Publications

OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic disparities are known to contribute to adverse outcomes after surgery; however, the role of individual wealth and neighborhood environment on both follow-up and outcomes following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are not well-understood.

METHODS: We included all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years who underwent infrarenal EVAR with a bifurcated endograft for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from 2011 to 2019. Patients were divided into cohorts using dual enrollment in Medicare/Medicaid (vs Medicare only) as a measure of individual wealth and residence in a distressed community (vs non-distressed community) as a measure of regional wealth (as defined by the Distressed Community Index [DCI]). The primary outcome was the composite of late aneurysm rupture, aortic reintervention, conversion to open repair, or all-cause mortality at 9 years. The cumulative incidence of the primary composite outcome was determined using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared across groups using log-rank tests.

RESULTS: Of 111,381 patients who underwent EVAR, 9991 (9.0%) were dual-enrolled in Medicare/Medicaid, and 22,902 (21%) lived in distressed communities. A higher incidence of the primary outcome was observed in dual-enrolled vs Medicare-only patients (83% vs 72%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.47; P < .01) and in those living in distressed vs non-distressed communities (75% vs 72%; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; P < .01). After adjustment for comorbidities and other disparity measures, the association between dual enrollment or DCI and the primary outcome was attenuated but remained significant (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.15-1.23; aHR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00,1.05, respectively). When mortality was removed from the primary outcome, the relationships between dual enrollment or DCI and the composite outcome were no longer significant after adjustment (aHR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.13; aHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05). Among EVAR-specific secondary outcomes, rates of 9-year all-cause mortality and late rupture were higher in dual-enrolled vs Medicare-only patients, and mortality rates were higher in distressed vs non-distressed patients. In addition, both dual-enrolled and residents of distressed communities had lower rates of EVAR-related office visits and AAA-related imaging in follow-up and higher rates of emergency department visits.

CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries who underwent EVAR for AAA, socioeconomically disadvantaged beneficiaries had a higher incidence of the primary composite outcome, driven primarily by higher all-cause mortality. This study highlights the need for interventions targeted at improving access to appropriate disease surveillance and management of comorbidities for patients who are most vulnerable.

IMPORTANCE: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the criterion standard for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Achieving target first medical contact (FMC)-to-device time is a quality metric in STEMI care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe site-level variability in achieving target FMC-to-device time (≤90 minutes for primary presentations to PCI-capable hospitals and ≤120 minutes for transfers), compare treatment times according to hospital performance, location, and primary PCI volume, and assess whether these aspects are associated with clinical outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease registry from 2020 to 2022. Patients were recruited from a multicenter quality-improvement registry across 503 US hospitals. Patients with STEMI or STEMI equivalent who underwent primary PCI were included in this analysis.

EXPOSURES: FMC-to-device time.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital performance was determined by the proportion of patients meeting target FMC-to-device time at each site. Treatment times and outcomes were compared by hospital performance, location, and primary PCI volume.

RESULTS: A total of 73 826 patients were analyzed (median [IQR] age, 62 [54-71] years; 53 474 male [72.4%]). Of 60 109 patients who presented directly to PCI-capable hospitals (primary presentations), 35 783 (59.5%) achieved an FMC-to-device time of 90 minutes or less, whereas 6900 (50.3%) of 13 717 transfers had an FMC-to-device time of 120 minutes or less. There was substantial institutional variability in achieving target FMC-to-device time for both primary presentations (median [IQR], 60.8% [51.2%-68.8%]) and transfers (median [IQR], 50.0% [32.5%-66.9%]). High-performing centers met all target treatment times more frequently. Low-performing sites experienced prolonged emergency department stays, catheterization laboratory arrival-to-PCI times, and transfer delays, varying by mode of presentation. Compared with urban centers, presentation to rural hospitals did not affect the odds of meeting target FMC-to-device time for primary presentations (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.96-1.50) or transfers (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.50-1.47). Failure to achieve target FMC-to-device time was associated with increased in-hospital mortality risk for primary presentations (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 2.02-2.42) and transfers (aOR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.90-3.12). Low hospital performance was associated with increased mortality risk compared with high performance in primary presentations (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.34). Outcomes were similar between rural vs urban and low vs high primary PCI volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this large cross-sectional study of patients with STEMI, there was substantial hospital-level variability in achieving target treatment times. Patients in whom target FMC-to-device time was not met and those presenting to low-performing hospitals had worse outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a contemporary update on the American Society of Echocardiography's ImageGuideEcho Registry and present a case study of an individual institution's experience with enrollment.

RECENT FINDINGS: Technical innovation in clinical echocardiography has expanded the impact of echocardiography in cardiovascular care and provides new opportunities to leverage clinical data to inform quality improvement initiatives and research. The ImageGuideEcho Registry is the first echocardiography-specific imaging registry in the United States and provides a data infrastructure for quality improvement and multicenter research. The ImageGuideEcho Registry continues to grow, offering a window into echocardiography care across the United States in a variety of practice settings. This early experience highlights its value, opportunities, and ongoing challenges. Continued innovation, such as the addition of primary images, will further add to the substantial value of the registry.

BACKGROUND: Abbreviation use in clinical and academic cardiology is widespread, yet there are few guidelines regulating the creation and utilization of abbreviations. Inconsistent abbreviations can introduce ambiguity and pose challenges to practice and research.

OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to analyze how abbreviations are created and utilized in general cardiology and cardiac imaging society guidelines in order to assess whether ambiguities and discrepancies exist between societies.

METHODS: Abbreviation data were collected from 7 national and international societies of general cardiology and cardiac imaging over a 6-year span (2018-2023). Data were linguistically coded for abbreviation type, unique occurrence, meaning or sense count, and frequency of discrepancy between societies.

RESULTS: Among a total of 5,394 abbreviation tokens, there were 1,782 unique entries. Among the unique entries, 227 (12.7%) had 2 or more associated meanings (senses), and thus were potentially ambiguous. Cardiac societies differed from each other, and also internally, in their use of abbreviations, with the European Society of Cardiology representing the highest frequency of discrepant abbreviation usage (14.5%).

CONCLUSIONS: More than 12.7% of abbreviations in cardiology society guidelines had 2 or more corresponding meanings, potentially increasing the risks of miscommunication and misrepresentation. We call on cardiology and cardiac imaging societies to define and publish best practices regarding abbreviation creation and utilization.

Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) offers a safe, reliable imaging option to establish a clinical diagnosis across a variety of multidisciplinary settings. This Expert Consensus Statement serves to outline expert opinion on what constitutes appropriate supervision and the essential components of safe CEUS practice. The purpose of this document is to empower institutions to allow sonographers, along with other trained medical professionals, to administer UCAs at the point of care, consistent with the updated scope of practice documentation and within the broad parameters of an individual's training and licensure, while subject to appropriate supervision and meeting or exceeding minimum safety standards. This guidance was developed by the International Contrast Ultrasound Society and endorsed by the following organizations that represent ultrasound professionals: the British Society of Echocardiography, the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, the Society for Pediatric Radiology, the World Federation of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, the Brazilian College of Radiology, the Joint Review Committee for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, the Chinese Ultrasound Doctors Association, and the American Society of Neuroimaging. Additionally, this guidance document was affirmed or supported by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Association for Medical Ultrasound, and the Society for Vascular Ultrasound.

When randomized trials are not available to answer a causal question about the comparative effectiveness or safety of interventions, causal inferences are drawn using observational data. A helpful 2-step framework for causal inference from observational data is 1) specifying the protocol of the hypothetical randomized pragmatic trial that would answer the causal question of interest (the target trial), and 2) using the observational data to attempt to emulate that trial. The target trial framework can improve the quality of observational analyses by preventing some common biases. In this article, we discuss the utility and scope of applications of the framework. We clarify that target trial emulation resolves problems related to incorrect design but not those related to data limitations. We also describe some settings in which adopting this approach is advantageous to generate effect estimates that can close the gaps that randomized trials have not filled. In these settings, the target trial framework helps reduce the ambiguity of causal questions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) models to identify heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) based on deep-learning of echocardiograms could help address under-recognition in clinical practice, but they require extensive validation, particularly in representative and complex clinical cohorts for which they could provide most value. In this study enrolling patients with HFpEF (cases; n = 240), and age, sex, and year of echocardiogram matched controls (n = 256), we compare the diagnostic performance (discrimination, calibration, classification, and clinical utility) and prognostic associations (mortality and HF hospitalization) between an updated AI HFpEF model (EchoGo Heart Failure v2) and existing clinical scores (H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF). The AI HFpEF model and H2FPEF score demonstrate similar discrimination and calibration, but classification is higher with AI than H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF, attributable to fewer intermediate scores, due to discordant multivariable inputs. The continuous AI HFpEF model output adds information beyond the H2FPEF, and integration with existing scores increases correct management decisions. Those with a diagnostic positive result from AI have a two-fold increased risk of the composite outcome. We conclude that integrating an AI HFpEF model into the existing clinical diagnostic pathway would improve identification of HFpEF in complex clinical cohorts, and patients at risk of adverse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative therapeutic modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, certain issues regarding the indications and contraindications of TCAR remain unanswered or unresolved. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi consensus document was to attempt to provide some guidance on these topics.

METHODS: A 3-round Delphi consensus process was performed, including 29 experts. The aim of round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions of the participants. Round 2 was carried out after the results from the literature on each topic were provided to the participants. During round 3, the participants had the opportunity to finalize their vote.

RESULTS: Most participants agreed that TCAR can or can probably or possibly be performed within 14 days of a cerebrovascular event, but it is best to avoid it in the first 48 hr. It was felt that TCAR cannot or should not replace TFCAS or CEA, as each procedure has specific indications and contraindications. Symptomatic patients >80 years should probably be treated with TCAR rather than with TFCAS. TCAR can or can probably be used for the treatment of restenosis following CEA or TFCAS. Finally, there is a need for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to provide better evidence for the unresolved issues.

CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus document attempted to assist the decision-making of physicians or interventionalists or vascular surgeons involved in the management of carotid stenosis patients. Furthermore, areas requiring additional research were identified. Future studies and RCTs should provide more evidence to address the unanswered questions regarding TCAR.