Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We sought to characterize how the perceived risk of early dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) discontinuation is incorporated into operator decision-making regarding stent choice, using a simple pre-procedure survey screening for clinical variables that may lead to early DAPT discontinuation. BACKGROUND:Understanding which factors influence operator decision-making regarding stent choice during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) could help identify areas for quality improvement. METHODS:We retrospectively identified 1202 patients who underwent PCI from July 2008 to January 2013 at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center. We excluded patients without a complete pre-procedure survey within 14days of PCI, repeat procedures on the same patient and those who received both drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) or no stent during PCI, leaving 864 patients. The primary outcome was the independent association of "yes" responses to survey items with the odds of DES use during PCI. RESULTS:Of 864 patients, 661 received DES and 203 received BMS. A "yes" response to "planned major surgery or dental work in the next year" (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.11-0.36, p<0.001), "recent bleeding event or bleeding diathesis" (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.68, p=0.003) or "currently taking Coumadin" (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.78, p=0.007) was independently associated with lower odds of DES use. CONCLUSIONS:Responses to 3 items on a simple pre-procedure survey screening for clinical variables that may lead to early DAPT discontinuation were independently associated with stent type used during PCI, suggesting the importance of these factors in an operator's stent choice.

BACKGROUND:Current guidelines give a class I recommendation to use of embolic protection devices (EPD) for saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention; however, studies have shown conflicting results. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with and without EPD. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:=0.30) between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analysis excluding CathPCI Registry study showed no difference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD use in all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Further sensitivity analysis including only observational studies revealed no difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI. Additional analysis after excluding CathPCI Registry study revealed no difference in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:This study including 52 893 patients suggests no apparent benefit in routine use of EPD during SVG intervention in the contemporary real-world practice. Further randomized clinical trials are needed in current era to evaluate long-term outcomes in routine use of EPD, and meanwhile, current guideline recommendations on EPD use should be revisited.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to examine the current practice and use of transfemoral approach (TFA) for coronary angiography and intervention. BACKGROUND:Wide variability exists in TFA techniques for coronary procedures. METHODS:The authors developed a survey instrument that was distributed via e-mail lists from professional societies to interventional cardiologists from 88 countries between March and December 2016. RESULTS:Of 987 operators, 18% were femoralists, 38% radialists, 42% both, and 2% neither. Access using femoral pulse palpation alone was preferred by 60% of operators, fluoroscopy guidance by 11%, and a combination of palpation, fluoroscopy, or ultrasound by 27%. Only 11% used micropuncture in >90% of their cases. Performing femoral angiography immediately after access was preferred by 23% and at the end of the procedure by 47%, and not done at all by 31% of operators. Hemostasis by manual compression was preferred by 50%, collagen plug vascular closure device by 31%, and suture-based vascular closure device by 11% of operators. Judkins left and right catheters were preferred for diagnostic angiography of the left (99%) and right (94%) coronary arteries. Extra backup curves (XB or EBU) were most commonly preferred for percutaneous coronary intervention of the left anterior descending (80%) and left circumflex (80%), whereas the Judkins right catheter was preferred for percutaneous coronary intervention of the right coronary artery (86%). CONCLUSIONS:There is significant variability in preferences for femoral access technique. Even though recommended best practices advocate for fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance, most operators use palpation alone. Femoral angiography is also not consistently used despite guideline recommendations. The lack of adoption of imaging guidance for vascular access deserves further investigation.

OBJECTIVES:The study sought to define patient, operator, and institutional factors associated with transradial access (TRA) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the variation in use across operators and institutions, and the relationship with mortality and bleeding. BACKGROUND:TRA for PCI in STEMI is underutilized. Factors associated with TRA are not well described, nor is there variation across operators and institutions or their relationship with outcomes. METHODS:The authors used hierarchical logistic regression to identify patient, operator, and institutional characteristics associated with TRA use as well as determine the variation in TRA for STEMI PCI from 2009 to 2015. They also described the relationship between operator- and institution-level use and risk-adjusted bleeding and mortality. RESULTS:Among 692,433 patients undergoing STEMI PCI, 12% (n = 82,618) utilized TRA. TRA increased from 2% to 23% from 2009 to 2015, but with significant geographic variation. Age, sex, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, operators entering practice before 2012, and nonacademically affiliated institutions were associated with lower rates of TRA. There was significant operator and institutional variation, wherein identical patients would have >8-fold difference in odds of TRA for STEMI PCI by changing operators (median odds ratio: 8.7), and >5-fold difference by changing institutions (median odds ratio: 5.1). Greater TRA use across operators was associated with reduced bleeding (rho = -0.053), whereas TRA use across institutions was associated with reduced mortality (rho = -0.077). CONCLUSIONS:Transradial access for STEMI PCI is increasing, but remains underutilized with significant geographic, operator, and institutional variation. These findings suggest an ongoing opportunity to standardize STEMI care.

BACKGROUND:Considerable variability remains as regards the appropriate and safe length of stay after elective PCI. We performed a survey of interventional cardiologists to identify current views on appropriate and safe length of stay after PCI. METHODS:We created an online survey using the commercially available SurveyMonkey application. This was sent to interventional cardiologists in the US, Canada and the UK with the assistance of the national interventional cardiology societies (SCAI, CAIC/CCS, BCIS/BCS) as well as being made available on the theheart.org website. RESULTS:505 interventional cardiologists responded, of which 237 were practicing in the US. Of those from the US, 52% were not aware of any guidelines for length of stay and 48% reported that their unit did not have a standard practice for length of stay. Same-day discharge after PCI was practiced as routine by 14% of cardiologists in the US versus 32% of cardiologists from Canada (P = 0.003) and 57% (P < 0.0001) from the UK. Amongst respondents, there was significant variation between respondents and divergence from published SCAI guidelines regarding appropriate length of stay for patient specific and procedural related clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS:There is considerable variation in practice patterns regarding length of stay after PCI. Whilst most cardiologists practice overnight observation, a significant minority utilize same-day discharge. There is also lack of familiarity with published guidelines. This variation and knowledge gap confirms an urgent need for updated guidelines and a concerted effort to educate cardiologists on appropriate post-PCI length of stay. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The presence of severe coronary artery calcification is associated with higher rates of angiographic complications during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as higher major adverse cardiac events compared with non-calcified lesions. Incorporating orbital atherectomy (OAS) for effective preparation of severely calcified lesions can help maximize the benefits of PCI by attaining maximal luminal gain (or stent expansion) and improve long-term outcomes (by reducing need for revascularization). Areas covered: In this manuscript, the prevalence, risk factors, and impact of coronary artery calcification on PCI are reviewed. Based on current data and experience, the authors review orbital atherectomy technique and best practices to optimize lesion preparation. Expert Commentary: The coronary OAS is the only device approved for use in the U.S. as a treatment for de novo, severely calcified coronary lesions to facilitate stent delivery. Advantages of the device include its ease of use and a mechanism of action that treats bi-directionally, allowing for continuous blood flow during treatment, minimizing heat damage, slow flow, and subsequent need for revascularization. The OAS technique tips reviewed in this article will help inform interventional cardiologists treating patients with severely calcified lesions.

VA Cooperative Studies Program #571 (DIVA) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure when compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in participants undergoing stenting of de novo SVG lesions. Participants undergoing clinically indicated stenting of de novo SVG lesions were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DES or BMS. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and the number of target SVG lesions (1 vs ≥2) within each participating site. At sites that did not routinely administer 12-months of dual antiplatelet therapy after SVG stenting participants without acute coronary syndromes received 1 month of open-label clopidogrel, followed by 11 months of clopidogrel for those assigned to DES and 11 months of placebo for those assigned to BMS. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of target-vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of other clinical endpoints and the incremental cost-effectiveness of DES relative to BMS. Due to lower-than-anticipated target-vessel failure rates, target enrollment was increased from 519 to 762. The study had randomized 599 participants when recruitment ended in December 2015. The DIVA trial will provide clarity on the appropriate stent type for de novo SVG lesions.

OBJECTIVES:This study sought to compare clinical outcomes in a contemporary acute coronary syndrome (ACS) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cohort stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) status. BACKGROUND:Patients with CKD exhibit high risks for both thrombotic and bleeding events, thus complicating decision making regarding antiplatelet therapy in the setting of ACS. METHODS:The PROMETHEUS study was a multicenter observational study comparing outcomes with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in ACS PCI patients. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 90 days and at 1 year were defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Clinically significant bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring transfusion or hospitalization. Cox regression multivariable analysis was performed for adjusted associations between CKD status and clinical outcomes. Hazard ratios for prasugrel versus clopidogrel treatment were generated using propensity score stratification. RESULTS:The total cohort included 19,832 patients, 28.3% with and 71.7% without CKD. CKD patients were older with greater comorbidities including diabetes and multivessel disease. Prasugrel was less often prescribed to CKD versus non-CKD patients (11.0% vs. 24.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 1 year, CKD was associated with higher adjusted risk of MACE (1.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.37) and bleeding (1.46; 95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 1.73). Although unadjusted rates of 1-year MACE were lower with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in both CKD (18.3% vs. 26.5%; p < 0.001) and non-CKD (10.9% vs. 17.9%; p < 0.001) patients, associations were attenuated after propensity stratification. Similarly, unadjusted differences in 1-year bleeding with prasugrel versus clopidogrel (6.0% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.18 in CKD patients; 2.6% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.008 in non-CKD patients) were not significant after propensity score adjustment. CONCLUSIONS:Although risks for 1-year MACE were significantly higher in ACS PCI patients with versus without CKD, prasugrel use was 50% lower in patients with renal impairment. Irrespective of CKD status, outcomes associated with prasugrel use were not significant after propensity adjustment. These data highlight the need for randomized studies evaluating the optimal antiplatelet therapy in CKD patients with ACS.