Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND:Anemia may confer a poor prognosis among patients with the acute coronary syndrome. However, few data exist on the association of anemia with in-hospital outcomes, including bleeding, among ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS:) and multivariate logistic regression were used to evaluate the relationship of anemia on admission with clinical outcomes. Compared with nonanemic patients, anemic patients were more likely to have preexisting hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and prior myocardial infarction. Anemic patients had higher unadjusted rates of in-hospital death (8.1% versus 3.7%; P<0.001), bleeding (18.2% versus 9.4%; P<0.001), and were more likely to develop heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.19-2.22), shock (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.62-3.40), or cardiac arrest (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.10-3.40) during their hospital stay. Baseline anemia was independently associated with major bleeding (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.25-2.56) but not all-cause mortality (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57-1.73). There was no significant correlation between anemia and overall reperfusion times (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.22). CONCLUSIONS:In a contemporary ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction cohort receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention, nearly 1 in 5 patients were anemic. Anemia was associated with increased comorbidities and higher-risk features on presentation and was independently associated with subsequent major in-hospital bleeding but not all-cause mortality. These results suggest that anemic ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients may safely receive timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention but with particular consideration for bleeding avoidance strategies.

OBJECTIVE:This study evaluated whether use of different spasmolytic regimens (nitroglycerin or verapamil) administered soon after sheath insertion affects postprocedure radial artery occlusion (RAO) in patients who underwent transradial catheterization. METHODS AND RESULTS:We performed a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial evaluating the use of 500 μg intra-arterial nitroglycerin just before sheath removal in 1706 patients undergoing transradial catheterization. Patients who received 200 μg or 300 μg nitroglycerin after sheath placement (group A; n = 688) were compared with patients who received 5 mg verapamil after sheath placement (group B; n = 1018). The primary endpoint was RAO diagnosed by Doppler ultrasound examination at 1 calendar day after the procedure. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors of RAO. RAO occurred in 16.0% of group A and 5.4% of group B. After adjustment for potential confounders, neither the use of verapamil nor nitroglycerin was associated with RAO (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-3.02; P=.62). Radial artery compression >4 hours was the strongest predictor of RAO (OR, 5.41; 95% CI, 2.31-12.65; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this study, the use of verapamil or nitroglycerin as a spasmolytic regimen was not associated with RAO. Given the strong association between duration of radial compression and RAO, further studies are needed to determine the interaction between vasodilator agents and compression protocols on RAO.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to determine predictors and outcomes associated with staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus one-time multivessel revascularization (OTMVR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND:Prior observational studies have not evaluated predictors and outcomes of staged PCI versus OTMVR in a heterogenous population of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who undergo multivessel revascularization. METHODS:Data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) CART (Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking) Program were used to evaluate patients who underwent PCI of >2 vessels between October 1, 2007, and September 3, 2014. Associations between individual factors and the decision to perform staged PCI were assessed. Additionally, the impact of measured patient and procedural factors, site factors, and unmeasured site factors on the decision to perform staged PCI was compared. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between staged PCI and mortality. RESULTS:A total of 7,599 patients at 61 sites were included. The decision to perform staged PCI was driven by procedural characteristics and unmeasured site factors. Staged PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality compared with OTMVR (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.84; p < 0.01). This mortality benefit was observed among the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.47; p < 0.01), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.87; p < 0.01), unstable angina (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.89; p < 0.01) and stable angina (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.00; p = 0.05) groups. CONCLUSIONS:The decision to pursue staged PCI was driven by procedural characteristics and unmeasured site variation and was associated with lower mortality compared with OTMVR. After adjustment, there was an association between staged PCI and reduced mortality. Given the observational nature of these findings, a randomized trial comparing the 2 is needed to guide practice.

BACKGROUND:During transradial (TR) access, it remains unclear whether differences in baseline patients characteristics and hemostasis care impact the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO). We sought to compare the rate of RAO after TR access with the 6 French(Fr) Glidesheath Slender (GSS6Fr, Terumo, Japan) or a standard 5 Fr sheath in Japanese and non-Japanese patients. METHODS AND RESULTS:The Radial Artery Patency and Bleeding, Efficacy, Adverse evenT (RAP and BEAT) trial randomized 1,836 patients undergoing TR coronary angiography and/or interventions to receive the GSS6Fr or the standard 5 Fr Glidesheath (GS5Fr, Terumo, Japan). Out of this study population, 1,087 were Japanese patients and 751 non-Japanese patients. The overall incidence of RAO was significantly higher in Japanese patients (3.6% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.002). Use of GSS6Fr was associated with higher rates of RAO than GS5Fr in Japanese patients (5% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.02) and with similar RAO rates in non-Japanese patients (1.3 vs. 1.1%, P = 1). The mean hemostasis time was significantly longer in Japanese patients (378 ± 253 vs. 159 ± 136 min, P < 0.001) and more Japanese patients had a hemostasis time of more than 6 hr (16.2% vs. 4.9%, P < 0.0001). Longer hemostasis time was an independent predictor of RAO (OR per additional hour 1.070, 95% CI 1.008-1.136, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Use of GSS6Fr was associated with a higher rate of RAO than a standard 5 Fr sheath in Japanese patients but not in non-Japanese patients. Whether improvement in post-procedural care and reduced hemostasis time could impact the incidence of RAO in Japanese patients should be further assessed.

OBJECTIVES:We aimed to describe global practice patterns of unfractionated heparin (UFH) use for diagnostic transradial cardiac catheterization. BACKGROUND:The use of the radial artery approach for cardiac catheterization is increasing globally. Limited contemporary data exist to support the use or optimal dosing of UFH to prevent radial artery occlusion (RAO) and other thromboembolic complications. METHODS:We performed a web-based international survey of 450 interventional cardiologists from 34 countries. We collected information regarding the experience and use of UFH for diagnostic transradial cardiac catheterization. RESULTS:The survey was conducted between June and July 2016 and was completed by 227 (50.4%) interventional cardiologists. Overall, 83.3% performed >75% of their coronary angiograms via a radial approach, with the plurality (41.9%) having 10-20 years of clinical experience. Of all respondents, 7.5% did not use UFH for routine diagnostic transradial heart catheterization. Of the 92.5% who did use UFH, it was preferentially administered intra-arterially by 60% and intravenously by 40%. The majority (62.6%) of interventionalists used a fixed UFH dose with 5,000 IU being the most common dose (used in 48%). For those using a weight-based UFH (50 IU/kg) dosing regimen for diagnostic procedures (36.1%), the administered UFH dose ranged from 2,000 up to 10,000 IU. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the lack of firm evidence, the majority of interventional cardiologists who participated in the survey use UFH to prevent RAO for diagnostic transradial coronary angiography. However, there exist large practice disparities with regards to dose and route of administration. Given this knowledge gap, a dedicated randomized trial is warranted.

Importance:A significant number of patients receive bare-metal stents (BMSs) instead of drug-eluting stents (DESs) to shorten the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Emerging evidence suggests that new-generation DESs, particularly those optimized for biocompatibility, may be more efficacious and safer than BMSs, even with a single month of DAPT after stent implantation. Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DESs compared with BMSs for coronary intervention with a single month of DAPT. Data Sources:Human studies found in PubMed, the Cochrane databases through April 2018, and reference lists of selected articles. Study Selection:Randomized clinical trials were included if they enrolled patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and randomly assigned each patient to treatment with either DESs or BMSs. The additional inclusion criterion was use of only 1 month of DAPT poststent implantation. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures:The efficacy end points were major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, cardiac mortality, and all-cause mortality at 1 year. The safety outcomes were stent thrombosis and bleeding complications. Results:Data from 3 randomized clinical trials involving 3943 patients were included (2457 men [62.3%]; mean [SD] age ranging from 75.7 [9.3] years to 81.4 [4.3] years per trial subgroup). Coronary intervention with DESs reduced the rates for major adverse cardiac events (OR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57-0.82]; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.22-0.67]; P = .001), target vessel revascularization (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.38-0.65]; P < .001), and myocardial infarction (OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31-0.83]; P = .01) compared with BMSs at 1 year. The incidence of stent thrombosis was also lower with DESs compared with BMSs (1.8% vs 2.8%), but this difference was not statistically significant in the random-effects model. Additionally, the 2 stent types did not differ in the risks of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and bleeding. Conclusions and Relevance:In the limited number of randomized clinical trials comparing DESs with BMSs with shortened DAPT durations in patients who have high bleeding risk or are uncertain candidates for prolonged DAPT, coronary intervention with specific DESs optimized for biocompatibility is not only safe but also efficacious, even with only 1 month of DAPT.