Faculty Bibliography

Atherosclerotic heart disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. While extensive research supports cardiovascular risk factor reduction in the form of achieving evidence-based blood pressure, lipid, glucose, and body weight targets as a means to improve cardiovascular outcomes, residual risk remains. Emerging data have demonstrated that the intraindividual variability of these risk factor targets potentially contribute to this residual risk. It may therefore be time to define risk factor by not only its magnitude and duration as done traditionally, but perhaps also by the variability of that particular risk factor over time.

Background: Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation is associated with malignancies. Lead garment specifications in the cardiac catheterization laboratory are not currently regulated, potentially resulting in unprotected areas.
Method(s): Interventional cardiology attendings and fellows wore 7 dosimeters, one externally on the thyroid shield and six inside the lead apron: bilateral axilla, chest wall, and pelvis. Radiation protection included a lower table-mounted lead drape, upper ceiling-mounted lead shield, and use of 7.5 frames per second during fluoroscopy. All procedures were performed with operators standing to the right of the patient. The primary endpoint was operator radiation exposure to the left versus right axilla. Radiation exposures in millirem (mrem) per participant over the study period are shown as median [interquartile range] and compared between left- and right-sided measures using paired Wilcoxon tests.
Result(s): Nine participants (66% female) wore dosimeters during 231 cases. Transradial coronary angiography was selected in 81.1% of cases and PCI was performed in 32.1%. A sterile radiation drape placed on the patient abdomen was used in 18.6% of cases. Median dose area product and fluoroscopy time for the participants ranged from 29.0-60.5 Gy cm² and 6.2-13.5 minutes, respectively. Radiation exposure at the left axilla was higher than the right axilla (5 vs. 0.9 mrem, p=0.018) but did not differ between left or right chest wall and left or right pelvis (Figure).
Conclusion(s): This analysis demonstrates insufficient protection in the left axillary area. The use of additional left axillary protection should be evaluated. (Figure Presented)

Background: Revascularization is often performed in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, whether revascularization reduces death and other cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain. Methods: We conducted PUBMED/EMBASE/CENTRAL searches for randomized trials comparing routine revascularization versus an initial conservative strategy in patients with SIHD. The primary outcome was death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, stroke, unstable angina and freedom from angina. Trials were stratified by percent stent use and by percent statin use to evaluate outcomes in contemporary trials. Results: Fourteen RCTs that enrolled 14,877 patients followed up for a weighted mean of 4.5 years with 64,678 patient years of follow-up fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most trials enrolled patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function, low symptom burden and excluded patients with left main disease. Revascularization compared with medical therapy alone was not associated with a reduced risk of death (RR=0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.09). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary indicating firm evidence for lack of a 10% or greater reduction in death. Revascularization was associated with a reduced non-procedural MI (RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.85) but also with increased procedural MI (RR=2.48, 95% CI 1.86-3.31) with no difference in overall MI (RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.03). A significant reduction in unstable angina (RR=0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.92) and increase in freedom from angina (RR=1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15) was also observed with revascularization. There were no treatment-related differences in the risk of heart failure or stroke. Conclusions: In patients with SIHD, routine revascularization was not associated with improved survival, but was associated with a lower risk of non-procedural MI and unstable angina with greater freedom from angina at the expense of higher rates of procedural MI. Longer-term follow-up of trials is needed to assess whether reduction in these non-fatal spontaneous events improves long-term survival.

Cardiovascular disease, and in particular coronary artery disease (CAD), remains an important contributor of morbidity and mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Classic symptomatology of CAD and effectiveness of established therapeutic measures is less frequent in patients with CKD. This suggests unique characteristics of CAD among patients with CKD. Two important features of CAD in CKD include increased calcific density of atherosclerotic plaques and of the vessels themselves (coronary artery calcification -- CAC), as well as a decrease in microcirculatory function -- or coronary microcirculatory dysfunction. A multitude of pathophysiologic pathways have been identified that contribute to CAC in CKD; less is known about the pathophysiology of microcirculatory dysfunction. It is not well established if these two processes are directly related to each other, but the combination results in a greater severity of effect on overall myocardial function and may in part explain the greater preponderance of silent myocardial infarction. Further investigation is needed to better understand these unique aspects of CAD in CKD as well as the role they play in overall CVD in this group, and ultimately therapeutics that may lessen the burden of disease.

BACKGROUND:inhibitor after a short course of DAPT is actively debated. METHODS:inhibitor monotherapy (P2Y12i group) after short-term DAPT. RESULTS:Our search identified 17 eligible trials enrolling a total of 54,625 patients comparing different DAPT duration. Either of the 2 monotherapy groups did not increase the risk of ischemic outcomes when compared with the long-term DAPT group, without difference between the Aspirin versus the P2Y12i groups. However, both monotherapy groups significantly reduced bleeding when compared with long-term DAPT (Aspirin group: hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.62 [0.45-0.86], P=.004 and P2Y12i group: 0.68 [0.50-0.93], P=.015). There was no difference in bleeding between the Aspirin versus P2Y12i groups (hazard ratio=0.91 [0.58-1.43], P=.70). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing PCI, short-term DAPT with continuation of either aspirin or P2Y12i reduced bleeding without increasing ischemic outcomes when compared with long-term DAPT. The choice of antiplatelet therapy after short-term DAPT should be evaluated in well-powered trials.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate whether paclitaxel eluting devices increased the risk of death in patients undergoing revascularization for infrainguinal peripheral artery disease using network meta-analyses. METHODS:PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through April 2020 for randomized trials in patients with infrainguinal peripheral artery disease who underwent revascularization with or without a paclitaxel eluting device (balloon/stent). Short-term mortality defined as death at 6-12 months, and long-term mortality defined as death at >12 months after revascularization. RESULTS:Our search identified 57 eligible randomized controlled studies enrolling a total of 9,362 patients comparing seven revascularization strategies (balloon angioplasty vs. bare metal stent vs. covered stent vs. paclitaxel eluting stent vs. other drug eluting stent vs. paclitaxel-coated balloon vs. bypass surgery). Overall, paclitaxel eluting stent and paclitaxel-coated balloons did not increase short-term mortality (e.g., vs. balloon angioplasty: paclitaxel-coated balloon OR [95% CI] 1.21 [0.88-1.66], p = .24; paclitaxel eluting stent OR [95%CI] 1.01 [0.63-1.63], p = .97, respectively). In addition, paclitaxel eluting stent did not show significant increase in long-term mortality (e.g., vs. balloon angioplasty: OR [95%CI] 1.06 [0.70-1.59], p = .79). However, paclitaxel-coated balloon showed significant increase in long-term mortality compared to balloon angioplasty and bypass (vs. balloon angioplasty: OR [95% CI] 1.48 [1.06-2.07], p = .021; vs. bypass: OR [95%CI] 1.73 [1.05-2.84], p = .031, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:In this meta-analysis of randomized trials, there was no significant increase in mortality with paclitaxel eluting stent, but there was increased risk of long-term mortality in paclitaxel-coated balloon for the treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease.

Background: For patients with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for bleeding or who cannot tolerate oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents an alternative therapy for reducing risk for thromboembolic events. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatzer and Watchman^TM LAA closure devices. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed of studies comparing the safety and efficacy outcomes of the two devices. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. Results: Six studies encompassing 614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall event rates were low for both devices. No significant differences between the devices were found in safety outcomes (i.e., pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, device embolization, air embolism, and vascular complications) or in the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, or device-related thrombosis. The total bleeding rate was significantly lower in the Watchman^TM group (Log OR = -0.90; 95% CI = -1.76 to -0.04; p = 0.04), yet no significant differences was found when the bleeding rate was categorized into major and minor bleeding. Total peridevice leakage rate and insignificant peridevice leakage rate were significantly higher in the Watchman^TM group (Log OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.87; p < 0.01 and Log OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.72; p < 0.01, respectively). However, significant peridevice leakages were similar in both the devices. Conclusions: The LAA closure devices had low complication rates and low event rates. Efficacy and safety were similar between the systems, except for a higher percentage of insignificant peridevice leakages in the Watchman^TM group. A randomized controlled trial comparing both devices is underway, which may provide more insight on the safety and efficacy outcomes comparison of the devices.

We aimed to investigate long-term (≥5 years) outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) using a meta-analysis from updated published randomized trials. Our data showed that the risk of all-cause death as well as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was similar between PCI and CABG, whereas PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization compared to CABG. Decisions for PCI versus CABG for LMCAD should be based on weighing the upfront morbidity and mortality risk of CABG with late risk of repeat revascularization with PCI and taking into consideration patient preference.