Publications

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is now established as a less invasive alternative to carotid endarterectomy for patients with carotid artery stenosis. Over the past two decades, stent technologies have undergone significant refinements to improve navigability, conformability, and plaque coverage while aiming to reduce periprocedural complications and enhance long-term durability. Current devices are broadly categorized as open-cell, closed-cell, and dual-layer micromesh stents. Open-cell designs provide excellent flexibility in tortuous anatomy but may be limited by reduced plaque scaffolding. Closed-cell stents improve vessel coverage yet sacrifice some adaptability. Dual-layer micromesh stents combine both principles, seeking to prevent plaque prolapse and distal embolization, with encouraging results from prospective studies and registries. Randomized trials such as CREST and ACT-1 have established the overall noninferiority of CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy, while observational data suggest potential advantages of newer micromesh designs. Nonetheless, clinical outcomes remain closely linked to operator expertise, anatomical complexity, and embolic protection strategies. In contemporary practice, CAS represents a validated treatment option, and individualized stent selection based on device-specific characteristics and patient anatomy is essential to optimize procedural safety and long-term stroke prevention.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy is a cornerstone for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI), yet the optimal device strategy remains uncertain.

AIMS: Our objective was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes between plain balloon angioplasty±bare metal stents (PBA±BMS), drug-coated balloons (DCBs)±BMS, and drug-eluting stents (DES) in a national real-world CLTI cohort.

METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years who underwent femoropopliteal revascularisation for CLTI between 2016 and 2023 were included. Patients were grouped by index device. Outcomes included a composite of all-cause mortality or major amputation, as well as major adverse limb events (MALE) and reintervention. Patients were followed from the index procedure until death, loss to follow-up, or the end of the study period. Time-to-event and cost outcomes were analysed using multivariable Cox and gamma regression models, respectively.

RESULTS: Among 108,304 CLTI patients, 52.5% received PBA±BMS, 30.7% DCBs, and 16.8% DES. At 2 years, the composite outcome occurred in 50.54% (PBA±BMS), 43.08% (DCB±BMS), and 43.71% (DES); at 5 years, it occurred in 75.69%, 71.19%, and 71.71%, respectively. Compared with PBA±BMS, DCB±BMS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.93) and DES (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.92-0.95) were associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome. DCBs were associated with reduced major amputation (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.84-0.91), mortality (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.91-0.94), MALE (HR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98), and reintervention (HR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96-0.99) compared with PBA±BMS. The proportion of BMS use was 10.1% in the PBA±BMS group and 3.1% in the DCB±BMS group.

CONCLUSIONS: In this national CLTI cohort, drug-coated devices were associated with reduced amputation and mortality. Data from this study suggest that DCBs may offer consistent benefit without increased costs.

BACKGROUND: Resistant hypertension is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. In the past decade, management guidelines have shifted to target lower blood pressures (BP). Current prevalence and prescribing patterns among adults with resistant hypertension are not well characterized.

METHODS: We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2020. Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) was defined as patients on a diuretic, either with a systolic BP ≥130 or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg while on 3 medications or those on ≥4 medications regardless of BP. Medications were identified through pill bottle review.

RESULTS: Of 24 579 adults with hypertension, 1939 had aTRH (42.4% male, 19.9% Black), corresponding to a weighted total of 6 989 821 US patients. Among hypertensive adults, the prevalence of aTRH was 6.41% (95% CI, 5.97%-6.88%) and remained stable over time. Over the study duration, aTRH prevalence among adults on treatment decreased from 17.7% to 12.6%. The overall prevalence of hypertension rose from 50.1% to 54.0%, while the prevalence of uncontrolled BP decreased from 75.0% to 68.7%. Over time, use of 3 drug regimens for aTRH decreased (57.8%-42.9%), while 4 drug regimens increased (34.0%-51.8%). aTRH was most strongly associated with older patients, those of Black race, higher body mass index, and more advanced cardiovascular comorbidities.

CONCLUSION: The prevalence of aTRH has remained stable over the past 2 decades despite the rising incidence of hypertension. Use of multidrug treatment regimens has increased, aligning with national guidelines. However, uncontrolled hypertension remains high.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, the inpatient management of pulmonary embolism has undergone a paradigm shift in response to new evidence and the adoption of catheter-directed reperfusion therapies. However, real-world practice patterns remain poorly characterized.

METHODS: This study used Epic's Cosmos database to analyze admissions for pulmonary embolism in the United States between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2024. Adult inpatient admissions for pulmonary embolism were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes documented in the Admit to Inpatient order. Admissions were stratified by severity using established high-risk criteria to allow for a risk-based comparison of treatment strategies. High-risk criteria included the presence of cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, the use of vasopressors, dobutamine, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mechanical ventilation at any point during the admission; the remaining admissions were classified as non-high-risk. Trends in patient characteristics, anticoagulation strategies, reperfusion therapies, and cardiopulmonary support were analyzed across the study period.

RESULTS: This study identified a total of 267,094 hospital admissions for pulmonary embolism (mean [SD] age, 63 [17] years; 51.4% female; 71.1% White) between 2016 and 2024. Of these admissions, 5.5% met one or more high-risk criteria, increasing from 4.3% in 2016 to 5.8% in 2024 (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving unfractionated heparin alone increased across non-high-risk (33.2% to 63.0%) and high-risk cases (53.7% to 66.3%). Among non-high-risk admissions, the utilization of reperfusion therapies nearly doubled (5.2% to 10.3%, p = 0.002), primarily driven by a rise in the use of catheter-directed embolectomy. In high-risk admissions, the overall use of reperfusion therapies remained stable (27%-34%, p = 0.135), while catheter-directed embolectomy emerged as the predominant modality. For hemodynamic support of high-risk admissions, vasopressor/dobutamine utilization increased (53.3% to 72.2%) as mechanical ventilation use declined (54.7% to 32.4%).

CONCLUSIONS: These findings help contextualize the extent to which novel therapies and evolving practice patterns have been integrated into real-world care in the United States. Catheter-directed embolectomy has become the dominant reperfusion strategy for pulmonary embolism, reflecting a major shift in practice.

PURPOSE: To examine the cost implications of intravascular ultrasound (US) in lower extremity deep venous intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed Medicare claims data from 2016 to 2021 for beneficiaries aged ≥65 years undergoing lower extremity venous interventions. Gamma regression adjusted for demographics and comorbidities assessed cost ratios for intravascular US-guided versus non-intravascular US-guided procedures standardized to duration of follow-up. Rates of rehospitalization for causes attributable to complications of intervention were compared between intravascular US-guided and non-intravascular US-guided procedures by Cox regression. Results are shown as estimates with 95% CIs.

RESULTS: Among 52,610 patients, 42.6% underwent intravascular US-guided procedures including stent placement, thrombolysis, or thrombectomy. Intravascular US use was highest in outpatient settings (75.3%) and ambulatory surgical center (ASC)/office-based laboratory (OBL; 86.4%) and lowest in inpatient settings (10.4%). In all settings, intravascular US use was associated with cost savings. In the inpatient setting, intravascular US guidance was associated with a cost ratio of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) at 90 days, compared with 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.73) in ASC/OBL and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.76) in hospital-based outpatient settings. Cost savings persisted at 1- and 3-year follow-ups. Intravascular US guidance was associated with lower 1-year complication-related hospitalization in outpatient procedures (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86) and ASC/OBL procedures (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91). Cost savings were present in stent placement procedures at 90 days (cost ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.73), whereas there was cost neutrality in thrombectomy (cost ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08) and thrombolysis (cost ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular US-guided venous intervention was associated with durable cost savings and reductions in rehospitalization in all procedural settings among procedures involving stent deployment.

AIM: The "2026 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ACEP/CHEST/SCAI/SHM/SIR/SVM/SVN Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Adults" is a de novo guideline that provides comprehensive recommendations for the evaluation, management, and follow-up of adult patients (≥18 years of age) with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). A key feature of this guideline is the introduction of the AHA/ACC Acute Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Categories, which enhance the precision of severity classification, prognosis assessment, and evidence-based therapeutic decision-making.

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from February 2024 to October 2024 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Select key studies published until April 2025 were added by the guideline writing committee as appropriate.

STRUCTURE: The focus of this clinical practice guideline is an evidence-based and patient-centered approach for acute PE evaluation and management of the adult patient. This guideline encompasses the period from the onset of symptoms through clinical follow-up, focusing on risk outcomes assessment, clinical diagnosis of acute PE, appropriate use of adjunctive cardiovascular testing, and management in both the acute and early post-acute phases of PE. It addresses evidence-based diagnostic and management strategies (including pharmacological therapies, advanced interventional therapies, and in-hospital support) for acute PE and associated outcomes.

• It is uncertain if the 2017 ASCO recommendations on postanthracycline surveillance echocardiography impacted practice. • Release of the ASCO guidelines was not associated with changes in echocardiogram frequency with under half of patients receiving an echocardiogram within 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

The PRIME (Proposed Requirements for Cardiovascular Imaging-Related Machine Learning Evaluation) 2.0 checklist is an updated, domain-specific framework designed to standardize the development, evaluation, and reporting of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in cardiovascular imaging. This update specifically responds to rapid advances from traditional machine learning to deep learning, large language models, and multimodal generative AI. The updated checklist was developed through a modified Delphi process by an international panel of clinical and technical experts. In contrast to general AI reporting guidelines, it delivers detailed, practical recommendations on all critical aspects of AI research and builds upon the original 7-domain framework by incorporating cardiovascular imaging-specific complexities such as cardiac motion, imaging artifacts, and interobserver variability. By promoting transparency and rigor, PRIME 2.0 can serve as a vital resource for researchers, clinicians, peer reviewers, and journal editors working at the forefront of AI in cardiovascular imaging.

BACKGROUND: Low left ventricular ejection fraction (LEF) can progress undiagnosed. Artificial intelligence-based electrocardiogram (ECG-AI) screening may provide a scalable means to detect LEF.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to validate a complete ECG-AI software as a medical device for LEF detection.

METHODS: Four geographically diverse sites in the United States identified patients with both ECGs and transthoracic echocardiograms performed within 30 days of each other in clinical practice. Data were electronically extracted to specific guidelines and transmitted to the coordinating center for analysis.

RESULTS: Records of 16,000 subjects were extracted, resulting in an evaluable set of 13,960 subjects (mean age 66 years; 52% male). The device demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUROC: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.91-0.93]) and was 84.5% (95% CI: 82.2%-86.6%) sensitive and 83.6% (95% CI: 82.9%-84.2%) specific for LEF. The overall prevalence of LEF in the study data set was 7.9%, with LEF among 1.6% of the ECG-AI negative and 30.5% of ECG-AI positive subjects, contributing to positive and negative predictive values of 30.5% (95% CI: 28.8%-32.1%) and 98.4% (95% CI: 98.2%-98.7%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: External validation studies such as this one provide a rigorous framework to validate an algorithm's performance. This study demonstrated the algorithm's strong diagnostic accuracy over a geographically diverse, independent set of patients. In this generally unselected population, the algorithm produced a test negative result in 78% of the cases, suggesting potential utility as a rule-out strategy to defer echocardiography when other clinical findings are absent.