Publications

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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous deep venous arterialisation (pDVA) is a state of the art technique for treating patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) with no conventional option for revascularisation. There are limited large scale data examining the clinical effectiveness of pDVA for patients with end stage CLTI.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases.

REVIEW METHODS: Four databases were searched from January 2018 to June 2024 to identify studies investigating the feasibility and clinical outcomes of pDVA for patients with CLTI with no conventional revascularisation options. Meta-analysis of time to event outcomes (mean ± standard deviation) was performed for amputation free survival as the primary outcome, and freedom from amputation and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes (mean and 95% confidence interval [CI]) were procedural success rate, patency, re-intervention, and complete wound healing.

RESULTS: Ten non-randomised studies were included with 351 patients. The mean patient age was 70.3 years, and 67.6% were male. Most procedures used the posterior tibial artery. The aggregated rate of amputation free survival at six and twelve months (five studies, 260 patients) was 72.6 ± 2.8% and 66.0 ± 3.1%, respectively, while the overall survival at six and twelve months (five studies, 260 patients) was 85.0 ± 2.3% and 77.7 ± 2.9%, respectively. The procedural success rate (nine studies, 330 patients) was 95.5% (95% CI 92.4 - 98.7%). Primary and secondary patency at six months (four studies, 241 patients) was 23.4% (95% CI 13.6 - 33.2%) and 54.9% (95% CI 34.3 - 75.5%), respectively. The rates of re-intervention (four studies, 190 patients) and complete wound healing (five studies, 190 patients) at twelve months were 41.7% (95% CI 25.7 - 57.7%) and 46.0% (95% CI 31.7 - 60.3%), respectively.

CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated acceptable feasibility for no option CLTI at highly specialised institutions for patients undergoing pDVA. Meta-analysis of time to event outcomes revealed that pDVA provides reasonable amputation free survival for up to twelve months, albeit with a overall low certainty of evidence. Wider adoption of pDVA may be considered in selected patients with CLTI, although its clinical impact and cost effectiveness require further evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) were developed to mitigate the risk of stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but their benefit remains unproven. In the PROTECTED-TAVR trial (Stroke Protection With Sentinel During Transcatheter), EPD use did not reduce periprocedural stroke (primary study outcome) but led to a 62% reduction in the secondary end point of disabling stroke. Given these results, the impact of EPDs during TAVR remains unclear.

METHODS: We used STS/ACC TVT registry data to examine the association between EPD use and a proxy for disabling stroke among transfemoral TAVR patients between January 2018 and June 2023. The primary outcome was in-hospital disabling stroke-defined as stroke associated with either in-hospital death or discharge to a nonhome location. We evaluated the association between EPD use and disabling stroke using instrumental variable analysis with a site-level preference for EPD use as the instrument-a quasi-experimental approach that can support causal inference. In addition, we performed a propensity score-based comparison using overlap weighting as a secondary analysis.

RESULTS: The study population consisted of 414 649 patients of whom 53 389 (12.9%) received an EPD. The unadjusted rate of in-hospital disabling stroke was 0.7% among the EPD group and 0.9% in the no-EPD group. EPD use was associated with a reduction in disabling stroke in both instrumental variable analysis (relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.73-1.00]) and propensity-weighted analysis (odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.70-0.90]) but was not associated with a reduction in nondisabling stroke. In subgroup analyses, the benefit of EPD was greater among those with versus without prior stroke (Pinteraction<0.05 for both instrumental variable and propensity-weighted analyses).

CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date, among patients undergoing TAVR, EPD use was associated with a small, borderline significant reduction in stroke associated with death or discharge to a nonhome location (a proxy for disabling stroke) that is likely to be causal in nature. Taken together with previous mechanistic and clinical studies, these findings provide credible evidence that EPDs benefit patients undergoing TAVR.

Recent advances in therapy and the promulgation of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism teams show great promise to improve management and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the absence of randomized evidence and lack of consensus leads to tremendous variations in treatment and compromises the wide implementation of new innovations. Moreover, the changing landscape of health care, where quality, cost, and accountability are increasingly relevant, dictates that a broad spectrum of outcomes of care must be routinely monitored to fully capture the impact of modern PE treatment. We set out to standardize data collection in patients with PE undergoing evaluation and treatment, and thus establish the foundation for an expanding evidence base that will address gaps in evidence and inform future care for acute PE. To do so, >100 international PE thought leaders convened in Washington, DC, in April 2022 to form the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative. Participants included physician experts, key members of the US Food and Drug Administration, patient representatives, and industry leaders. Recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of PE care, the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative was created with representative experts from stakeholder medical subspecialties, including cardiology, pulmonology, vascular medicine, critical care, hematology, cardiac surgery, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, and pharmacology. A list of critical evidence gaps was composed with a matching comprehensive set of standardized data elements; these data points will provide a foundation for productive research, knowledge enhancement, and advancement of clinical care within the field of acute PE, and contribute to answering urgent unmet needs in PE management. Evidence produced through the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative, as it is applied to data collection, promises to provide crucial knowledge that will ultimately produce a robust evidence base that will lead to standardization and harmonization of PE management and improved outcomes.