Addressing Barriers to Entry and Retention of Women in Interventional Vascular Specialties With Proposed Solutions: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Representation of women in interventional vascular fields (interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery) lags behind that in other specialties. With women representing half of all medical school graduates, encouraging parity of women in these fields needs to start in medical school. Barriers to pursuing careers in vascular intervention include insufficient exposure during core clerkships, early mentorship, visibility of women in the field, length of training, lifestyle considerations, work culture and environment, and concerns about radiation exposure. This scientific statement highlights potential solutions for both the real and perceived barriers that women may face in pursuing careers in vascular intervention, including streamlining of training (as both interventional radiology and vascular surgery have done with a resultant increase in percentage of women trainees), standardization of institutional promotion of women in leadership, and professional and industry partnerships for the retention and advancement of women.

Implementation of supervised exercise therapy in a veteran population with symptomatic claudication.

BACKGROUND: Real-world implementation of supervised exercise therapy (SET) referral for symptomatic intermittent claudication has been limited by poor provider awareness around reimbursement and low patient adherence owing to factors including limited center availability and long travel distances to sites. METHODS: In this study, 76 of 77 consecutive male veteran patients with intermittent claudication managed at a single-center vascular specialty clinic were referred to SET prior to revascularization. Pre- and post-SET submaximal exercise treadmill testing was performed for assessment of exercise capacity in metabolic equivalents (METs). RESULTS: In the 48.7% of subjects who completed 36 sessions of SET (n = 37), the average improvement in METs was 60.3%, reflecting improvement from baseline average of 3.4 METs to 5.5 METs after SET. Another 14 patients pursued self-guided exercise therapy and 25 patients declined any participation in exercise therapy. Reasons for declining participation in SET included inadequate transportation, cost of copayment, and interference with full-time work schedules. There was a nonsignificant numeric trend toward improved change in ankle-brachial index in the combined SET and self-guided exercise groups compared to those that declined exercise therapy (0.011 ± 0.124 vs -0.040 ± 0.105, p = 0.156). CONCLUSION: High acceptance of referral to SET is possible, despite the limitations to implementation. Incorporation of novel pre- and post-SET submaximal exercise treadmill testing allows for assessment of change in exercise capacity and aids in risk stratification and management of intermittent claudication symptoms.

Angiographic Lesion Discordance in Women Presenting With Ischemic Heart Disease: Comparison of Visual Assessment, Quantitative Coronary Angiography, and Quantitative Flow Ratio.

BACKGROUND: Although visual assessment of stenosis severity is routinely used to guide coronary revascularization, there are concerns about its accuracy, especially in women, who present a higher variability in coronary anatomy and ischemic heart disease (IHD). The aim of this study was to assess whether quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR) could provide better discrimination of coronary stenosis severity and functional significance than visual assessment alone in women with IHD. METHODS: Coronary angiography was performed in a cohort of women with ischemic symptoms and non-invasive stress perfusion imaging. Visual assessment was done by blinded operators in clinical practice, while QCA and QFR were analyzed in an independent core laboratory. RESULTS: Ninety-nine consecutive patients with 101 lesions were included in the registry, and QFR was successfully measured in 81 lesions (80.2%). Visual assessment provided higher readings of angiographic severity than QCA in 50.5% (n = 51) of lesions. Mean absolute difference between QCA and visual assessment was significantly higher in lesions with >70% diameter stenosis (DS) (25.3 ± 7.3%), compared with both the 40%-55% (9.3 ± 6.8%; P<.001) and the <40% groups (7.0 ± 6.0%; P<.001). QFR was >0.80 in 33.3% of lesions with visually defined >70% DS, while all lesions with QCA-defined >70% DS had QFR ≤0.80. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional cardiologists' visual assessment results in a higher degree of coronary stenosis than QCA. Among women with ischemic symptoms and non-invasive stress perfusion imaging, additional lesion assessment by QCA and QFR may improve operators' ability to determine which patients and lesions will benefit from coronary revascularization.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of the Pioneer Plus catheter in endovascular revascularization of lower extremity chronic total occlusions.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety outcomes of the Pioneer Plus catheter (Philips, San Diego, Calif) and report the in-hospital and 30-day outcomes of lower extremity chronic total occlusion (CTO) interventions assisted by the Pioneer Plus catheter. In addition, we explored the factors associated with procedural success. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 135 consecutive procedures in 116 patients from July 2011 to September 2018 performed by eight operators with various levels of experience at a high-volume center where the Pioneer Plus catheter was used for lower extremity CTO. The patient demographics, preprocedural symptoms, preprocedural testing results, procedural setting, and angiography findings were abstracted. The outcomes were divided into device-related and procedure-related outcomes. Device-related efficacy outcome included procedural success. Device-related safety outcomes included device-related complications. Procedure-related outcomes included procedure-related complications, 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events, and 30-day major adverse limb events. We conducted univariate comparisons of the provider, patient, and procedural characteristics stratified by procedural success. RESULTS: Procedural success was observed in 118 procedures overall (87.4%), and success rates ≤95.8% were observed for operators with an experience level of >25 devices deployed. No device-related complications, such as pseudoaneurysm formation, vessel perforation, or arteriovenous fistula formation, were observed. The Pioneer Plus catheter was mostly often used for CTO in the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. Overall, the procedure-related complications included access site hematoma (5.2%), major bleeding (0.7%), pseudoaneurysm formation (0.7%), distal embolization (1.5%), and acute arterial thrombosis (1.5%). The 30-day major adverse limb events included index limb unplanned amputation (0.7%), index limb reintervention (4.4%), and index limb acute limb ischemia (0.7%) and occurred in 5.9% of the procedures. The only factor associated with procedural success was operator experience (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have shown that Pioneer Plus catheter use is safe and effective when used to cross lower extremity CTO. However, further investigation is needed to identify patient- and provider-level factors to optimize patient outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of lower extremity peripheral arterial interventions in patients with and without chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a greater risk of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Although individual studies have documented an association between CKD and/or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing PAD interventions in an era of technological advances in peripheral revascularization, the magnitude of the effect size is unknown. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of PAD interventions for patients with CKD/ESRD with those patients with normal renal function, stratified by intervention type (endovascular vs surgical), reflecting contemporary practice. METHODS: Five databases were analyzed from January 2000 to June 2019 for studies that had compared the outcomes of lower extremity PAD interventions for patients with CKD/ESRD vs normal renal function. We included both endovascular and open interventions, with an indication of either claudication or critical limb ischemia. We analyzed the pooled odds ratios (ORs) across studies with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random effects model. Funnel plot and exclusion sensitivity analyses were used for bias assessment. RESULTS: Seventeen observational studies with 13,140 patients were included. All included studies, except for two, had accounted for unmeasured confounding using either multivariable regression analysis or case-control matching. The maximum follow-up period was 114 months (range, 0.5-114 months). The incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was greater in those with CKD/ESRD than in those with normal renal function (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.25-2.27; P = .001). The incidence of major amputations (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.37-2.83; P < .001) and long-term mortality (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.45-3.58; P < .001) was greater in those with CKD/ESRD. The greater TLR rates with CKD/ESRD vs normal renal function were only seen with endovascular interventions, with no differences for surgical interventions. The differences in rates of major amputations and long-term mortality between the CKD/ESRD and normal renal function groups were statistically significant, regardless of the intervention type. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD/ESRD who have undergone lower extremity PAD interventions had worse outcomes than those of patients with normal renal function. When stratifying our results by intervention (endovascular vs open surgery), greater rates of TLR for CKD/ESRD were only seen with endovascular and not with open surgical approaches. Major amputations and all-cause mortality were greater in the CKD/ESRD group, irrespective of the indication. Evidence-based strategies to manage this at-risk population who require PAD interventions are essential.

Impact of Kidney Disease on Peripheral Arterial Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on outcomes of patients undergoing peripheral arterial disease (PAD) interventions who have comorbid CKD/ESRD versus those who do not have such comorbid condition. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: Five databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes of lower extremity PAD interventions for claudication and critical limb ischemia (CLI) in patients with CKD/ESRD versus non-CKD/non-ESRD from January 2000 to June 2019. RESULTS: Our study included 16 observational studies with 44,138 patients. Mean follow-up was 48.9 ± 27.4 months. Major amputation was higher with CKD/ESRD compared with non-CKD/non-ESRD (odds ratio [OR 1.97] [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-2.80], p = 0.001). Higher major amputations with CKD/ESRD versus non-CKD/non-ESRD were only observed when indication for procedure was CLI (OR 2.27 [95% CI 1.53-3.36], p < 0.0001) but were similar for claudication (OR 1.15 [95% CI 0.53-2.49], p = 0.72). The risk of early mortality was high with CKD/ESRD patients undergoing PAD interventions compared with non-CKD/non-ESRD (OR 2.55 [95% CI 1.65-3.96], p < 0.0001), which when stratified based on indication, remained higher with CLI (OR 3.14 [95% CI 1.80-5.48], p < 0.0001) but was similar with claudication (OR 1.83 [95% CI 0.90-3.72], p = 0.1). Funnel plot of included studies showed moderate bias. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing lower extremity PAD interventions for CLI who also have comorbid CKD/ESRD have an increased risk of experiencing major amputations and early mortality. Randomized trials to understand outcomes of PAD interventions in this at-risk population are essential.

Utility of Intravascular Ultrasound in Peripheral Vascular Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare outcomes between intravascular ultrasound- (IVUS) versus angiography (AO)-guided peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). Introduction: Intravascular ultrasound facilitates plaque visualization and angioplasty during PVIs for peripheral arterial disease. It is unclear whether IVUS may improve the durability of PVIs and lead to improved clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a study-level meta-analysis of observational studies. The primary end points of this study were rates of primary patency and reintervention. Secondary end points included rates of vascular complications, periprocedural adverse events, amputations, technical success, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Eight observational studies were included in this analysis with 93 551 patients. Mean follow-up was 24.2 ± 15 months. Intravascular ultrasound-guided PVIs had similar patency rates when compared with AO-guided PVIs (relative risk [RR]: 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.71, P = .062). There was no difference in rates of reintervention in IVUS-guided PVIs when compared to non-IVUS-guided PVIs (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.15-1.13, P = .085). There is a lower risk of periprocedural adverse events (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94, P = .006) and vascular complications (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68-0.96, P = .013) in the IVUS group. All-cause mortality (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.56-1.04, P = .084), amputation rates (RR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.32-2.15, P = .705), myocardial infarctions (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.58-2.41, P = .637), and technical success (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.19, P = .886) were similar between the groups. Conclusions: Intravascular ultrasound-guided PVIs had similar primary patency and reintervention when compared with AO-guided PVIs with significantly lower rates of periprocedural adverse events and vascular complications in the IVUS-guided group.

Aminophylline and caffeine for reversal of adverse symptoms associated with regadenoson SPECT MPI.

BACKGROUND: Aminophylline shortages led us to compare intravenous (IV) aminophylline with IV and oral (PO) caffeine during routine pharmacologic stress testing with SPECT MPI. METHODS: We measured presence, duration, and reversal of adverse symptoms and cardiac events following regadenoson administration in consecutive patients randomized to IV aminophylline (100 mg administered over 30-60 seconds), IV caffeine citrate (60 mg infused over 3-5 minutes), or PO caffeine as coffee or diet cola. RESULTS: Of 241 patients, 152 (63%) received regadenoson reversal intervention. Complete (CR), predominant (PRE), or partial (PR) reversal was observed in 99%. CR by IV aminophylline (87%), IV caffeine (87%), and PO caffeine (78%) were similar (P = NS). Time to CR (162 ± 12.6 seconds, mean ± SD) was similar in treatment arms. PO caffeine was inferior to IV aminophylline for CR + PRE. CONCLUSIONS: IV aminophylline and IV caffeine provide rapid, safe reversal of regadenoson-induced adverse effects during SPECT MPI. Oral caffeine appeared similarly effective for CR but not for the combined CR + PRE. Our results suggest PO caffeine may be an effective initial strategy for reversal of regadenoson, but IV aminophylline or IV caffeine should be available to optimize symptom reversal as needed.

Survival after left ventricular assist device with and without temporary right ventricular support.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) failure after the insertion of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) historically results in poor outcomes. Patients requiring temporary RV support after LVAD insertion are a heterogeneous group of patients consisting of those in cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction, to those with chronic decompensated heart failure. For patients requiring biventricular support, we have used a hybrid system consisting of a HeartMate II LVAD and CentriMag right ventricular assist device (RVAD). The purpose of this study was to determine the 1-year survival in patients requiring isolated LVAD and patients requiring biventricular support. METHODS: All patients who underwent HeartMate II LVAD alone or in conjunction with a temporary CentriMag RVAD were examined from 2006 to 2011. Preoperative demographics, operative outcomes, and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients required HeartMate II insertion; 34 (24%) required biventricular support at the time of HeartMate II implantation. The mean duration of biventricular support was 17 ± 11.9 days (range, 6 to 56 days) with 91.8% (n = 31) of RVADs successfully explanted. Survival to hospital discharge was not different between groups (95.2 versus 88.2%; p = 0.2). However, 1-year survival was significantly greater in patients who required isolated HeartMate II LVAD (87% versus 77%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Biventricular support using a HeartMate II LVAD and CentriMag RVAD resulted in limited mortality at hospital discharge. However biventricular dysfunction does not have a favorable outcome at 1 year when compared with patients requiring isolated HeartMate II.

Endoscopic management of early esophageal neoplasia: an emerging standard.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and ablation technologies have markedly changed the treatment of early esophageal neoplasia. We analyzed treatment and outcomes of patients undergoing multimodal endoscopic treatment of early esophageal neoplasia at our institution. METHODS: Records of patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for esophageal low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN, n = 11), high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN, n = 24), or T1N0M0 neoplasia (n = 10), presenting between 2007 and 2009, were reviewed. Outcomes included eradication of neoplasia/intestinal metaplasia, development of metachronous neoplasia, and progression to surgical resection. RESULTS: There were 45 patients, 96% male, with a mean age 67 years. The degree of neoplasia prior to intervention was intramucosal (8) or submucosal (2) carcinoma in 10, HGIN in 24, and LGIN in 11. Patients underwent a total of 166 procedures (median 3/patient, range 1-9). These included 120 radiofrequency ablation sessions, 38 EMRs, and 8 cryoablations. Mean follow-up was 21.3 months. Neoplasia and intestinal metaplasia were eradicated in 87.2% and 56.4% of patients, respectively, while 15.4% developed metachronous neoplasia. Three patients underwent esophagectomy. No patient developed unresectable disease or died. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatment of early esophageal neoplasia is safe and effective in the short term. A minority of treated patients developed recurrent neoplasia, which is usually amenable to further endoscopic therapy. Complications are relatively minor and uncommon. Endoscopic therapy as the initial treatment for early esophageal neoplasia is an emerging standard of care.