Citations

AbstractObjectivesTo investigate the perceptions of interventional cardiologists (IC) regarding the frequency, impact, and management strategies of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) complications.BackgroundThe perceptions and management strategies of ICs of PCI complications have received limited study.MethodsOnline survey on PCI complications: 46 questions were distributed via email lists and Twitter to ICs.ResultsOf 11,663 contacts, 821 responded (7% response rate): 60% were from the United States and the median age was 46–50 years. Annual PCI case numbers were <100 (26%), 100–199 (37%), 200–299 (21%), and ≥300 (16%); 42% do not perform structural interventions, others reported performing <40 (30%), or >100 (11%) structural cases annually. On a scale of 0–10, participating ICs were highly concerned about potential complications with a median score of 7.2 (interquartile range: 5.0–8.7). The most feared complication was death (39%), followed by coronary perforation (26%) and stroke (9%). Covered stents were never deployed by 21%, and 32% deployed at least one during the past year; 79% have never used fat to seal perforations; 64% have never used coils for perforations. Complications were attributed to higher patient/angiographic complexity by 68% and seen as opportunities for improvement by 70%; 97% of participants were interested in learning more about the management of PCI complications. The most useful learning methods were meetings (66%), webinars (48%), YouTube (32%), and Twitter (29%).ConclusionICs who participated in the survey are highly concerned about complications. Following complication management algorithms and having access to more experienced operators might alleviate stress and optimize patient outcomes.

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.

Background: Direct stenting without pre-dilation or post-dilation has been advocated for saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention to decrease the incidence of distal embolization, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of patients enrolled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty; NCT 01121224) prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were stratified into stent-only and balloon-stent groups. Primary end point was 12-month incidence of target vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Secondary end points included all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization during follow-up. Results: Of the 575 patients included in this substudy, 185 (32%) patients underwent stent-only percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients in the stent-only versus balloon-stent group had similar baseline characteristics and similar incidence of target vessel failure at 12-months (15% versus 19%; hazard ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.86–2.08]; P =0.19). During long-term follow-up (median of 2.7 years), the incidence of definite stent thrombosis (1% versus 5%; hazard ratio, 9.20 [95% CI, 1.23–68.92]; P =0.0085), the composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis (5% versus 11%; hazard ratio, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.23–5.18]; P =0.009), and target vessel myocardial infarction (8% versus 14%; hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.08–3.40]; P =0.023) was lower in the stent-only group. Multivariable analysis showed that a higher number of years since coronary artery bypass grafting and >1 target saphenous vein graft lesions were associated with increased target vessel failure during entire follow-up, while preintervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-3 flow was protective. Conclusions: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo saphenous vein graft lesions, there was no difference in target vessel failure at 12 months and long-term follow-up in the stent-only versus the balloon-stent group; however, the incidence of stent thrombosis was lower in the stent-only group, as was target vessel myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01121224.

Background: Radial access (RA) is increasingly used in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention with encouraging results. However, there are concerns about its safety and efficacy because of higher complexity and the need for strong guide catheter support. Methods and Results: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published through November 2018 reporting the outcomes of RA versus femoral access in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcomes included major bleeding, access-site complications, in-hospital major adverse events, and technical success. Nine observational studies with 10 590 patients (10 617 lesions) were included in the meta-analysis. CTO lesions attempted using RA had lower Japan-CTO score (2.3±1.2 versus 2.5±1.3; P <0.001). Use of RA was associated with similar technical success (78.7% versus 78.5%; odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P =0.24; I 2 =23%), lower risk of access-site complications (0.73% versus 1.79%; odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22–0.51; P <0.001; I 2 =0%) and major bleeding (0.18% versus 0.9%; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10–0.45; P <0.001; I 2 =0%), and similar risk of in-hospital adverse events and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.12–1.07; P =0.07; I 2 =0%) as compared to femoral access. Results were similar when analyzing radial-only versus any femoral access and when excluding the largest study. Conclusions: As compared with femoral access, RA is used in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of less complex lesions and is associated with fewer access-site complications and major bleeding and comparable technical success.

VA Cooperative Studies Program #571 (DIVA) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of drug‐eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure when compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) in participants undergoing stenting of de novo SVG lesions. Participants undergoing clinically indicated stenting of de novo SVG lesions were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DES or BMS. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and the number of target SVG lesions (1 vs ≥2) within each participating site. At sites that did not routinely administer 12‐months of dual antiplatelet therapy after SVG stenting participants without acute coronary syndromes received 1 month of open‐label clopidogrel, followed by 11 months of clopidogrel for those assigned to DES and 11 months of placebo for those assigned to BMS. The primary endpoint was the 12‐month incidence of target‐vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target‐vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of other clinical endpoints and the incremental cost‐effectiveness of DES relative to BMS. Due to lower‐than‐anticipated target‐vessel failure rates, target enrollment was increased from 519 to 762. The study had randomized 599 participants when recruitment ended in December 2015. The DIVA trial will provide clarity on the appropriate stent type for de novo SVG lesions.

Background— Current guidelines recommend surgical revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease. Few data are available describing revascularization patterns among these patients in the setting of non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Methods and Results— Using Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get with the Guidelines (ACTION Registry–GWTG), we compared the in-hospital use of different revascularization strategies (PCI versus CABG versus no revascularization) in diabetes mellitus patients with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction who had angiography, demonstrating multivessel coronary artery disease between July 2008 and December 2014. Factors associated with use of CABG versus PCI were identified using logistic multivariable regression analyses. A total of 29 769 patients from 539 hospitals were included in the study, of which 10 852 (36.4%) were treated with CABG, 13 760 (46.2%) were treated with PCI, and 5157 (17.3%) were treated without revascularization. The overall use of revascularization increased over the study period with an increase in the proportion undergoing PCI (45% to 48.9%; P trend =0.0002) and no change in the proportion undergoing CABG (36.1% to 34.7%; p trend =0.88). There was significant variability between participating hospitals in the use of PCI and CABG (range: 22%–100%; 0%–78%, respectively; P value <0.0001 for both). Patient-level, but not hospital-level, characteristics were statistically associated with the use of PCI versus CABG, including anatomic severity of the disease, early treatment of adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists at presentation, older age, female sex, and history of heart failure. Conclusions— Among patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, only one third undergo CABG during the index admission. Furthermore, the use of PCI, but not CABG, increased modestly over the past 6 years.