Wojdyla, Daniel

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.

Abstract Aims The efficacy and safety of vericiguat in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on contemporary heart failure (HF) therapies and without recent worsening was investigated in the VICTOR trial, yet some subgroups may be more susceptible to symptomatic hypotension. Methods and results Among VICTOR trial participants that received at least one dose of study drug or placebo, we describe the systolic blood pressure (SBP) trajectories over time (mean change from baseline), symptomatic hypotension events and efficacy of vericiguat in potentially vulnerable patient subgroups: lower baseline blood pressure (SBP ≤110 mmHg), older patients (>75 years) and those taking angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) or sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) at baseline. The efficacy outcomes of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death alone across baseline SBP were examined using Cox proportional hazards models. Overall SBP trajectories showed a small initial decline from baseline in vericiguat-treated patients compared with placebo (placebo-corrected differences of −1.17 [−1.84, −0.50], p = 0.0007) that was relatively stable throughout follow-up. This trajectory was similar in those >75 years (vs. younger) as well as those receiving ARNI or SGLT2i (as compared with those not receiving these) or those with SBP ≤110 mmHg at baseline (compared with >110 mmHg). Symptomatic hypotension occurred in 11.3% of vericiguat-treated patients compared with 9.2% of placebo-treated patients with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.06–1.46), which was similar across age, SBP, SGLT2i and ARNI groups (all interaction p >0.05). The treatment effect of vericiguat compared with placebo on the efficacy outcomes was similar across the spectrum of baseline SBP (both interaction p >0.15). Conclusions Vericiguat showed a slight adjusted decrease in SBP and resulted in more symptomatic hypotension compared with placebo but was overall well-tolerated in a broad population with HFrEF on contemporary therapy even among those predisposed to hypotension. Treatment effects on efficacy outcomes were consistent regardless of baseline SBP.

Objective: To compare 12-month post-treatment health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and symptom severity (SS) changes among patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids (SUF) not seeking fertility and undergo a hysterectomy, abdominal myomectomy (AM), or uterine artery embolization (UAE). Materials and Methods: The Comparing Options for Management: Patient-Centered Results for Uterine Fibroids (COMPARE-UF) Registry is a multi-institutional prospective observational cohort study of patients treated for SUF. A subset of 1465 women 31–45 years of age, who underwent either hysterectomy ( n = 741), AM ( n = 446), or UAE ( n = 155) were included in this analysis. Demographics, fibroid history, and symptoms were obtained by baseline questionnaires and at 1 year post-treatment. Results were stratified by all treatments and propensity score weighting to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: Women undergoing UAE reported the lowest baseline HR-QoL and highest SS scores (mean = 40.6 [standard deviation (SD) = 23.8]; 62.3 [SD = 24.2]) followed by hysterectomy (44.3 [24.3]; 59.8 [SD = 24.1]). At 12 months, women who underwent a hysterectomy experienced the largest change in both HR-QoL (48.7 [26.2]) and SS (51.9 [25.6]) followed by other uterine-sparing treatments. Propensity score weighting revealed all treatments produced substantial improvement, with hysterectomy patients reporting the highest HR-QoL score (92.0 [17.8]) compared with myomectomy (86.7 [17.2]) and UAE (82.6 [21.5]) ( p < 0.0001). Similarly, hysterectomy patients reported the lowest SS scores (8.2 [15.1]) compared with myomectomy (16.5 [15.1]) and UAE (19.6 [17.5]) ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion: All procedures showed improvement in HR-QoL and reduction in SS score at 12 months, hysterectomy showing maximum improvement. Of importance, at 12 months, patients who underwent either a myomectomy or UAE reported comparable symptom relief and HR-QoL. Clinicaltrials.Gov Identifier: NCT02260752.

Background: The package insert for apixaban recommends against its use for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with prosthetic heart valves. There are no published data on the use of apixaban in patients with AF with bioprosthetic valves. This analysis provides preliminary exploratory data on the safety and efficacy of apixaban in these patients. Methods: The ARISTOTLE trial randomized patients with AF to apixaban versus warfarin, and patients with a history of bioprosthetic valve replacement were eligible for inclusion in the trial. In this secondary analysis, baseline characteristics of patients with bioprosthetic valves were compared between apixaban and warfarin patients using Wilcoxon tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Unadjusted endpoints were compared between randomized treatments using a Cox regression model. With data collection on these valve patients ongoing, this interim report represents 82 of 260 patients with a history of valve surgery from ARISTOTLE. Results: Among 82 patients with bioprosthetic valves, 41 patients each were in the apixaban and warfarin arms. The patients had a median age of 78 years (vs. 70 years in overall trial), 18% had prior stroke (vs. 19% in overall trial), and 41% had concomitant aspirin use (vs. 31% in overall trial). Other than a higher rate of hypertension in the warfarin arm (98% vs. 81%, p=0.03), there were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. There were few events in patients with bioprosthetic valves. There were 2 stroke events, and there were no statistically significant differences between the apixaban and warfarin groups for major bleeding, stroke/systemic embolism, all-cause death, or cardiovascular death (Table). Conclusions: Among the small number of patients in ARISTOTLE with bioprosthetic valves, there were few events with similar event rates in both the apixaban and warfarin groups.

Background: Quality of life (QOL) and psychological health has been reported to be decreased among women with gynecological conditions such as uterine fibroids (UFs). Materials and Methods: Women enrolled in the Comparing Options for Management: PAtient-centered REsults for Uterine Fibroids (COMPARE-UF) registry, receiving procedural therapy for symptomatic UFs, were eligible for this analysis if they completed a series of health-related QOL surveys administered at three time points (baseline, 6–12 weeks postprocedure, and 1 year postprocedure; n = 1486). Ethical approval for this study was obtained at each recruiting site and the coordinating center (NCT02260752, clinicaltrials.gov ). Results: More than 26% ( n = 393) of women reported moderate anxiety/depression on the baseline anxiety/depression domain of the Euro-QOL 5-dimension instrument. At both the 6–12 weeks and 1-year postprocedural follow-up, there was significant improvement in the UF QOL symptom severity score ( p < 0.001, p < 0.001), the total UF symptom QOL score ( p < 0.001, p < 0.001), and the Euro-QOL 5-dimension visual analog scale ( p < 0.001, p = 0.004) compared with the preprocedural baseline scores. The reporting of anxiety/depression decreased by 66.4% among women who were at baseline, whereas 5.6% of women previously reporting no anxiety/depression reported anxiety/depression at the 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: UF symptoms were more severe among women reporting anxiety/depression at baseline. At the 1-year follow-up, health-related QOL scores improved among all women and the prevalence of anxiety/depression decreased in most, but not all women, whereas severity of anxiety/depression worsened in a small percentage of women (5.6%). Overall, these results suggest that UF treatment improves symptoms of anxiety/depression associated with symptomatic UFs.

Background: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with oral anticoagulants has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. We investigated the risk of bleeding and major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation taking NSAIDs and apixaban or warfarin. Methods: The ARISTOTLE trial (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201) compared apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at an increased risk of stroke. Patients in ARISTOTLE without severe renal (creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min) or liver disease were included in this analysis (n=17 423). NSAID use at baseline, NSAID use during the trial (incident NSAID use), and never users were described. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure hospitalization, stroke or systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. NSAID use during the trial, and the interaction between randomized treatment, was analyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Those with baseline NSAID use (n=832 [4.8%]), incident NSAID use (n=2185 [13.2%]), and never users were similar in median age (age [25th, 75th]; 70 [64, 77] versus 70 [63, 75] versus 70 [62, 76]). Those with NSAID use at baseline and incident NSAID use were more likely to have a history of bleeding than never users (24.5% versus 21.0% versus 15.6%, respectively). During a median follow-up (25th, 75th) of 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) years and when excluding those taking NSAID at baseline, we found that incident NSAID use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61 [95% CI, 1.11–2.33]) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16–2.48]), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. No significant interaction was observed between NSAID use and randomized treatment for any outcome. Conclusions: A substantial number of patients in the ARISTOTLE trial took NSAIDs. Incident NSAID use was associated with major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, but not with gastrointestinal bleeding. The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin appeared not significantly to be altered by NSAID use. This study warrants more investigation of the effect of NSAIDs on the outcomes of patients treated with apixaban. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

BackgroundThe optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacement or native valve repair remains uncertain.HypothesisWe evaluated the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs warfarin in patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or native valve repair.MethodsUsing data from Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) (n = 18 201), a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin in patients with AF, we analyzed the subgroup of patients (n = 251) with prior valve surgery. We contacted sites by telephone to obtain additional data about prior valve surgery. Full data were available for 156 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was stroke/systemic embolism. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Treatment groups were compared using a Cox regression model.ResultsIn ARISTOTLE, 104 (0.6%) patients had a history of BPV replacement (n = 73 [aortic], n = 26 [mitral], n = 5 [mitral and aortic]) and 52 (0.3%) had a history of valve repair (n = 50 [mitral], n = 2 [aortic]). Among patients with BPVs, 55 were randomized to apixaban and 49 to warfarin. Among those with a history of native valve repair, 32 were randomized to apixaban and 20 to warfarin. Overall clinical event rates were low, with no significant differences between apixaban and warfarin for any outcomes.ConclusionsIn patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or repair, the safety and efficacy of apixaban compared with warfarin was consistent with results from ARISTOTLE. These data suggest that apixaban may be reasonable for patients with BPVs or prior valve repair, though future larger randomized trials are needed.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00412984.

Background Patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ) and hypertension are at high risk for stroke. Previous studies have shown elevated risk of stroke in patients with AF who have a history of hypertension (regardless of blood pressure [ BP ] control) and in patients with elevated BP . We assessed the association of hypertension and BP control on clinical outcomes. Methods and Results In ARISTOTLE (n=18 201), BP was evaluated as history of hypertension requiring treatment and elevated BP (systolic ≥140 and/or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg) at study entry and any point during the trial. Hazard ratios ( HR s) were derived from Cox proportional hazards models including BP as a time‐dependent covariate. A total of 15 916 (87.5%) patients had a history of hypertension requiring treatment. In patients with elevated BP measurement at any point during the trial, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was significantly higher ( HR , 1.53; 95% confidence interval [ CI ], 1.25–1.86), as was hemorrhagic stroke ( HR 1.85; 95% CI , 1.26–2.72) and ischemic stroke ( HR , 1.50; 95% CI , 1.18–1.90). Rates of major bleeding were lower in patients with a history of hypertension ( HR , 0.80; 95% CI , 0.66–0.98) and nonsignificantly lower in patients with elevated BP at study entry ( HR , 0.89; 95% CI , 0.77–1.03). The benefit of apixaban versus warfarin on preventing stroke or systemic embolism was consistent among patients with and without a history of hypertension ( P interaction=0.27), BP control at baseline ( P interaction=0.43), and BP control during the trial ( P interaction=0.97). Conclusions High BP measurement at any point during the trial was independently associated with a substantially higher risk of stroke or systemic embolism. These results strongly support efforts to treat elevated BP as an important strategy to optimally lower risk of stroke in patients with AF . Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://ClinicalTrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT 00412984.

Background— We examined the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) conferred by heart failure (HF) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation Trial (ARISTOTLE), as well as the effect of apixaban versus warfarin. Methods and Results— The risk of a number of outcomes, including the composite of SSE or death (to take account of competing risks) and composite of SSE, major bleeding, or death (net clinical benefit) were calculated in 3 patient groups: (1) no HF/no LVSD (n=8728), (2) HF/no LVSD (n=3207), and (3) LVSD with/without symptomatic HF (n=2736). The rate of both outcomes was highest in patients with LVSD (SSE or death 8.06; SSE, major bleeding, or death 10.46 per 100 patient-years), intermediate for HF but preserved LV systolic function (5.32; 7.24), and lowest in patients without HF or LVSD (1.54; 5.27); each comparison P <0.0001. Each outcome was less frequent in patients treated with apixaban: in all ARISTOTLE patients, the apixaban/warfarin hazard ratio for SSE or death was 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.98; P =0.02); for SSE, major bleed, or death it was 0.85 (0.78–0.92; P <0.001). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect across the 3 groups. Conclusions— Patients with LVSD (with/without HF) had a higher risk of SSE or death (but similar rate of SSE) compared with patients with HF but preserved LV systolic function; both had a greater risk than patients without either HF or LVSD. Apixaban reduced the risk of both outcomes more than warfarin in all 3 patient groups. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.