Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Contemporary data comparing the outcomes of transradial access (TRA) vs transfemoral access (TFA) among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited. OBJECTIVES:This study examines in-hospital outcomes and institutional variation among patients with AMI-CS undergoing TRA-PCI vs TFA-PCI. METHODS:Patients admitted with AMI-CS from the NCDR CathPCI registry between April 2018 and June 2021 were included. Multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability weighting models were used to assess the association between access site and in-hospital outcomes. A falsification analysis using non-access site-related bleeding was performed. RESULTS:Among 35,944 patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, 25.6% were performed with TRA. The proportion of TRA-PCI increased over the study period (22.0% in the second quarter of 2018 vs 29.1% in the second quarter of 2021; P-trend <0.001). Significant institutional-level variability in the use of TRA-PCI was also observed: 20.9% of all sites using TRA in <2% of PCIs (low utilization) vs 1.9% of all sites using TRA in >80% of PCIs (high utilization). Patients undergoing TRA-PCI had a significantly lower adjusted incidence of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.76), mortality (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69-0.78), vascular complications (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84), and new dialysis (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77-0.97). There was no difference in non-access site related bleeding (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84-1.03). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar benefit with TRA-PCI among patients without arterial cross-over. There were no significant interactions observed between TRA-PCI with mechanical circulatory support and in-hospital outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:In this large nationwide contemporary analysis of patients with AMI-CS, about quarter of PCIs were performed via TRA with wide variability across US institutions. TRA-PCI was associated with significantly lower incidence of in-hospital major bleeding, mortality, vascular complications, and new dialysis. This benefit was observed irrespective of mechanical circulatory support use.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be expensive, time intensive, and complex to conduct. Trial recruitment, participation, and data collection can burden participants and research personnel. In the past two decades, there have been rapid technological advances and an exponential growth in digitized healthcare data. Embedding RCTs, including cardiovascular outcome trials, into electronic health record systems or registries may streamline screening, consent, randomization, follow-up visits, and outcome adjudication. Moreover, wearable sensors (i.e. health and fitness trackers) provide an opportunity to collect data on cardiovascular health and risk factors in unprecedented detail and scale, while growing internet connectivity supports the collection of patient-reported outcomes. There is a pressing need to develop robust mechanisms that facilitate data capture from diverse databases and guidance to standardize data definitions. Importantly, the data collection infrastructure should be reusable to support multiple cardiovascular RCTs over time. Systems, processes, and policies will need to have sufficient flexibility to allow interoperability between different sources of data acquisition. Clinical research guidelines, ethics oversight, and regulatory requirements also need to evolve. This review highlights recent progress towards the use of routinely generated data to conduct RCTs and discusses potential solutions for ongoing barriers. There is a particular focus on methods to utilize routinely generated data for trials while complying with regional data protection laws. The discussion is supported with examples of cardiovascular outcome trials that have successfully leveraged the electronic health record, web-enabled devices or administrative databases to conduct randomized trials.

Structural heart disease is a rapidly evolving field. However, training in structural heart disease is still widely variable and has not been standardized. Furthermore, integration of trainees within the heart team has not been fully defined. In this review, we discuss the components and function of the heart team, the challenges of current structural heart disease models, and possible solutions and suggestions for integrating trainees within the heart team.

The clinical course of patients with a previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) presenting with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is not well defined. We aimed to compare the management and outcomes of patients with and without previous CABG who present with an NSTEMI. Patients hospitalized with an NSTEMI between 2002 and 2018 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. The baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without a previous CABG were compared. The outcomes included the rates of invasive procedures (defined as coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or CABG), and its individual components, and in-hospital mortality. A total of 1,445,545 cases of NSTEMI were found, of which 133,691 (9.3%) had a previous CABG. Patients with a previous CABG were older (72.4 vs 68.6 years, p <0.001), more likely men (68.8% vs 56.9%, p <0.001), and of White race (79.7% vs 74.8%, p <0.001). The previous CABG cohort had lower rates of invasive procedures (50.4% vs 65.6%, p <0.001), PCI (23.7% vs 32.0%, p <0.001), or CABG (1.2% vs 10.6%; p <0.001) in the unmatched analysis. The results were consistent in the propensity score-matched analysis with the previous CABG group less likely to receive any invasive procedures (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47 to 0.49), including coronary angiography (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.55), PCI (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.67), or repeat CABG (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.12). Moreover, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in the previous CABG group (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.21). In the subset of patients who were revascularized in both groups, this excess mortality was no longer observed (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03). In conclusion, a previous CABG in patients who present with NSTEMI is associated with lower rates of invasive procedures and revascularization and higher in-hospital mortality than patients without a previous CABG.

BACKGROUND:Same day discharge (SDD) following chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study. METHODS:We evaluated the clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of patients discharged the same day versus those kept for overnight observation in the Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO, NCT02061436). RESULTS:Of the 7181 patients who underwent CTO PCI, 943 (13%) had SDD. The SDD rate increased from 3% in 2015 to 21% in 2022. Patients with SDD were less likely to have a history of heart failure (21% vs. 26%, p = 0.005), chronic lung disease (10% vs. 15%, p = 0.001), or anemia (12% vs. 19%, p < 0.001). Technical success (87% vs. 88%, p = 0.289) was similar, but in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (0.0% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.041) were lower in SDD. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, prior myocardial infarction odds ratio (OR): 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.87, p = 0.001), chronic lung disease OR: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.88, p = 0.006), and increasing procedure time OR: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95, p < 0.001, per 10-min increase) were associated with overnight observation, while radial-only access OR: 2.45 (95% CI: 2.03-2.96, p < 0.001) had the strongest association with SDD. In the SDD, 2 (0.4%) of 514 patients were readmitted, due to retroperitoneal bleeding (n = 1) and ischemic stroke (n = 1). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The overall frequency of SDD after CTO PCI was 13% and has been increasing over time. SDD is feasible in select patients following CTO PCI, and radial-only access had the strongest association with SDD.

BACKGROUND:The optimal duration of hemostatic compression post transradial access is controversial. Longer duration increases the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) while shorter duration increases the risk of access site bleeding or hematoma. As such, a target of 2 hours is typically used. Whether a shorter or longer duration is better is not known. METHODS:A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials of different duration (<90 minutes, 90 minutes, 2 hours, and 2-4 hours) of hemostasis banding. The efficacy outcome was RAO, primary safety outcome was access site hematoma, and secondary safety outcome was access site rebleeding. Primary analysis compared the effect of various duration in reference to the 2 hours duration using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. RESULTS:Of the 10 randomized clinical trials included with 4911 patients, when compared to the 2-hour reference duration, there was a significantly higher risk of access site hematoma with 90 minutes (odds ratio, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.40-4.06]) and <90 minutes (odds ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 1.79-7.29]) but not with the 2 to 4 hours duration. When compared with the 2-hour reference, there was no significant difference in access site rebleeding or RAO with shorter or longer duration but the point estimates favored longer duration for access site rebleeding and shorter duration for RAO. Duration of <90 minutes and 90 minutes ranked 1 and duration of 2 hours ranked 2 as the most efficacious duration whereas duration of 2 hours ranked 1 and 2 to 4 hours ranked 2 as the safest duration. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing transradial access for coronary angiography or intervention, a hemostasis duration of 2 hours offers the best balance for efficacy (prevention of RAO) and safety (prevention of access site hematoma/rebleeding).

Background: Potent P2Y12 inhibitors are recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), although the optimal antithrombotic strategy should be tailored based on patients thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk profile. We evaluated if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are similar in patients with different thrombotic risk profiles.
Method(s): PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. Patients were defined at high thrombotic risk if presenting with a clinical and a procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using propensity-stratified analysis and with multivariable Cox regression.
Result(s): Among 16,065 patients, 4,293 were defined at high and 11,772 at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. Patients receiving prasugrel had less comorbidities and risk factors than those treated with clopidogrel, both in the high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk strata. High thrombotic risk patients had increased rates of ischemic and bleeding events at 90-day and 1-year follow-up. Patients treated with prasugrel had a lower adjusted 1-year risk of MACE (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96), irrespective of their thrombotic risk (pinteraction =0.32). Stratifying the study population by number of risk factors there was a significant interaction (pinteraction =0.026) for a greater reduction in MACE with prasugrel among patients with <=1 thrombotic risk factor. The risk of clinically significant bleeding was similar in patients treated with prasugrel and clopidogrel.
Conclusion(s): Patients with ACS at high thrombotic risk who undergo PCI are at increased risk of adverse events at 1 year. Prasugrel, mainly reserved to patients with less comorbidities, reduced the risk of ischemic events both in patients at high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk as compared with clopidogrel.

BACKGROUND:Emerging evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing distal radial access (DRA) with conventional radial access (RA) is available. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative appraisal of the effects of DRA) vs conventional RA for coronary angiography with or without intervention. METHODS:The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for RCT comparing DRA vs conventional RA for coronary angiography and/or intervention. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was radial artery occlusion (RAO) at the longest available follow-up. RESULTS:Fourteen studies enrolling 6,208 participants were included. Compared with conventional RA, DRA was associated with a significant lower risk of RAO, either detected at latest follow-up (risk ratio [RR]: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.23-0.56; P < 0.001; number needed to treat [NNT] = 30) or in-hospital (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.19-0.53; P < 0.001; NNT = 28), as well as EASY (Early Discharge After Transradial Stenting of Coronary Arteries) ≥II hematoma (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27-0.96; P = 0.04; NNT = 107). By contrast, DRA was associated with a higher risk of access site crossover (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 1.88-5.06; P < 0.001; NNT = 12), a longer time for radial puncture (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 3.56; 95% CI: 0.96-6.16; P < 0.001), a longer time for sheath insertion (SMD: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.58; P < 0.001), and a higher number of puncture attempts (SMD: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.69; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with conventional RA, DRA is associated with lower risks of RAO and EASY ≥II hematoma but requires longer time for radial artery cannulation and sheath insertion, more puncture attempts, and a higher access site crossover.