Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Although many studies show an inverse association between operator procedural volume and short-term adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the association between procedural volume and longer-term outcomes is unknown. METHODS:Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry data linked with Medicare claims data, we examined the association between operator PCI volume and long-term outcomes among patients ≥65 years of age. Operators were stratified by average annual PCI volume (counting PCIs performed in patients of all ages): low- (<50 PCIs), intermediate- (50-100), and high- (>100) volume operators. One-year unadjusted rates of death and major adverse coronary events (MACEs; defined as death, readmission for myocardial infarction, or unplanned coronary revascularization) were calculated with Kaplan-Meier methods. The proportional hazards assumption was not met, and risk-adjusted associations between operator volume and outcomes were calculated separately from the time of PCI to hospital discharge and from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up. RESULTS:Between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, 723 644 PCI procedures were performed by 8936 operators: 2553 high-, 2878 intermediate-, and 3505 low-volume operators. Compared with high- and intermediate-volume operators, low-volume operators more often performed emergency PCI, and their patients had fewer cardiovascular comorbidities. Over 1-year follow-up, 15.9% of patients treated by low-volume operators had a MACE compared with 16.9% of patients treated by high-volume operators ( P=0.004). After multivariable adjustment, intermediate- and high-volume operators had a significantly lower rate of in-hospital death than low-volume operators (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96 for intermediate versus low; odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83 for high versus low). There were no significant differences in rates of MACEs, death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization between operator cohorts from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio for MACEs, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01 for intermediate versus low; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04 for high versus low). CONCLUSIONS:Unadjusted 1-year outcomes after PCI were worse for older adults treated by operators with higher annual volume; however, patients treated by these operators had more cardiovascular comorbidities. After risk adjustment, higher operator volume was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and no difference in postdischarge MACEs.

BACKGROUND:Clinical trial data studies suggest superiority of prasugrel over clopidogrel in patients with diabetes. However, the use, safety and efficacy profile of prasugrel in unselected diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remain unclear. METHODS:PROMETHEUS was a prospective multicenter observational study of 19,919 ACS PCI patients enrolled between 2010 and 2013. The primary endpoint was 90-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The safety endpoint was bleeding requiring hospitalization. RESULTS:We identified 7580 (38%) subjects with and 12,329 (62%) without diabetes. Diabetic patients were older and had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors. However, they were less likely to receive prasugrel (18.2% vs. 21.7%). Use of prasugrel did not increase with the severity of clinical presentation in diabetics, whereas, among non-diabetics, prescription of prasugrel was higher in NSTEMI and STEMI compared to unstable angina. The 90-day and 1-year adjusted risk of MACE was greater in diabetics (at 1 year: 22.7% vs. 16.5%; HR 1.22 [1.14-1.33], p < 0.001). At 1 year, the risk of bleeding was also higher in diabetics (4.9% vs. 4.1%, HR 1.19 [1.01-1.39], p = 0.035). After multivariable adjustment, use of prasugrel was associated with a lower risk of death in diabetic patients both at 90 days and 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:Use of prasugrel in diabetic patients with PCI-treated ACS was lower than in non-diabetics despite their high-risk profile and the severity of their clinical presentation. In diabetics, prasugrel was associated with a lower adjusted risk of 90-day death compared with clopidogrel.

The treatment of patients requiring anticoagulation who develop acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or require percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) must balance the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, stroke, and major bleeding. The development of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation has ushered in an era of potential treatment options for these complex patients. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the clinical evidence underlying the use of DOACs for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation and ACS or PCI. RECENT FINDINGS: Three trials studied this particular patient population; WOEST showed that dual therapy with warfarin and clopidogrel decreased hemorrhage at 1 year compared with standard triple therapy (19.4 vs. 44.4% HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.26-0.50; P < 0.0001), without increasing thromboembolic events (11.1 vs. 17.6% HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38-0.94; P = 0.025). PIONEER AF-PCI showed that 10-15 mg rivaroxaban plus P2Y₁₂ inhibitor for 12 months significantly lowered bleeding rates than standard triple therapy (16.8 vs. 26.7% HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47-0.76; P < 0.001) and had equivalent rates of MACE. Finally, REDUAL-PCI compared two different doses of dabigatran (110 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily) plus P2Y₁₂ inhibitor with standard triple therapy and reported reduced ISTH bleeding with both doses; HR 0.52 with 110 mg dabigatran (95% CI 0.42-0.63, P < 0.001) and HR 0.72 with 150 mg dabigatran (95% CI 0.58-0.88; P = 0.002). The rate of the composite of thromboembolic events, death, or unplanned revascularizations was similar between pooled dabigatran dual therapy and triple therapy groups (13.7 vs 13.4% HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84-1.29; P = 0.005). Recent evidence shows that DOACs plus one antiplatelet agent can decrease bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI for ACS. Although not powered to detect non-inferiority or superiority, large studies suggest rivaroxaban 10-15 mg plus P2Y₁₂ inhibitor for 12 months or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily plus P2y12 inhibitor for 12 months will have similar rates of MACE and stent thrombosis as triple therapy. In patients who have contraindications to DOACs, the strategy of INR-adjusted warfarin plus clopidogrel appears to be safer than warfarin plus dual antiplatelet therapy.

The cost of inpatient percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) procedure is related to length of stay (LOS). It is unknown, how LOS may be associated with readmission rates and costs of index PCI and readmissions in elective PCI. This study aims to evaluate rates, predictors, causes, and costs associated with 30-day unplanned readmissions according to lLOS in patients, who underwent elective PCI. We included patients in the Nationwide Readmission Database, who were admitted to hospital from 2010 to 2014, who underwent uncomplicated elective PCI. LOS was defined as 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 days. A total of 324,345 patients were included in the analysis and the 30-day unplanned readmission was 4.75%, 4.67%, 6.44%, and 9.42% in the LOS groups 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 days, respectively. Prolonged LOS was associated with increased average total 30-day cost (index and readmission cost, 0 days $15,063, 1 day $14,693, 2 days $18,136, and ≥3 days $24,336). Compared with 0 days, the odds of readmissions were greater for 2 days (odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.87, p = 0.016) and ≥3 days (odds ratio 1.70, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.24, p <0.001). Comorbidities were strong predictors of LOS and noncardiac causes, account for more than half of all causes for readmission. Longer LOS was associated with reduced incidence of readmissions for noncardiac causes such as noncardiac chest pain, but a greater rate of readmissions for heart failure. In conclusion, shorter length of stay was associated with reduced healthcare costs in elective PCI.

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a complex disease that remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). Originating as a result of inflammatory response, the development and progression of CAV is attributed to endothelial dysfunction, cellular infiltration, and a wide-range of genetic and patient factors. The detection of CAV remains a diagnostic challenge, as symptoms can be variable or absent. While coronary angiography remains the initial test of choice for the diagnosis and surveillance of CAV, intravascular imaging (either by ultrasound or optical coherence tomography) and physiologic assessments are useful adjuncts in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Positron emission tomography, computed tomographic, and magnetic resonance imaging may have a role increasing the time interval between invasive screening tests for prognosis. Medical management should include a statin, vasodilator, and tailored immunosuppressive regimen that maximally decrease allograft rejection and CAV progression while causing minimal side effects. Patients that are less responsive to pharmacotherapy should be considered for invasive management with percutaneous coronary intervention. Although surgical revascularization is a poor option, repeat OHT is the only definitive treatment option but given its morbidity should be reserved for a highly selected patient population.

The present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) is home to varied practitioners who perform both diagnostic, interventional, and complex invasive procedures. Invasive, non-interventional cardiologists are performing a significant proportion of the work as the CCL environment has evolved. This not only includes those who perform diagnostic-only cardiac catheterization but also heart failure specialists who may be involved in hemodynamic assessment and in mechanical circulatory support and pulmonary hypertension specialists and transplant cardiologists. As such, the training background of those who work in the CCL is varied. While most quality metrics in the CCL are directed towards evaluation of patients who undergo traditional interventional procedures, there has not been a focus upon providing these invasive, noninterventional cardiologists, hospital/CCL administrators, and CCL directors a platform for quality metrics. This document focuses on benchmarking quality for the invasive, noninterventional practice, providing this physician community with guidance towards a patient-centered approach to care, and offering tools to the invasive, noninterventionalists to help their professional growth. This consensus statement aims to establish a foundation upon which the invasive, noninterventional cardiologists can thrive in the CCL environment and work collaboratively with their interventional colleagues while ensuring that the highest quality of care is being delivered to all patients.