Faculty Bibliography

AIM:The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

AIM:The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE:Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) have high rates of in-stent restenosis (ISR). We compared the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of patients and lesions that did develop ISR with those who did not develop ISR during a median follow-up of 2.7 years in the DIVA study (NCT01121224). We also examined the ISR types using the Mehran classification. ISR developed in 119 out of the 575 DIVA patients (21%), with similar incidence among patients with drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents (BMS) (21% vs 21%, p = 0.957). Patients in the ISR group were younger (67 ± 7 vs 69 ± 8 years, p = 0.04) and less likely to have heart failure (27% vs 38%, p = 0.03) and SVG lesions with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow before the intervention (77% vs 83%, p <0.01), but had a higher number of target SVG lesions (1.33 ± 0.64 vs 1.16 ± 0.42, p <0.01), more stents implanted in the target SVG lesions (1.52 ± 0.80 vs 1.31 ± 0.66, p <0.01), and longer total stent length (31.37 ± 22.11 vs 25.64 ± 17.42 mm, p = 0.01). The incidence of diffuse ISR was similar in patients who received drug-eluting-stents and BMS (57% vs 54%, p = 0.94), but BMS patients were more likely to develop occlusive restenosis (17% vs 33%, p = 0.05).

BACKGROUND:Bleeding is a common and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) are used paradoxically less in patients at high-risk of bleeding: "bleeding risk-treatment paradox" (RTP). We determined whether hospitals and physicians, who do not align BAS to PCI patients' bleeding risk (ie, exhibit a RTP) have higher bleeding rates. METHODS:We examined 28,005 PCIs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry for 7 hospitals comprising BJC HealthCare. BAS included transradial intervention, bivalirudin, and vascular closure devices. Patients' predicted bleeding risk was based on National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model and categorized as low (<2.0%), moderate (2.0%-6.4%), or high (≥6.5%) risk tertiles. BAS use was considered risk-concordant if: at least 1 BAS was used for moderate risk; 2 BAS were used for high risk and bivalirudin or vascular closure devices were not used for low risk. Absence of risk-concordant BAS use was defined as RTP. We analyzed inter-hospital and inter-physician variation in RTP, and the association of RTP with post-PCI bleeding. RESULTS:Amongst 28,005 patients undergoing PCI by 103 physicians at 7 hospitals, RTP was observed in 12,035 (43%) patients. RTP was independently associated with a higher likelihood of bleeding even after adjusting for predicted bleeding risk, mortality risk and potential sources of variation (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.44-1.92, P < .001). A higher prevalence of RTP strongly and independently correlated with worse bleeding rates, both at the physician-level (Wilk's Lambda 0.9502, F-value 17.21, P < .0001) and the hospital-level (Wilk's Lambda 0.9899, F-value 35.68, P < .0001). All the results were similar in a subset of PCIs conducted since 2015 - a period more reflective of the contemporary practice. CONCLUSIONS:Bleeding RTP is a strong, independent predictor of bleeding. It exists at the level of physicians and hospitals: those with a higher rate of RTP had worse bleeding rates. These findings not only underscore the importance of recognizing bleeding risk upfront and using BAS in a risk-aligned manner, but also inform and motivate national efforts to reduce PCI-related bleeding.

BACKGROUND:Percutaneous coronary intervention is performed by operators with differing experience, technique, and case mix. It is unknown if operator practice patterns impact patient outcomes. We sought to determine if a cluster algorithm can identify distinct profiles of percutaneous coronary intervention operators and if these profiles are associated with patient outcomes. METHODS:Operators performing at least 25 annual procedures between 2014 and 2018 were clustered using an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared between clusters. RESULTS:We identified 4 practice profiles among 7706 operators performing 2 937 419 procedures. Cluster 1 (n=3345) demonstrated case mix and practice patterns similar to the national median. Cluster 2 (n=1993) treated patients with lower clinical acuity and were less likely to use intracoronary diagnostics, atherectomy, and radial access. Cluster 3 (n=1513) had the lowest case volume, were more likely to work at rural hospitals, and cared for a higher proportion of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Cluster 4 (n=855) had the highest case volume, were most likely to treat patients with high anatomic complexity and use atherectomy, intracoronary diagnostics, and mechanical support. Compared with cluster 1, adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar for cluster 2 (estimated difference, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.04]), higher for cluster 3 (0.14 [0.07-0.22]), and lower for cluster 4 (-0.15 [-0.24 to -0.06]). CONCLUSIONS:Distinct percutaneous coronary intervention operator profiles are differentially associated with patient outcomes. A phenotypic approach to physician assessment may provide actionable feedback for quality improvement.

Trans-radial artery access (TRA) for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention has many advantages over trans-femoral artery access (TFA), but implementation has been slow. The steep learning curve, logistical issues, and radiation exposure have been documented as barriers to implementation. Although many cardiac catheterization laboratories have overcome these barriers, we lack evidence on effective implementation strategies. Our objective is to test a team-based coaching intervention that targets the learning curve and other barriers to increase use of TRA. We use a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial to test a coaching intervention in Department of Veterans Affairs cardiac catheterization laboratories. The coaching intervention comprises team-based didactic instruction with live observation at a TRA-proficient lab, followed by a visit from a cardiologist and catheterization laboratory nurse coaching team. Interview and survey data are collected from participants to test and adapt an implementation science framework known as the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. This study is designed to test the effectiveness of the coaching intervention on TRA implementation, inform changes to the coaching intervention itself, and test and adapt the PARIHS framework in practice. While the benefits of TRA, including increased clinical efficiency, patient comfort, and reduced patient complications, are well understood, the underlying drivers of TRA adoption and sustained practice are not. Findings from this trial can inform future research to facilitate change in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.