potentially because of advances in revascularization techniques, availability of new evidence, and updated guidelines. Rates of PCI declined more steeply than CABG before plateauing but remained higher than rates of CABG across the study period.

BACKGROUND:In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS:We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS:At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P = 0.62 and P = 0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.).

AIMS:Limited data exist on the epidemiology, evaluation, and prognosis of otherwise unexplained anaemia of the elderly in heart failure (HF). Thus, we aimed to determine the incidence of anaemia, to characterize diagnostic testing patterns for potentially reversible causes of anaemia, and to evaluate the independent association between incident anaemia and long-term morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS:Within the Cardiovascular Research Network (CVRN), we identified adults age ≥65 years with diagnosed HF between 2005 and 2012 and no anaemia at entry. Incident anaemia was defined using World Health Organization (WHO) haemoglobin thresholds (<13.0 g/dL in men; <12.0 g/dL in women). All-cause death and hospitalizations for HF and any cause were identified from electronic health records. Among 38 826 older HF patients, 22 163 (57.1%) developed incident anaemia over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 2.9 (1.2-5.6) years. The crude rate [95% confidence interval (CI)] per 100 person-years of incident anaemia was 26.4 (95% CI 26.0-26.7) and was higher for preserved ejection fraction (EF) [29.2 (95% CI 28.6-29.8)] compared with borderline EF [26.5 (95% CI 25.4-27.7)] or reduced EF [26.6 (95% CI 25.8-27.4)]. Iron indices, vitamin B12 level, and thyroid testing were performed in 20.9%, 14.9%, and 40.2% of patients, respectively. Reduced iron stores, vitamin B12 deficiency, and/or hypothyroidism were present in 29.7%, 3.2%, and 18.6% of tested patients, respectively. In multivariable analyses, incident anaemia was associated with excess mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 2.14, 95% CI 2.07-2.22] as well as hospitalization for HF (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.72-1.88) and any cause (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.72-1.83). CONCLUSION:Among older adults with HF, incident anaemia is common and independently associated with substantially increased risks of morbidity and mortality. Additional research is necessary to clarify the value of routine evaluation and treatment of potentially reversible causes of anaemia.