Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The optimal strategy to prevent no-reflow in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:We aimed to examine the effect of thrombectomy on the outcome of no-reflow in key subgroups and the adverse clinical outcomes associated with no-reflow. METHODS:We performed a post hoc analysis of the TOTAL Trial, a randomised trial of 10,732 patients comparing thrombectomy versus PCI alone. This analysis utilised the angiographic data of 1,800 randomly selected patients. RESULTS:No-reflow was diagnosed in 196 of 1,800 eligible patients (10.9%). No-reflow occurred in 95/891 (10.7%) patients randomised to thrombectomy compared with 101/909 (11.1%) in the PCI-alone arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.28; p-value=0.76). In the subgroup of patients who underwent direct stenting, those randomised to thrombectomy compared with PCI alone experienced less no-reflow (19/371 [5.1%] vs 21/216 [9.7%], OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.96). In patients who did not undergo direct stenting, there was no difference between the groups (64/504 [12.7%] vs 75/686 [10.9%)], OR 1.18, 95% CI: 0.82-1.69; interaction p-value=0.02). No-reflow patients had a significantly increased risk of experiencing the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA Class IV heart failure) at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio 1.70, 95% CI: 1.13-2.56; p-value=0.01). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with STEMI treated by PCI, thrombectomy did not reduce no-reflow in all patients but may be synergistic with direct stenting. No-reflow is associated with increased adverse clinical outcomes.

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.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Prior trials have demonstrated that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in less frequent target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with standard angiographic guidance. The uptake and associated outcomes of IVI-guided PCI in contemporary clinical practice in the USA remain unclear. Accordingly, temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI relative to PCI with angiographic guidance alone were examined in a broad, unselected population of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiary data from 1 January 2013, through 31 December 2019 to evaluate temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI as compared with PCI with angiography guidance alone in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The primary outcomes were 1 year mortality and MACE, defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat PCI, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Secondary outcomes were MI or repeat PCI at 1 year. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted association between IVI guidance and outcomes. Falsification endpoints (hospitalized pneumonia and hip fracture) were used to assess for potential unmeasured confounding. The study population included 1 189 470 patients undergoing PCI (38.0% female, 89.8% White, 65.1% with MI). Overall, IVI was used in 10.5% of the PCIs, increasing from 9.5% in 2013% to 15.4% in 2019. Operator IVI use was variable, with the median operator use of IVI 3.92% (interquartile range 0.36%-12.82%). IVI use during PCI was associated with lower adjusted rates of 1 year mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], MI (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99), repeat PCI (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.73-0.75), and MACE (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86). There was no association with the falsification endpoint of hospitalized pneumonia (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.04) or hip fracture (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing PCI, use of IVI has increased over the previous decade but remains relatively infrequent. IVI-guided PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality, acute MI, repeat PCI, and MACE.

BACKGROUND:Based on recent clinical data, the 2020 ESC guidelines on non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) suggest to tailor antithrombotic strategy on individual thrombotic risk. Nonetheless, prevalence and prognostic impact of the high thrombotic risk (HTR) criteria proposed are yet to be described. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:PROMETHEUS was a multicenter prospective study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. In this analysis, we assessed prevalence and prognostic impact of HTR, defined according to the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, and if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel vary with thrombotic risk. Patients were at HTR if presenting with one clinical plus one procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization, at 1 year. Adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with propensity score stratification and multivariable Cox regression.Among 16065 patients, 4293 (26.7%) were at HTR and 11772 (73.3%) at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. HTR conferred increased incidence of MACE (23.3 vs. 13.6%, HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.71 - 2.00, p < 0.001) and its single components. Prasugrel was prescribed in patients with less comorbidities and risk factors and was associated with reduced risk of MACE (HTR: adjHR 0.83, 95%CI 0.68-1.02; low-to-moderate risk: adjHR 0.75, 95%CI 0.64-0.88; pinteraction = 0.32). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:High thrombotic risk, as defined by the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, is highly prevalent among ACS patients undergoing PCI. The high thrombotic risk definition had a strong prognostic impact, as it successfully identified patients at increased 1-year risk of ischemic events.

The outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention have considerably improved during the last decade with continued emphasis on improving procedural safety. Vascular access site bleeding remains one of the most frequent complications. Several procedural strategies have been implemented to reduce the rate of vascular access site complications. This state-of-the-art review summarizes and describes the current evidence on optimal vascular access strategies for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention.

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.

BACKGROUND:In patients with tricuspid valve infective endocarditis, percutaneous debulking is a treatment option. However, the outcomes of this approach are less well known. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent percutaneous vegetation debulking for tricuspid valve infective endocarditis from August 2020 to November 2022 at a large academic tertiary care public hospital. The primary efficacy outcome was procedural success defined by clearance of blood cultures. The primary safety outcome was any procedural complication. For the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or heart block, outcomes were compared (sequential noninferiority and superiority) with published surgical outcomes data. RESULTS:=0.016). CONCLUSIONS:Percutaneous debulking is feasible, effective, and safe in treating patients with tricuspid valve infective endocarditis refractory to medical therapy.

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.