Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common vascular complication of non-cardiac surgery. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We evaluated national trends in perioperative in-hospital VTE incidence, management, and outcomes using a large database of hospital admissions from the United States. Patients aged ≥ 45 years undergoing major non-cardiac surgery from 2005 to 2013 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. In-hospital perioperative VTE was defined as lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), and the incidence was evaluated over time. Multivariable regression models with demographics and comorbidities as covariates were generated to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Results/UNASSIGNED:Major non-cardiac surgery was performed in 9,431,442 hospitalizations that met inclusion criteria, and perioperative VTE occurred in 99,776 patients (1,057 per 100,000), corresponding to an annual incidence of ≈53,000 after applying sample weights. Over time, perioperative VTE per 100,000 surgeries increased by 135 (95% CI 107 - 163), from 925 in 2005 to 1,060 in 2013 (p for trend <0.001; aOR [for 2013 versus 2005] 1.22, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.26), due to increases in non-fatal VTE rates (from 840 [per 100,000 surgeries] in 2005 to 987 in 2013; p for trend <0.001). Perioperative VTE occurred most frequently in patients undergoing thoracic (2.0%) and vascular surgery (1.8%). Mortality was higher in patients with VTE than those without VTE (aOR 3.12, 95% CI 3.05 - 3.20). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Perioperative VTE occurs in approximately 1% of patients ≥45 years undergoing major non-cardiac surgery, with increasing incidence of non-fatal VTE over time.

BACKGROUND:Gout, hyperuricemia, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are prevalent conditions in the United States, and while they share common risk factors such as obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, relatively little is known about what patient and disease characteristics may link CVD with hyperuricemia and gout and how the presence of both diseases affects management decisions differently than for patients with gout alone. OBJECTIVE:To identify differences in patient characteristics, patterns of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) use, and gout control in gout patients with and without cardiovascular comorbidity. METHODS:Data were assessed from a survey of U.S. physicians who performed in-depth patient chart audits of their last 5 consecutive adult patients with confirmed gout as determined by the medical record and clinical notes. Comorbidities, gout symptoms, length of current treatment, sociodemographic factors, and physician type were identified from the chart review. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression described differences among patients with and without comorbid CVD and assessed ULT use and gout control. RESULTS:Of the 1,159 patient charts that were reviewed, 738 patients had CVD and gout, and 421 had gout alone. Patients with CVD had longer duration of gout (mean [SD] = 52 [68.2] vs. 34 [47.2] months; P < 0.001) and were more likely to have clinician-reported tophi (28% vs. 15%; P < 0.001), organ/joint damage (19% vs. 9%; P < 0.001), and more flares (2.1% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.017) in the previous 12 months. Time from gout diagnosis to start of ULT was delayed for those with CVD (mean [SD] = 24.3 [56.6] vs. 15.5 [33.2] months; P = 0.023), but these patients were more likely to be receiving ULT (83% vs. 59%; P < 0.001). Gout patients with CVD were more likely to have a variety of additional comorbidities than those without CVD, such as obesity (28% vs. 18%; P < 0.001), diabetes (26% vs. 12%; P < 0.001), osteoarthritis (25% vs. 11%; P < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (17% vs. 5%; P < 0.001), and prostate disease (males, n = 933; 10% vs. 2%; P < 0.001). Gout patients with CVD were more likely to have an emergency department visit (12% vs. 7%; P = 0.003) for gout in the previous 12 months. In patients with CVD, ULT use was associated with better gout control. CONCLUSIONS:Gout patients with CVD were more likely to have additional comorbidities, more gout-related symptoms, and a delay in initiating treatment, which may be associated with the greater severity of disease in these patients. These data suggest that gout patients with CVD may constitute a less healthy group in need of earlier, more aggressive therapy. DISCLOSURES/UNASSIGNED:This study was supported by AstraZeneca. Pillinger reports consultancies at AstraZeneca, SOBI, Crealta/Horizon; investigator-initiated grants from Takeda (closed 2016); and was an investigator on industry-sponsored clinical trials for Takeda. Klein is employed by AstraZeneca. At the time of this study, Baumgartner was employed by Ardea Biosciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of AstraZeneca and owns stock in AstraZeneca. Baumgartner and Morlock are consultants to Ardea Biosciences. Morlock reports consulting fees from Genentech, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, and Abbot Medical Optics outside of this study. Bangalore reports consultancies at Pfizer, Merck, Abbott Vascular, Medicines Company, AstraZeneca, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors did not receive any honoraria for this publication. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Morlock, along with the other authors. Morlock collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. All authors equally contributed to preparation and revision of the manuscript. Preliminary results from this study were presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016; San Francisco, California; April 19-22, 2016.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to report whether the superiority of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) vs. the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) at one-year follow-up in the Taxus Element versus Xience Prime in a Diabetic Population (TUXEDO)-India trial was sustained at longer-term follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:One thousand eight hundred and thirty (1,830) patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease were randomised to EES vs. PES. Follow-up data up to two years were available in 1,701 (92.9%) patients. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Treatment with EES had a lower two-year rate of TVF (4.3% vs. 6.6%, p=0.03). Of the secondary endpoints, EES significantly reduced any MI (1.6% vs. 3.5%, p=0.01), TV-MI (0.7% vs. 3.1%, p=0.0001), ST (0.4% vs. 2.2%, p=0.001), cardiac death or target vessel MI (2.9% vs. 4.8%, p=0.04) and TLR (1.9% vs. 3.7%, p=0.02), compared with PES. Between one year and two years, no significant differences in the clinical outcomes were observed (pinteraction >0.05). CONCLUSIONS:In this adequately powered trial, the benefits of EES vs. PES in a diabetic population seen at one year were maintained at two years.

Significant progress has been made in the percutaneous coronary intervention technique from the days of balloon angioplasty to modern-day metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). Although metallic stents solve a temporary problem of acute recoil following balloon angioplasty, they leave behind a permanent problem implicated in very late events (in addition to neoatherosclerosis). BRS were developed as a potential solution to this permanent problem, but the promise of these devices has been tempered by clinical trials showing increased risk of safety outcomes, both early and late. This is not too dissimilar to the challenges seen with first-generation DES in which refinement of deployment technique, prolongation of dual antiplatelet therapy, and technical iteration mitigated excess risk of very late stent thrombosis, making DES the treatment of choice for coronary artery disease. This white paper discusses the factors potentially implicated in the excess risks, including the scaffold consideration and deployment technique, and outlines patient and lesion selection, implantation technique, and dual antiplatelet therapy considerations to potentially mitigate this excess risk with the first-generation thick strut Absorb scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois). It remains to be seen whether these considerations together with technical iterations will ultimately close the gap between scaffolds and metal stents for short-term events while at the same time preserving options for future revascularization once the scaffold bioresorbs.