Publications

BACKGROUND: Little is known about treatment variability across US hospitals for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected from the 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample. All patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to nonfederal US hospitals with a primary diagnosis of CLTI, were identified. Patients were classified according to their clinical presentation (rest pain, skin ulceration, or gangrene) and were further characterized according to the treatment strategy used. The primary outcome of interest was variability in CLTI treatment, as characterized by the median odds ratio. The median odds ratio is defined as the likelihood that 2 similar patients would be treated with a given modality at 1 versus another randomly selected hospital. There were 15 896 (weighted n=79 480) hospitalizations identified where CLTI was the primary diagnosis. Medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, and amputation alone were used in 4057 (25%), 5390 (34%), 3733 (24%), and 2716 (17%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for both patient- and hospital-related factors, the median odds ratio (95% CI) for medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, any revascularization, and amputation alone were 1.28 (1.19-1.38), 1.86 (1.77-1.95), 1.65 (1.55-1.74), 1.37 (1.28-1.45), and 1.42 (1.27-1.55), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability in CLTI treatment exists across US hospitals and is not fully explained by patient or hospital characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient management of select patients with low-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has been proven to be safe and effective, yet recent evidence suggests that patients are still managed with hospitalization. Few studies have assessed contemporary real-world trends in discharge rates from U.S. emergency departments (EDs) for acute PE.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the proportion of discharges from EDs for acute PE changed between 2012 and 2020 and which baseline characteristics are associated with ED discharge.

DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING: U.S. EDs participating in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

PATIENTS: Patients with ED visits for acute PE between 2012 and 2020.

MEASUREMENTS: National trends in the proportion of discharges for acute PE and factors associated with ED discharge.

RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2020, there were approximately 1 635 300 visits for acute PE. Overall, ED discharge rates remained constant over time, with rates of 38.2% (95% CI, 17.9% to 64.0%) between 2012 and 2014 and 33.4% (CI, 21.0% to 49.0%) between 2018 and 2020 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.01 per year [CI, 0.89 to 1.14]). No baseline characteristics, including established risk stratification scores, were predictive of an increased likelihood of ED discharge; however, patients at teaching hospitals and those with private insurance were more likely to receive oral anticoagulation at discharge. Only 35.9% (CI, 23.9% to 50.0%) of patients who were considered low-risk according to their Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) class, 33.1% (CI, 21.6% to 47.0%) according to simplified PESI score, and 34.8% (CI, 23.3% to 48.0%) according to hemodynamic stability were discharged from the ED setting.

LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional survey design and inability to adjudicate diagnoses.

CONCLUSION: In a representative nationwide sample, rates of discharge from the ED for acute PE appear to have remained constant between 2012 and 2020. Only one third of low-risk patients were discharged for outpatient management, and rates seem to have stabilized. Outpatient management of low-risk acute PE may still be largely underutilized in the United States.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Percutaneous revascularization is the primary strategy for treating lower extremity venous and arterial disease. Angiography is limited by its ability to accurately size vessels, precisely determine the degree of stenosis and length of lesions, characterize lesion morphology, or correctly diagnose postintervention complications. These limitations are overcome with use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). IVUS has demonstrated the ability to improve outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention, and there is increasing evidence to support its benefits in the setting of peripheral vascular intervention. At this stage in its evolution, there remains a need to standardize the use and approach to peripheral vascular IVUS imaging. This manuscript represents considerations and consensus perspectives that emerged from a roundtable discussion including 15 physicians with expertise in interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery, representing 6 cardiovascular specialty societies, held on February 3, 2023. The roundtable's aims were to assess the current state of lower extremity revascularization, identify knowledge gaps and need for evidence, and determine how IVUS can improve care and outcomes for patients with peripheral arterial and deep venous pathology.

BACKGROUND: The role of advanced therapies (systemic thrombolysis, catheter-based treatment, and surgical thrombectomy) for the management of right heart thrombus is poorly defined. In this study, we assessed the clinical predictors and outcomes of advanced therapy compared with anticoagulation alone for the acute management of right heart thrombus.

METHODS: In this observational cohort study, we analyzed consecutive patients who were treated for right heart thrombus. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause mortality. Clinical predictors of utilizing advanced therapy were assessed with multivariable logistic regression. Propensity score matching was utilized to compare adjusted outcomes between patients receiving advanced therapies versus anticoagulation alone.

RESULTS: A total of 345 patients were included in the study. Advanced therapy was utilized in 13.6% (N=47) of patients, of which 25.5% (N=12/47) was systemic thrombolysis, 23.4% (N=11/47) was endovascular thrombectomy, and 53.2% (N=25/47) was surgical thrombectomy. Younger age (odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]) and concurrent pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 5.36 [95% CI, 2.48-12.1]) predicted utilization of advanced therapy. In propensity score-matched analysis, there was no difference in 90-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.17-1.22]), in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.17-2.19]), or length of stay (β, -4.39 [95% CI, -14.0 to 5.22]) between advanced therapy and anticoagulation.

CONCLUSIONS: Among a diverse cohort of patients with right heart thrombus, outcomes did not differ between those who underwent advanced therapy and anticoagulation alone. Important predictors for utilizing advanced treatment included younger age and the presence of a concurrent pulmonary embolism. Future studies assessing advanced therapy in larger and broader patient populations are necessary.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-directed treatment (CDT) of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is entering a growth phase in Europe following a steady increase in the United States (US) in the past decade, but the potential economic impact on European healthcare systems remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS: We built two statistical models for the monthly trend of proportion of CDT among patients with severe (intermediate- or high-risk) PE in the US. The conservative model was based on admission data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2016-2020, and the model reflecting increasing access to advanced treatment from the PERTTM national quality assurance database registry 2018-2021. By applying these models to the forecast of annual PE-related hospitalizations in Germany, we calculated the annual number of severe PE cases and the expected increase in CDT use for the period 2025-2030. The NIS-based model yielded a slow increase, reaching 3.1% (95% CI 3.0-3.2%) among all hospitalizations with PE in 2030; in the PERT-based model, increase would be steeper, reaching 8.7% (8.3-9.2%). Based on current reimbursement rates, we estimated an increase of annual costs for PE-related hospitalizations in Germany ranging from 15.3 to 49.8 million euros by 2030. This calculation does not account for potential cost savings, including those from reduced length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION: Our approach and results, which may be adapted to other European healthcare systems, provide a benchmark for healthcare costs expected to result from CDT. Data from ongoing trials on clinical benefits and cost savings are needed to determine cost-effectiveness and inform reimbursement decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Two of the main reasons recent guidelines do not recommend routine population-wide screening programs for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS) is that screening could lead to an increase of carotid revascularization procedures and that such mass screening programs may not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, selective screening for AsxCS could have several benefits. This article presents the rationale for such a program.

AREAS COVERED: The benefits of selective screening for AsxCS include early recognition of AsxCS allowing timely initiation of preventive measures to reduce future myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death and cardiovascular (CV) event rates.

EXPERT OPINION: Mass screening programs for AsxCS are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted screening of populations at high risk for AsxCS provides an opportunity to identify these individuals earlier rather than later and to initiate a number of lifestyle measures, risk factor modifications, and intensive medical therapy in order to prevent future strokes and CV events. For patients at 'higher risk of stroke' on best medical treatment, a prophylactic carotid intervention may be considered.

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.