Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to examine the independent impact of various care pathways, including those involving transradial intervention (TRI) and same-day discharge (SDD) after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), on hospital costs. BACKGROUND:PCI is associated with costs of $10 billion annually. Alternative payment models for PCI are being implemented, but few data exist on strategies to reduce costs. Various PCI care pathways, including TRI and SDD, exist, but their association with costs and outcomes is unknown. METHODS:In total, 279,987 PCI patients eligible for SDD in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry linked to Medicare claims files were analyzed. Hospital costs in 2014 U.S. dollars were estimated using cost-to-charge ratios. Propensity scores for TRI and SDD, with propensity adjustment via inverse probability weighting, was performed. RESULTS:Of the 279,987 PCI procedures, TRI was used in 9.0% (13.5% of which were SDD), and SDD was used in 5.3% of cases (23.1% of which were TRI). TRI (vs. transfemoral intervention) was associated with lower adjusted costs of $916 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $778 to $1,035), as was SDD ($3,502; 95% CI: $3,486 to $3,902). The adjusted cost associated with TRI and SDD was $13,389 (95% CI: $13,161 to $13,607), while the cost associated with transfemoral intervention and non-same-day discharge was $17,076 (95% CI: $16,999 to $17,147), a difference of $3,689 (95% CI: $3,486 to $3,902; p < 0.0001). Shifting current practice from transfemoral intervention non-same-day discharge to TRI SDD by 30% could potentially save a hospital performing 1,000 PCIs each year $1 million and the country $300 million annually. CONCLUSIONS:Among Medicare beneficiaries, TRI with SDD was independently associated with fewer complications and lower in-hospital costs. These findings have important implications for changing the current PCI care pathways to improve outcomes and reduce costs.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death, yet little data exist regarding the comparative efficacy of coronary revascularization procedures in CKD patients with multivessel disease. We created a cohort of 4,687 adults who underwent cardiac catheterization, had a serum creatinine value measured within 30 days, and had more than one vessel with ≥50% stenosis. We used Cox proportional hazard regression modeling weighted by the inverse probability of treatment to examine the association between 4 treatment strategies (medical management, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] with bare metal stent, PCI with drug-eluting stent, and coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) and mortality among patients across categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate; secondary outcome was a composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Compared with medical management, CABG was associated with a reduced risk of death for patients of any nondialysis CKD severity (hazard ratio [HR] range 0.43 to 0.59). There were no significant mortality differences between CABG and PCI, except a decreased death risk in CABG-treated CKD patients (HR range 0.54 to 0.55). Compared with medical management and PCI, CABG was associated with a lower risk of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization in nondialysis CKD patients (HR range 0.41 to 0.64). There were similar associations between decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate and increased mortality across all multivessel coronary artery disease patient treatment groups. When accounting for treatment propensity, surgical revascularization was associated with improved outcomes in patients of all CKD severities. A prospective randomized trial in CKD patients is required to confirm our findings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Ischemic and non-ischemic injury to the heart causes deleterious changes in ventricular size, shape, and function. This adverse remodeling is mediated by neurohormonal and hemodynamic alterations and is reflected in non-invasive measures of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV). These measures are closely linked to cardiovascular outcomes and have become key surrogate endpoints for evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of contemporary treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In this review, we critically evaluate recent published data (2015-2016) from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies of HFrEF therapies to assess the role of ventricular remodeling on outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:These data highlight the benefits of certain guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, surgical revascularization, and mechanical circulatory support on remodeling, while revealing the limitations of other therapies-routine mitral valve repair for patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation and adjuncts to percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (cyclosporine A and bioabsorbable cardiac matrix). The new angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysn inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan, demonstrates convincing improvements in clinical outcomes with a study of remodeling parameters to follow; the new cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, demonstrates improvement in remodeling parameters without a clear early clinical benefit. The concepts and contemporary trials reviewed in this paper reinforce the value of non-invasive measures of ventricular remodeling (LVEF, LVESV, and LVEDV) as important metrics across a range of cardiovascular therapies. Global non-invasive measures of cardiovascular remodeling have roughly paralleled or preceded hard clinical outcomes. Additionally, the capacity for reverse remodeling in HFrEF with GDMT motivates continued research in the fields of implementation science, diagnostic imaging, and gene-based therapeutics.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is prescribed to millions of patients worldwide following coronary stenting. DAPT is indicated to lower the risk of ischemic events, such as myocardial infarction, including stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. A significant number of these patients undergo noncardiac surgery and may require DAPT interruption. This poses a significant clinical dilemma because DAPT interruption exposes patients to the potential risk of stent thrombosis, perioperative myocardial infarction, or both. Conversely, continuing DAPT may be associated with excess bleeding complications. Observational data in this area are conflicting, and there are no randomized clinical trials to guide practitioner decision making. On the basis of predominantly consensus recommendations, various strategies for managing DAPT during the perioperative period have been proposed. This review presents 3 commonly encountered clinical scenarios that lead into an evidence-based discussion of practical strategies for managing perioperative antiplatelet therapy in patients following percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES:This study sought to determine variability and stability in risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR) of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) operators meeting minimum case volume standards and identify differences in case mix and practice patterns that may account for RSMR variability. BACKGROUND:RSMR has been suggested as a metric to evaluate the performance of PCI operators; however, variability of operator-level RSMR and the stability of this metric over time among the same operator are unknown. METHODS:The authors calculated mean RSMRs for PCI operators with average annual volume of ≥50 cases in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. Funnel plots were used to account for operator case volume. Demographic, clinical, and treatment variables of patients treated by operators with outlying high or low RSMRs (identified by RMSR greater than or less than 2 σ above or below the mean [analogous to 2 SD], respectively) were compared with nonoutlier operators. RMSR stability was assessed by calculating average annual operator RMSR during the study period and by determining if operators were consistently classified into RMSR categories in each year. RESULTS:Between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2014, a total of 2,352,174 PCIs were performed at 1,373 hospitals by 3,760 operators. Of these, 242 operators (6.5%) had RSMR >2 σ above the mean and 156 operators (4.1%) had RSMR >2 σ below the mean. Both high and low RSMR outlier operators treated patients with lower expected mortality risk, compared with nonoutlier operators. There was significant instability in annual operator RMSR during the study period. CONCLUSIONS:There is significant variability in risk-standardized PCI mortality among U.S. operators meeting minimum volume standards that is not explained by case mix or procedure characteristics. Operator RMSR was unstable from year to year, thus limiting its utility as a sole performance measure for PCI quality.

BACKGROUND:Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk for bleeding, transfusion, and dialysis after cardiac catheterization. Whether rates of these complications are increased in this high-risk population undergoing transradial access compared with transfemoral access is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:value for trend=0.04: non-CKD: HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73-1.34; GFR 45-59 mL/min: HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.23; GFR 30-44 mL/min: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; GFR 15-29 mL/min: HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in the VA health system, transradial access was associated with lower risk for postprocedure transfusion within 48 hours among patients with more-severe CKD, and with lower risk of progression to end-stage renal disease at 1 year compared with transfemoral access. These data provide additional evidence that transradial access may provide significant benefit in this high-risk population.

Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies had shown acceptable short-term efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). We aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of PCI using DES compared with CABG in patients with LMCAD. On November 1, 2016, we searched available databases for published RCTs directly comparing DES PCI with CABG in patients with LMCAD. Odds ratios (ORs) were used as the metric of choice for treatment effects using a random-effects model. I-squared index was used to assess heterogeneity across trials. Prespecified end points were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization at maximal available follow-up. We identified 5 RCTs including a total of 4,595 patients, with a median follow-up of 60 months. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.34) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.42) were comparable between PCI with DES and CABG. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences between PCI with DES and CABG for MI (OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.40) and stroke (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.98). Conversely, repeat revascularization was significantly higher with PCI compared with CABG (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.51 to 2.21). In conclusion, in patients with LMCAD, PCI with DES appears to be a viable alternative to CABG at long-term follow-up, with similar risks of ischemic adverse events (mortality, MI, and stroke) but a higher risk of repeat revascularization.

Despite a high rate of early revascularization and use of intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation therapy, the prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock has remained poor. In the hopes of improving outcomes, clinicians are increasingly turning to percutaneous left and right mechanical circulatory support devices. Until recently, the evidence base for these devices had consisted only of observational data, meta-analyses, and small feasibility trials. In this article, we describe the contemporary outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock, the hemodynamics of cardiogenic shock, and hemodynamic effects of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. We then use this discussion to provide clinicians with a useful framework for understanding when selecting between or while managing patients with a percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. We critically review the recently published data for and against the use of commercially available devices-the intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, the Impella system, the TandemHeart, and venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-and highlight gaps in our understanding. Given such gaps, a consensus multidisciplinary approach that combines expertise from interventional cardiologists, heart failure specialists, cardiac surgeons, and cardiac anesthesiologists may help pair the right patient with the right device at the right time.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare bivalirudin with heparin as anticoagulant agents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with radial primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND:Recent studies in which PCI was performed predominantly via radial access did not show bivalirudin to be superior to heparin. METHODS:Outcomes were compared in patients with STEMI included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI database from 2009 to 2015 who underwent primary PCI via radial access and who were anticoagulated with bivalirudin or heparin. RESULTS:The sample included 67,368 patients, of whom 29,660 received bivalirudin and 37,708 received heparin. The 2 groups of patients did not differ significantly in their mean age or percentage of men. The unadjusted comparison showed no significant difference in the rate of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (4.6% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.47) and a significantly higher rate of acute stent thrombosis (1.00% vs. 0.60%; p < 0.001) with bivalirudin compared with heparin. After adjusting for multiple variables, including a propensity score reflecting the probability of receiving bivalirudin, the odds ratio of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke for bivalirudin versus heparin was 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 1.05; p = 0.152), and the odds ratio for acute stent thrombosis was 2.11 (95% confidence interval: 1.73 to 2.57) for bivalirudin versus heparin. Major bleeding rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing primary PCI via transradial access anticoagulated with bivalirudin or heparin, there was no difference in the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.