Secemsky, Eric A.

Abstract Introduction Revascularization to prevent limb loss is not feasible or represents a very high risk in a significant proportion of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI). No standard definition currently exists to define this population of patients. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus-based, multidomain definition to improve clinical assessment and reporting of studies in people with ‘no option’ (NO) or ‘poor option’ (PO) CLTI. Methods A modified Delphi process was conducted with 164 specialists from 30 countries. Two iterative survey rounds were used to reach consensus, defined as ≥70% agreement with a score of ≥7 on a nine-point scale. Results Some 164 international vascular specialists participated in the study, averaging 19 years of experience. A multidomain framework including arterial disease anatomy, biology, risk, function, and context (ABRFC) achieved 83% consensus. A ‘desert foot’ was defined as the absence of distal arterial revascularization targets on advanced non-invasive imaging, invasive digital subtraction angiography, and at least one failed endovascular revascularization attempt (81.6% agreement). Inadequate autogenous bypass conduit was defined as the lack of usable autologous vein across all four limbs (85% agreement). Patients were classified as NO for revascularization if they present with ‘desert foot’, prohibitive medical risk, a non-functional limb, or in those patients who refused arterial revascularization. PO revascularization patients combined factors such as severe infection, lack of autologous vein, or treatment non-compliance (72.1% agreement). Conclusion This consensus study established a structured, expert-validated definition of no option or poor option for revascularisation of patients with CLTI. The multidomain ABRFC framework provides a foundation for standardized clinical assessment, trial design, and future guideline development.

Introduction: The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to guide lower extremity deep venous stent placement is associated with improved identification of the degree of maximal vessel stenosis, vessel obstruction, and thrombus burden, compared to venography alone. As the US medical system moves towards value-based care, the financial impact of interventional tools requires close consideration. Currently, there are limited evaluations of the cost effectiveness of IVUS during venous procedures. Research Question: This study seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of IVUS in lower extremity deep venous interventions. Methods: Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2016 through 2021 for beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years undergoing lower extremity venous interventions with stent placement, thrombolysis, and/or thrombectomy were analyzed. Cost ratios between IVUS-guided and non-IVUS-guided procedures were assessed using gamma regression, adjusting for demographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 52,610 patients were included, with 42.6% undergoing IVUS-guided procedures. IVUS utilization varied by setting, with higher usage in hospital-based outpatient centers (75.3%) and ambulatory surgical centers/outpatient-based laboratories (ASC/OBL; 86.4%) compared to inpatient hospitalizations (10.4%). Among inpatient procedures, IVUS-guided venous intervention was associated with greater cost than non-IVUS procedures at 90 days, with an adjusted cost ratio of 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.07), yet was associated with an average 0.6-day shorter hospitalization (p < 0.001; Figure 1, Figure 2 ). There were marginal increased costs associated with use of IVUS in inpatient procedures persisting through one- and three-years follow-up, with adjusted cost ratios of 1.05 (95% CI 1.02-1.08) and 1.05 (95% CI 1.02-1.09), respectively. In contrast, IVUS use was associated with significant cost savings in outpatient settings, with adjusted cost ratios of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69-0.73) in hospital-based outpatient settings and 0.75 (95% CI 0.73-0.78) in ASC/OBL at 90 days. These cost savings persisted at one- and three-year follow-up. Conclusions: IVUS-guided venous intervention was associated with cost savings in outpatient and ASC/OBL settings, while maintaining near cost equivalence in inpatient settings. These findings suggest that in addition to the clinical benefit of IVUS for venous intervention, IVUS is a cost-effective strategy, particularly in the outpatient setting.

Background Recent guidelines have emphasized the use of medical management, early diagnosis, and a multidisciplinary team to effectively treat patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). Previous literature briefly highlighted the current racial disparities in its intervention. Herein, we analyze the trend over a 14‐year time period to investigate whether the disparities gap in CLI management is closing. Methods and Results The National Inpatient Sample was queried between 2005 and 2018 for hospitalizations involving CLI. Nontraumatic amputations and revascularization were identified. Utilization trends of these procedures were compared between races (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, and Other). Multivariable regression assessed differences in race regarding procedure usage. There were 6 904 562 admissions involving CLI in the 14‐year study period. The rate of admissions in White patients who received any revascularization decreased by 0.23% ( P <0.001) and decreased by 0.25% ( P =0.025) for Asian and Pacific Islander patients. Among all patients, the annual rate of admission in White patients who received any amputation increased by 0.21% ( P <0.001), increased by 0.19% ( P =0.001) for Hispanic patients, and increased by 0.19% ( P =0.012) for the Other race patients. Admissions involving Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, or Other race patients had higher odds of receiving any revascularization compared with White patients. All races had higher odds of receiving major amputation compared with White patients. Conclusions Our analysis highlights disparities in CLI treatment in our nationally representative sample. Non‐White patients are more likely to receive invasive treatments, including major amputations and revascularization for CLI, compared with White patients.

AbstractThe Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high‐level field‐wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co‐moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Statistical analyses are a crucial component of the biomedical research process and are necessary to draw inferences from biomedical research data. The application of sound statistical methodology is a prerequisite for publication in the American Heart Association (AHA) journal portfolio. The objective of this document is to summarize key aspects of statistical reporting that might be most relevant to the authors, reviewers, and readership of AHA journals. The AHA Scientific Publication Committee convened a task force to inventory existing statistical standards for publication in biomedical journals and to identify approaches suitable for the AHA journal portfolio. The experts on the task force were selected by the AHA Scientific Publication Committee, who identified 12 key topics that serve as the section headers for this document. For each topic, the members of the writing group identified relevant references and evaluated them as a resource to make the standards summarized herein. Each section was independently reviewed by an expert reviewer who was not part of the task force. Expert reviewers were also permitted to comment on other sections if they chose. Differences of opinion were adjudicated by consensus. The standards presented in this report are intended to serve as a guide for high-quality reporting of statistical analyses methods and results.