Krishnan, Prakash

Background Bivalirudin may be an effective alternative anticoagulant to heparin for use in percutaneous peripheral interventions. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing percutaneous peripheral intervention. Methods For this meta-analysis and systematic review, we conducted a search in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for all the clinical studies in which bivalirudin was compared to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant in percutaneous peripheral interventions. Outcomes studied included all-cause mortality, all-bleeding, major and minor bleeding, and access site complications. Results Eleven studies were included in the analysis, totaling 20,137 patients. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.87), all-bleeding (risk ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.78), major bleeding (risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.96), minor bleeding (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.47–0.92), and access site complications (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.84). There was no significant difference in peri-procedural need for blood transfusions (risk ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.08), myocardial infarction (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.59–1.28), stroke (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–1.01), intracranial bleeding (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.29–2.02), or amputations (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53–1.05). Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that bivalirudin use for percutaneous peripheral interventions is associated with lower all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications as compared to heparin. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm the current results.

AbstractObjectivesTo propose a classification system for characterizing angiographic femoropopliteal artery restenosis patterns associated with common endovascular modalities.BackgroundPeripheral artery disease is a worldwide issue affecting millions of people. Despite a myriad of endovascular technologies available to treat peripheral artery disease of the femoropopliteal arteries, restenosis remains a common failure mode. Characterizing common patterns of restenosis is important to discern the potential impact of baseline patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics, as well as treatment modalities on either the primary success or the failure patterns associated with restenosis.MethodsStudies included in the analysis were from previous core laboratory‐adjudicated femoropopliteal artery disease trials and registries reflecting a wide array of treatment modalities.ResultsFrom the subjects enrolled and analyzed, there were 403 total angiograms for analysis and adjudication. Target lesion revascularization images of the 32 validation cases were evaluated for index treated length, diameter stenosis, and lesion morphology characteristics. The following lesion types are proposed: Type 1 “Focal” pattern, which may be “Edge Proximal” or “Edge Distal” depending on location; a Type 2 “Multifocal” pattern which may also exhibit edge restenosis, but may also be “Edge Bilateral”; a Type 3 “Moderate” pattern and a Type 4 “Diffuse” pattern; and finally, a Type 5 “Occlusion”.ConclusionsA classification system that enables healthcare professionals to anticipate and describe failures following the index procedure, thereby impacting the choice of options for retreatment, may facilitate consistency and standardization within the heterogeneous field of endovascular device treatments for the femoropopliteal artery.