Rymer, Jennifer A

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing radial and femoral access report access site crossover rates of 3% to 9% for radial access and 1% to 3% for femoral access. However, contemporary real-world crossover rates are not well characterized. The aim was to evaluate contemporary trends and predictors of vascular access site crossover during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We analyzed index PCI procedures recorded in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from 2018 to 2024. Access site crossover was identified using documented access data, with radial-to-femoral crossover inferred when the final successful access site was femoral. Temporal trends and clinical predictors of crossover were examined. Operator experience was assessed using cumulative total and radial PCI volumes from 2011 to 2024 as captured in CathPCI Registry versions 4 and 5. RESULTS: Among 3 861 790 index PCIs, 192 902 (5.0%) involved access site crossover, with a modest increase over time. Radial-to-femoral crossover accounted for 81.2% of crossover events. Factors independently associated with crossover included older age, female sex, higher body mass index, and peripheral vascular disease. Operators with the lowest total PCI volume and the lowest radial PCI volume experienced the highest crossover rates. Notably, operators with low radial PCI volume demonstrated a substantial decline in radial-to-femoral crossover over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary clinical practice, access site crossover rates are consistent with those reported in randomized trials. Although crossover occurs more frequently among lower-volume operators, rates decline with increasing operator experience, supporting the presence of a radial access learning curve and improvement in procedural performance over time.

Background Treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) accounts for 10% of percutaneous coronary interventions in the USA. Paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) are an alternative to uncoated balloons (UCBs) for ISR. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central for studies comparing PCB with UCB in treating ISR. Outcomes included late lumen loss, binary restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results Eight trials including 1410 patients [PCB in 865 (61%), follow-up 6 months to 10 years) were identified. Angiographic outcomes of late lumen loss [mean difference: −0.50 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.66 to −0.33; P < 0.01] and binary restenosis [relative risk (RR): 0.22; 95% CI: 0.13–0.40; P < 0.01] at 6–8 months were lower with PCB. TLR at 6 months (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.06–0.40; P < 0.001) and 1 year (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.31–0.66; P < 0.001), MACE at 6 months (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.16–0.38; P < 0.001), MACE at 3–5 years (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.37–0.80; P = 0.002), and TLR at 3–5 years (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.29–0.90; P = 0.021) were lower with PCB. Meta-regression revealed that ISR lesions in the left anterior descending artery were associated with lower rates of binary restenosis while the opposite was observed for left circumflex lesions. Conclusion Revascularization of coronary ISR with PCB is associated with reduced late lumen loss, binary restenosis, TLR, CCE, and MACE. PCB may be a preferred strategy for coronary ISR.

Background Older adults with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome are less likely to undergo an invasive strategy compared with younger patients. Randomized controlled trials traditionally exclude older adults because of their high burden of geriatric conditions. Methods and Results We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus medical management or a selective invasive (conservative) strategy for older patients (age≥75 years) with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome. Fixed effects meta‐analysis was conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) and individual secondary end points of all‐cause death, cardiovascular death, MI, revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding. Nine studies with 2429 patients (invasive: 1228 versus control: 1201) with a mean follow‐up of 21 months were included. An invasive strategy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of a composite of death and MI (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54–0.83], P <0.001), MI (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.45–0.70], P <0.001) and subsequent revascularization (OR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.16–0.48], P <0.001). There was no difference in all‐cause death (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65–1.10], P =0.21), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63–1.15], P =0.30), stroke (OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.38–1.47], P =0.39), or major bleeding (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.42–3.66], P =0.70). Conclusions In older patients ≥75 years old with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome, an invasive strategy reduced the risk of a composite of death and MI, MI, and subsequent revascularization compared with a conservative strategy alone. Older adults with higher burden of geriatric conditions should be included in future trials to improve generalizability to this growing population.

Background: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Results: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89–6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311–$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20–5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624–$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583–$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. Conclusions: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.