Rosenfield, Kenneth

Background: Refractory angina(Ang) effects 150 –250,000 pts in the US alone. These individuals have exhausted options for revasc and continue to have lifestyle limiting ang despite optimal medical Rx. Pre-clinical studies provided evidence that human CD34+ cells(CD34) can stimulate new blood vessel formation in ischemic myocardium(Myo), improving perfusion and function. We performed a phase 2 study of intraMyo injection of autologous CD34 in pts with CCS Class 3 and 4 Ang to obtain evidence for feasibility, safety and bioactivity. Methods: A phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed at 26 centers in the United States. There were 3 treatment groups: placebo, low dose (1×10^5 CD34/kg body wt) and high dose (5×10^5 CD34/kg). All pts underwent mobilization with GCSF 5 mcg/kg/day SC for 5 d, followed by apheresis on d5 to collect mononuclear cells. On day 6 CD34 were purified from the collected cells using the Isolex 300i device. After lot release testing, CD34 were injected endocardially at 10 locations in the ischemic Myo using the Myostar catheter following NOGA mapping. Placebo injections consisted of identical volumes of the diluent only. Results: A total of 167 pts were randomized and completed the injection procedure and 162 completed the 6 mo evaluation. The mean age of subjects was 61.0±8.9, there were 22 female and 145 male subjects. Trop was elevated in 26 pts at baseline and in 71 at some point following GCSF or injection. At 6 mo CD34 treated pts showed more reduction in ang frequency (−8.6 placebo vs 14.2 low dose) and improved ETT time (+69 sec placebo vs. +138 low dose). At 12m CD34 treated continue to show more reduction in angina (−8.2 placebo vs. −15.0 low dose) and improved ETT (+58 sec placebo vs. + 139 sec low dose). For key endpoints the high dose group results were inferior to low dose. The 12m data set has been locked and is being analyzed and the results of the completed analysis will be presented. Conclusions: Autologous CD34 cell therapy was associated with improved exercise tolerance and reduced angina in no-option pts with intractable angina. Ongoing analysis will determine endpoints, sample size and suitability of this therapy for a phase III study in no-option pts with refractory angina.

Background: We have previously reported that carotid artery stenting (CAS) carries a higher stroke risk than carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients over the age of 70. The question arises if advanced age is a surrogate for other factors? If so, can those factors be separately identified such that advanced chronological age alone would not be considered a contra-indication for CAS? Here we consider whether the CAS/CEA choice could be guided by other factors known in the clinical center at the time of patient evaluation, independent of age, in order to provide optimal 4-year outcomes. Methods: Demographic factors (age, sex and race), symptomatic status, patient risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking), and arterial characteristics (percent stenosis) were available on 2,502 patients. Additional detailed arterial characteristics (ulcerated plaque, distal tortuosity, sequential lesions, circumferential calcification) were available on 1141 CAS and 438 CEA patients. Potential differential treatment efficacy was assessed by the addition of factor-by-treatment interaction terms to a proportional hazard model containing established predictors of outcome (treatment, symptomatic status, sex, age and age-by-treatment interaction). Results: No other factor was found to mitigate advanced age with evidence of additional treatment effect modification of 4-year outcome (p > 0.10). Discussion: Beyond the previously described differential treatment efficacy by age, there were no other patient or arterial characteristic detected to identify patient subgroups that would differentially benefit from the choice of CAS versus CEA. Our inability to identify factors to guide treatment choices could be due to the low number of stroke and death events, incomplete information regarding arterial characteristics in the CEA population, or the potential exclusion of “high risk” groups (such as those with severe arterial tortuosity) from the study.

Background The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) enrolled 2502 patients between December of 2000 and mid-July of 2008. We analyzed temporal changes in outcomes for both CEA and CAS over the course of this study. Methods Enrollment was divided into 3 consecutive epochs (5 years, 14 months, and 16 months), each with approximately 834 patients ( Table ). Rates for the primary outcome of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (DSMI) and for death and stroke (DS) during the periprocedural period were calculated. Poisson regression was used to adjust rates for age, sex, dyslipidemia, and symptomatic status, all of which were found to influence outcomes. Results For CAS, there was a 26% decline in DSMI (6.2% → 4.6%) and a 35% decline in DS (5.5% → 3.6%). For both composite endpoints in CEA there was no consistent pattern ( Table ). As CREST progressed, it enrolled younger patients, more men, patients more likely to be dyslipidemic and enrolled more asymptomatic patients (all p < 0.05). Adjustment for these changes mediated the improvement in event rates for the CAS patients, and had no consistent effect on CEA event rates ( Table ). Conclusion Periprocedural safety for CAS improved over time in CREST. Changes were inconsistent for CEA. Improvements for CAS in part appear to reflect changes in patient selection related to age, sex, and risk factors, as adjustment for those variables attenuated the decline in rates. Linking rates to operator experience was not feasible because of the large number of new interventionalists and surgeons entering CREST over time.

Abstract Background The multicenter prospective CREST‐2 Registry (C2R) provides recent experience in performing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for interventionists to ensure safe performance of CAS. Objective To determine the periprocedural safety of CAS performed using a transradial approach relative to CAS performed using a transfemoral approach. Methods Patients with ≥70% asymptomatic and ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are eligible for the C2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of severe access‐related complications. Comparisons were made using propensity‐score matched logistic regression. Results The mean age of the cohort was 67.6 ± 8.2 years and 1906 (35.1%) were female. Indications for CAS included 4063 (74.9%) for primary atherosclerosis. A total of 2868 (52.8%) cases underwent CAS for asymptomatic disease. Transradial access was used in 213 (3.9%) patients. The transradial cohort had lower use of general anesthesia (1.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.007) and higher use of distal embolic protection (96.7% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between radial and femoral access groups in terms of a composite of major access‐related complications (0% vs. 1.1%) or a composite of periprocedural stroke or death (3.3% vs. 2.4%; OR = 1.4 [confidence intervals 0.6, 3.1]; p = 0.42). Conclusion We found no significant differences in rates of major access‐related complications or periprocedural stroke or death with CAS performed using transradial compared to transfemoral access. Our results support incorporation of the transradial approach to clinical trials comparing CAS to other revascularization techniques.

Introduction: Outcomes from endovascular procedures are highly dependent on the experience and skill of the operating physician. The multi-disciplinary CREST-2 Interventional Management Committee (IMC) was charged with credentialing a cohort of skilled interventionists with adequate contemporary case volumes. Methods: Applicants were required to submit 25 consecutive cases completed within 5 years as primary operator out of a required total experience of ≥ 50 cases (≥ 20 for operators completing training). Interventionists not approved on initial review were asked to submit additional cases (with procedural angiograms), the number depending on quality and recent-quantity of the cases. Results: The IMC has had 102 meetings, and 283 interventionists have been evaluated: 104 (37%) interventionists were cardiologists, 64 (23%) vascular surgeons, 42 (15%) neurosurgeons, 32 (11%) neuroradiologists, 26 (9%) neurologists, 9 (3%) interventional radiologists, and 6 (2%) other. The mean total experience among the 226 interventionists with available information was 220±263 carotid stent cases (median 135; range 10-2500). A total of 7037 cases have been reviewed by the IMC, dating from August 2001 to April 2016, with 3366 symptomatic, 3541 asymptomatic and 130 undetermined. The range of cases reviewed per interventionist was 5 to 50. Of the 251 interventionists with sufficient periprocedural follow-up data, no stroke events were reported by 152 (60.5%), and at least one or more stroke events were reported by 99 (39.5%). The IMC has approved 115 interventionists, 29 at the first review and 86 subsequently, based upon submission and review of 631 additional contemporary cases (mean=7 cases per interventionist); 122 have approval pending submission of additional cases; 33 have been denied; 8 have been deferred; 4 have been approved for the CREST-2 Companion Registry only; and 1 is pending decision. Discussion: Rigorous evaluation and credentialing of carotid stenters in CREST-2 has been demanding, for the candidates and for the evaluators. Yet the cohort of interventionists so selected should be able to provide the high-quality stenting outcomes necessary for acceptance of the trial results.

Introduction: Previous analyses of randomized trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have revealed varying sex-associated risk. To better understand sex as an effect modifier in the asymptomatic population, we combined the asymptomatic patients from CREST with the asymptomatic patients from ACT I. Methods: We analyzed data from 2544 subjects with ≥ 70% carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard management of cardiovascular risk factors. CREST enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and ACT I enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility in ACT I). We examined the impact of sex on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients using Kaplan-Meier methods. The pre-specified, primary composite endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period (within 30 days of randomization) or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. Results: For patients assigned to CAS, there was no difference in risk between the sexes (female-to-male HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.65 -- 1.66, P = 0.87). For patients assigned to CEA, the difference in risk detected was not significant (female-to-male HR = 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 - 2.67, P = 0.26). Conclusions: Sex-differences in risk were not significant for those assigned CAS nor those assigned CEA in this largest pooled analysis of asymptomatic patients comparing CAS to CEA.

AbstractThe burden and impact of sleep deprivation on both patient care and on the health of interventional cardiologists is not well understood. Due to the nature of emergent procedures occurring in the cardiac catheterization laboratory, interventionalists are prone to suffer from acute and/or chronic sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation has been associated with numerous adverse effects, such as impaired performance, cognitive deficits, reduced psychomotor vigilance, and workplace errors and injuries, among many others. Although sleep deprivation has been linked to more errors in trainees, there is paucity of data addressing outcomes in interventional cardiology. The purpose of this overview is to explore the possible impact of sleep deprivation on interventional cardiology in relation to patient care and physician health, and examine potential approaches to this issue.