Publications

BACKGROUND: Lower-limb amputation rates in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia vary across the United States, with marked disparities in amputation rates by gender, race, and income status. We evaluated the association of patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics with the intensity of vascular care received the year before a major lower-limb amputation and how intensity of care associates with outcomes after amputation.

METHODS: Using Medicare claims data (2016-2019), beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent a major lower-limb amputation were identified. We examined patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics associated with the intensity of vascular care received the year before amputation. Secondary objectives evaluated all-cause mortality and adverse events following amputation.

RESULTS: Of 33 036 total Medicare beneficiaries undergoing major amputation, 7885 (23.9%) were due to chronic limb-threatening ischemia; of these, 4988 (63.3%) received low-intensity and 2897 (36.7%) received high-intensity vascular care. Mean age, 76.6 years; women, 38.9%; Black adults, 24.5%; and of low income, 35.2%. After multivariable adjustment, those of low income (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.58-0.72]; P<0.001), and to a lesser extent, men (odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.98]; P=0.019), and those who received care at a safety-net hospital (odds ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.97]; P=0.012) were most likely to receive low intensity of care before amputation. High-intensity care was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality 2 years following amputation (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.74-0.85]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were of low-income status, and to a lesser extent, men, or those cared for at safety-net hospitals were most likely to receive low-intensity vascular care. Low-intensity care was associated with worse long-term event-free survival. These data emphasize the continued disparities that exist in contemporary vascular practice.

IMPORTANCE: Many medical journals, including JAMA, restrict the use of causal language to the reporting of randomized clinical trials. Although well-conducted randomized clinical trials remain the preferred approach for answering causal questions, methods for observational studies have advanced such that causal interpretations of the results of well-conducted observational studies may be possible when strong assumptions hold. Furthermore, observational studies may be the only practical source of information for answering some questions about the causal effects of medical or policy interventions, can support the study of interventions in populations and settings that reflect practice, and can help identify interventions for further experimental investigation. Identifying opportunities for the appropriate use of causal language when describing observational studies is important for communication in medical journals.

OBSERVATIONS: A structured approach to whether and how causal language may be used when describing observational studies would enhance the communication of research goals, support the assessment of assumptions and design and analytic choices, and allow for more clear and accurate interpretation of results. Building on the extensive literature on causal inference across diverse disciplines, we suggest a framework for observational studies that aim to provide evidence about the causal effects of interventions based on 6 core questions: what is the causal question; what quantity would, if known, answer the causal question; what is the study design; what causal assumptions are being made; how can the observed data be used to answer the causal question in principle and in practice; and is a causal interpretation of the analyses tenable?

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Adoption of the proposed framework to identify when causal interpretation is appropriate in observational studies promises to facilitate better communication between authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Practical implementation will require cooperation between editors, authors, and reviewers to operationalize the framework and evaluate its effect on the reporting of empirical research.

Cardiovascular devices are essential for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases including cerebrovascular, coronary, valvular, congenital, peripheral vascular and arrhythmic diseases. The regulation and surveillance of vascular devices in real-world practice, however, presents challenges during each individual product's life cycle. Four examples illustrate recent challenges and questions regarding safety, appropriate use and efficacy arising from FDA approved devices used in real-world practice. We outline potential pathways wherein providers, regulators and payors could potentially provide high-quality cardiovascular care, identify safety signals, ensure equitable device access, and study potential issues with devices in real-world practice.

The effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography compared with angiography guidance alone in treating aortic conditions, such as dissections, aneurysms, and blunt traumatic injuries, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current literature for IVUS use during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted in March 2024 adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies comparing outcomes of TEVAR/EVAR with and without IVUS were identified. The outcomes of interest included contrast volume, fluoroscopy and procedural time, perioperative endoleak, and reinterventions and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. Pooled analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by the condition being treated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A total of 4,219 patients (n = 2,655 IVUS and n = 1,564 non-IVUS) from 9 observational studies were included. The IVUS group exhibited a reduction in contrast agent volume (weighted mean difference -34.65 mL, 95% CI -54.73 to -14.57) and fluoroscopy time (weighted mean difference -6.13 minutes, 95% CI -11.10 to -1.15), with no difference in procedural time. The perioperative type I and III endoleak occurrences were similar (risk ratio 2.36, 95% CI 0.55 to 10.11; risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.77, respectively). Reintervention and mortality during follow-up were comparable (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.97; hazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.18, respectively). All the included studies had small risks of bias. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides evidence that IVUS enables the safe deployment of TEVAR/EVAR with reduced contrast agent and radiation exposure.

Hypertension is a primary contributor to cardiovascular disease, and the leading risk factor for loss of quality adjusted life years. Up to 50% of the cases of hypertension in the United States remain uncontrolled. Additionally, 8%-18% of the hypertensive population have resistant hypertension; uncontrolled pressure despite 3 different antihypertensive agents. Recently, catheter-based percutaneous renal denervation emerged as a method for ablating renal sympathetic nerves for difficult-to-control hypertension. Initial randomized (non-sham) trials and registry analyses showed impressive benefit, but the first sham-controlled randomized controlled trial using monopolar radiofrequency ablation showed limited benefit. With refinement of techniques to include multipolar radiofrequency, ultrasound denervation, and direct ethanol injection, randomized controlled trials demonstrated significant blood pressure improvement, leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval of radiofrequency- and ultrasound-based denervation technologies. In this review article, we summarize the major randomized sham-controlled trials and societal guidelines regarding the efficacy and safety of renal artery denervation for the treatment of uncontrolled hypertension.

Balancing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in patients with gastrointestinal disorders is challenging because of the potential for interference with the absorption of antithrombotic drugs and for an increased risk of bleeding. In this Review, we address considerations for enteral antithrombotic therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal comorbidities. For those with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), we summarize a general scheme for risk stratification and clinical evidence on risk reduction approaches, such as limiting the use of concomitant medications that increase the risk of GIB and the potential utility of gastrointestinal protection strategies (such as proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists). Furthermore, we summarize the best available evidence and potential gaps in our knowledge on tailoring antithrombotic therapy in patients with active or recent GIB and in those at high risk of GIB but without active or recent GIB. Finally, we review the recommendations provided by major medical societies, highlighting the crucial role of teamwork and multidisciplinary discussions to customize the antithrombotic regimen in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension.

METHODS: We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, s = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module.

RESULTS: Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions (P < 0.001), with higher comprehension in the 3 versions that provided separated risk information for each risk. In the multivariable regression, separated risk presentation was associated with 0.58 more correct responses (P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.77) compared with integrated risk information. Neither providing icon arrays nor using vertical versus horizontal time formats affected comprehension rates, although participant understanding did correlate with DCE choice consistency.

CONCLUSIONS: In presentations of multiple risks over multiple time points, presenting risk information separately for each health outcome appears to increase understanding.

HIGHLIGHTS: When conveying information about risks of different outcomes at multiple time points, separate presentations of single-outcome risks resulted in higher comprehension than presentations that combined risk information for different outcomes.We also observed benefits of presenting single-outcome risks separately among respondents with lower numeracy and graph literacy.Study participants who scored higher on risk understanding were more internally consistent in their responses to a discrete choice experiment.

A nonthrombotic iliac vein lesion is defined as the extrinsic compression of the iliac vein. Symptoms of lower extremity chronic venous insufficiency or pelvic venous disease can develop secondary to nonthrombotic iliac vein lesion. Anatomic compression has been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Causative factors that lead to symptomatic manifestations remain unclear. To provide guidance for providers treating patients with nonthrombotic iliac vein lesion, the VIVA Foundation convened a multidisciplinary group of leaders in venous disease management with representatives from the American Venous Forum and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. Consensus statements regarding nonthrombotic iliac vein lesions were drafted by the participants to address patient selection, imaging for diagnosis, technical considerations for stent placement, postprocedure management, and future research/educational needs.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of transradial access for peripheral vascular interventions.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase.

REVIEW METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to June 2023 to identify studies investigating the outcomes of lower extremity, carotid, and visceral artery vascular interventions via transradial vs. transfemoral access. The primary outcome was procedural failure rate. Secondary outcomes were total access site complications, minor and major bleeding, stroke, access vessel occlusion, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume.

RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials and 29 observational studies yielded a total of 70 882 patients treated via transradial (n = 2 616) vs. transfemoral access (n = 68 338). The overall failure rate was 2.3 ± 0.7%, and the transradial approach was associated with a statistically significantly higher procedural failure rate than the transfemoral approach (3.9 ± 0.7% vs. 1.0 ± 0.3%; odds ratio [OR] 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84 - 5.12; I2 = 32%; p < .001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest failure rate in lower extremity interventions with 12.4 ± 4.9% for transradial vs. 4.0 ± 1.2% for transfemoral access. Conversely, procedural complications were statistically significantly fewer with transradial access for total access site complications (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.91; I2 = 36%; p = .010). Minor bleeding was statistically significantly less with the transradial approach (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.86; I2 = 30%; p = .010), whereas major bleeding and stroke rates were similar. Transradial access had more access vessel occlusion than transfemoral access (1.9% ± 0.5% vs. < 0.1% ± 0.0%; p = .004), although most remained asymptomatic. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were all comparable. GRADE certainty was low to moderate in most outcomes.

CONCLUSION: The transradial approach was associated with a higher procedural failure rate. Total access site complications and minor bleeding were lower with the transradial approach, albeit with more frequent access vessel occlusion. Transradial access may be a feasible and safe approach; however, appropriate patient selection is imperative.