Patrice Wendling

A real-world analysis reveals that women are consistently less likely to undergo intracoronary imaging as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though it benefits both sexes equally.

Results from nearly all PCIs performed in England and Wales between 2006 and 2019 showed the absolute rate of intracoronary imaging with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was 5% lower in the later study years among women at 14.5%, compared with 19.6% in men (P < .001).

After adjustment, female sex was an independent predictor of lower intracoronary imaging use (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96), according to the study, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“One of the thoughts I had when we were running this analysis was, well, maybe the indications for that imaging, as recommended by guidelines, are less common in women,” Mamas Mamas, MD, told this news organization. “So what we did was to look at just cases where imaging is recommended by the EAPCI [European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention].”

Again, the use of intracoronary imaging was consistently lower among women than among men for all of the following EAPCI-recommended indications:

• Acute coronary syndrome: 11.6% vs. 12.3% (P < .01).
• Stent thrombosis: 30.9% vs. 34.9% (P < .01).
• Long lesions: 13.1% vs. 16.3% (P < .01).
• Chronic total occlusions: 16.2% vs. 18.3% (P < .01).
• Left main stem PCI: 55.1% vs. 57.5% (P < .01).
• In-stent restenosis: 28.0% vs. 30.7%.
• Calcified lesions: 36.6% vs. 40.1% (P < .01).
• Renal disease: 17.4% vs. 19.5% (P < .01).

As to what might be driving the lower use, Dr. Mamas dismissed the argument that women undergo much simpler PCI, which wouldn’t benefit from imaging. Women do have smaller coronary arteries, however, and there is a belief that it’s easier to eyeball the size of vessels that are smaller rather than larger.

“I’m not convinced that’s entirely true,” he said. “I don’t have a good answer for you, I’m afraid. I don’t really know why we’re seeing it. I just think it’s one of those disparities that is important to highlight.”

Central to this belief is that the benefits of intracoronary imaging were found to be similar in men and women. Intracoronary imaging was associated with lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) in women and men (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.44-0.53 and OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80, respectively), compared with nonimaging groups.

“This really should be a call to arms, particularly given that we show this disparity persists, even in guideline-recommended cases where we should be using it,” said Dr. Mamas, from the Keele (England) Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, and Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, England.

“Actually, I would argue that we should be using more imaging in women than men anyway because many of the presentations for acute coronary syndromes in women, like spontaneous coronary artery dissection or MINOCA [MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries], you often need intracoronary imaging to make that kind of diagnosis,” he observed.
 

Getting worse, not better

Previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men in acute coronary syndromes to receive the transradial approach and P2Y12 inhibitors, but none have specifically looked at intracoronary imaging, Dr. Mamas said.

To fill the gap, the researchers drew on data from 994,478 patients in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry, of whom, 8.4% of 738,616 men and 7.9% of 255,862 women received intracoronary imaging.

Women in the imaging group were older, more likely to be an ethnic minority, and more likely to undergo PCI for non–ST-segment elevation MI than their male counterparts.

One of the more surprising findings was that rates of IVUS and OCT were superimposable between the sexes at the start of the study but quickly diverged starting in around 2012, when the technology took off, Dr. Mamas said. In the most recent data, use was about 3% lower in women overall and rising to 6% in those with stable angina.

“Whilst the disparities between men and women are significant, the bigger question is why are we using so little imaging in guideline-recommended cases where there is a benefit?” he said.

Possible actionable items, he suggested, include providing older physicians who didn’t have access to intracoronary imaging during their training with opportunities in their cath lab or with industry sponsors to increase their skills and confidence. Intracoronary imaging use could also be routinely captured in U.S. and European PCI registries and used as a quality metric.

“In left main, you see a massive difference between centers, and that’s the kind of data that drives discussion,” Dr. Mamas said. “If we start reporting quality metrics, such as radial use, intracoronary imaging, P2Y12 inhibitors by center, then you’ve got something to benchmark centers against.”

Nathaniel Smilowitz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at New York Langone Health, who was not associated with the study, said that it’s troubling to see that the utilization intravascular imaging is so low, despite randomized trials and large meta-analyses showing a mortality benefit associated with its use in PCI.

“Even among men, only 19.6% in the later years were getting intravascular imaging performed to guide their coronary intervention, so one out of five,” he said. “There are opportunities to improve.”

Dr. Smilowitz said he’s also perplexed as to why adoption would be lower in women but that the findings echo those in other domains where women receive less intensive cardiovascular therapy.

“There’s no biological, really plausible, mechanism as to why the need for intravascular imaging would be lower and, particularly, because they showed in stent thrombosis, for example, where intravascular imaging is tremendously important, there were still sex differences,” he said. “So even with clear indications for imaging, women just received the optimal therapy less often than men. It’s disappointing.”

Dr. Smilowitz agreed that there may be a need to incorporate intravascular imaging into metrics, which are reported back to physicians, potentially even for comparisons with peers or regional rates to incentivize physicians to improve uptake.

“As a society, we’ve been quite slow to integrate intravascular imaging to guide PCI and we can do better,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A real-world analysis reveals that women are consistently less likely to undergo intracoronary imaging as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though it benefits both sexes equally.

Results from nearly all PCIs performed in England and Wales between 2006 and 2019 showed the absolute rate of intracoronary imaging with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was 5% lower in the later study years among women at 14.5%, compared with 19.6% in men (P < .001).

After adjustment, female sex was an independent predictor of lower intracoronary imaging use (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96), according to the study, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“One of the thoughts I had when we were running this analysis was, well, maybe the indications for that imaging, as recommended by guidelines, are less common in women,” Mamas Mamas, MD, told this news organization. “So what we did was to look at just cases where imaging is recommended by the EAPCI [European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention].”

Again, the use of intracoronary imaging was consistently lower among women than among men for all of the following EAPCI-recommended indications:

• Acute coronary syndrome: 11.6% vs. 12.3% (P < .01).
• Stent thrombosis: 30.9% vs. 34.9% (P < .01).
• Long lesions: 13.1% vs. 16.3% (P < .01).
• Chronic total occlusions: 16.2% vs. 18.3% (P < .01).
• Left main stem PCI: 55.1% vs. 57.5% (P < .01).
• In-stent restenosis: 28.0% vs. 30.7%.
• Calcified lesions: 36.6% vs. 40.1% (P < .01).
• Renal disease: 17.4% vs. 19.5% (P < .01).

As to what might be driving the lower use, Dr. Mamas dismissed the argument that women undergo much simpler PCI, which wouldn’t benefit from imaging. Women do have smaller coronary arteries, however, and there is a belief that it’s easier to eyeball the size of vessels that are smaller rather than larger.

“I’m not convinced that’s entirely true,” he said. “I don’t have a good answer for you, I’m afraid. I don’t really know why we’re seeing it. I just think it’s one of those disparities that is important to highlight.”

Central to this belief is that the benefits of intracoronary imaging were found to be similar in men and women. Intracoronary imaging was associated with lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) in women and men (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.44-0.53 and OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80, respectively), compared with nonimaging groups.

“This really should be a call to arms, particularly given that we show this disparity persists, even in guideline-recommended cases where we should be using it,” said Dr. Mamas, from the Keele (England) Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, and Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, England.

“Actually, I would argue that we should be using more imaging in women than men anyway because many of the presentations for acute coronary syndromes in women, like spontaneous coronary artery dissection or MINOCA [MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries], you often need intracoronary imaging to make that kind of diagnosis,” he observed.
 

Getting worse, not better

Previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men in acute coronary syndromes to receive the transradial approach and P2Y12 inhibitors, but none have specifically looked at intracoronary imaging, Dr. Mamas said.

To fill the gap, the researchers drew on data from 994,478 patients in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry, of whom, 8.4% of 738,616 men and 7.9% of 255,862 women received intracoronary imaging.

Women in the imaging group were older, more likely to be an ethnic minority, and more likely to undergo PCI for non–ST-segment elevation MI than their male counterparts.

One of the more surprising findings was that rates of IVUS and OCT were superimposable between the sexes at the start of the study but quickly diverged starting in around 2012, when the technology took off, Dr. Mamas said. In the most recent data, use was about 3% lower in women overall and rising to 6% in those with stable angina.

“Whilst the disparities between men and women are significant, the bigger question is why are we using so little imaging in guideline-recommended cases where there is a benefit?” he said.

Possible actionable items, he suggested, include providing older physicians who didn’t have access to intracoronary imaging during their training with opportunities in their cath lab or with industry sponsors to increase their skills and confidence. Intracoronary imaging use could also be routinely captured in U.S. and European PCI registries and used as a quality metric.

“In left main, you see a massive difference between centers, and that’s the kind of data that drives discussion,” Dr. Mamas said. “If we start reporting quality metrics, such as radial use, intracoronary imaging, P2Y12 inhibitors by center, then you’ve got something to benchmark centers against.”

Nathaniel Smilowitz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at New York Langone Health, who was not associated with the study, said that it’s troubling to see that the utilization intravascular imaging is so low, despite randomized trials and large meta-analyses showing a mortality benefit associated with its use in PCI.

“Even among men, only 19.6% in the later years were getting intravascular imaging performed to guide their coronary intervention, so one out of five,” he said. “There are opportunities to improve.”

Dr. Smilowitz said he’s also perplexed as to why adoption would be lower in women but that the findings echo those in other domains where women receive less intensive cardiovascular therapy.

“There’s no biological, really plausible, mechanism as to why the need for intravascular imaging would be lower and, particularly, because they showed in stent thrombosis, for example, where intravascular imaging is tremendously important, there were still sex differences,” he said. “So even with clear indications for imaging, women just received the optimal therapy less often than men. It’s disappointing.”

Dr. Smilowitz agreed that there may be a need to incorporate intravascular imaging into metrics, which are reported back to physicians, potentially even for comparisons with peers or regional rates to incentivize physicians to improve uptake.

“As a society, we’ve been quite slow to integrate intravascular imaging to guide PCI and we can do better,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A real-world analysis reveals that women are consistently less likely to undergo intracoronary imaging as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though it benefits both sexes equally.

Results from nearly all PCIs performed in England and Wales between 2006 and 2019 showed the absolute rate of intracoronary imaging with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was 5% lower in the later study years among women at 14.5%, compared with 19.6% in men (P < .001).

After adjustment, female sex was an independent predictor of lower intracoronary imaging use (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96), according to the study, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“One of the thoughts I had when we were running this analysis was, well, maybe the indications for that imaging, as recommended by guidelines, are less common in women,” Mamas Mamas, MD, told this news organization. “So what we did was to look at just cases where imaging is recommended by the EAPCI [European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention].”

Again, the use of intracoronary imaging was consistently lower among women than among men for all of the following EAPCI-recommended indications:

• Acute coronary syndrome: 11.6% vs. 12.3% (P < .01).
• Stent thrombosis: 30.9% vs. 34.9% (P < .01).
• Long lesions: 13.1% vs. 16.3% (P < .01).
• Chronic total occlusions: 16.2% vs. 18.3% (P < .01).
• Left main stem PCI: 55.1% vs. 57.5% (P < .01).
• In-stent restenosis: 28.0% vs. 30.7%.
• Calcified lesions: 36.6% vs. 40.1% (P < .01).
• Renal disease: 17.4% vs. 19.5% (P < .01).

As to what might be driving the lower use, Dr. Mamas dismissed the argument that women undergo much simpler PCI, which wouldn’t benefit from imaging. Women do have smaller coronary arteries, however, and there is a belief that it’s easier to eyeball the size of vessels that are smaller rather than larger.

“I’m not convinced that’s entirely true,” he said. “I don’t have a good answer for you, I’m afraid. I don’t really know why we’re seeing it. I just think it’s one of those disparities that is important to highlight.”

Central to this belief is that the benefits of intracoronary imaging were found to be similar in men and women. Intracoronary imaging was associated with lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) in women and men (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.44-0.53 and OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80, respectively), compared with nonimaging groups.

“This really should be a call to arms, particularly given that we show this disparity persists, even in guideline-recommended cases where we should be using it,” said Dr. Mamas, from the Keele (England) Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, and Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, England.

“Actually, I would argue that we should be using more imaging in women than men anyway because many of the presentations for acute coronary syndromes in women, like spontaneous coronary artery dissection or MINOCA [MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries], you often need intracoronary imaging to make that kind of diagnosis,” he observed.
 

Getting worse, not better

Previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men in acute coronary syndromes to receive the transradial approach and P2Y12 inhibitors, but none have specifically looked at intracoronary imaging, Dr. Mamas said.

To fill the gap, the researchers drew on data from 994,478 patients in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry, of whom, 8.4% of 738,616 men and 7.9% of 255,862 women received intracoronary imaging.

Women in the imaging group were older, more likely to be an ethnic minority, and more likely to undergo PCI for non–ST-segment elevation MI than their male counterparts.

One of the more surprising findings was that rates of IVUS and OCT were superimposable between the sexes at the start of the study but quickly diverged starting in around 2012, when the technology took off, Dr. Mamas said. In the most recent data, use was about 3% lower in women overall and rising to 6% in those with stable angina.

“Whilst the disparities between men and women are significant, the bigger question is why are we using so little imaging in guideline-recommended cases where there is a benefit?” he said.

Possible actionable items, he suggested, include providing older physicians who didn’t have access to intracoronary imaging during their training with opportunities in their cath lab or with industry sponsors to increase their skills and confidence. Intracoronary imaging use could also be routinely captured in U.S. and European PCI registries and used as a quality metric.

“In left main, you see a massive difference between centers, and that’s the kind of data that drives discussion,” Dr. Mamas said. “If we start reporting quality metrics, such as radial use, intracoronary imaging, P2Y12 inhibitors by center, then you’ve got something to benchmark centers against.”

Nathaniel Smilowitz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at New York Langone Health, who was not associated with the study, said that it’s troubling to see that the utilization intravascular imaging is so low, despite randomized trials and large meta-analyses showing a mortality benefit associated with its use in PCI.

“Even among men, only 19.6% in the later years were getting intravascular imaging performed to guide their coronary intervention, so one out of five,” he said. “There are opportunities to improve.”

Dr. Smilowitz said he’s also perplexed as to why adoption would be lower in women but that the findings echo those in other domains where women receive less intensive cardiovascular therapy.

“There’s no biological, really plausible, mechanism as to why the need for intravascular imaging would be lower and, particularly, because they showed in stent thrombosis, for example, where intravascular imaging is tremendously important, there were still sex differences,” he said. “So even with clear indications for imaging, women just received the optimal therapy less often than men. It’s disappointing.”

Dr. Smilowitz agreed that there may be a need to incorporate intravascular imaging into metrics, which are reported back to physicians, potentially even for comparisons with peers or regional rates to incentivize physicians to improve uptake.

“As a society, we’ve been quite slow to integrate intravascular imaging to guide PCI and we can do better,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Provocation testing with intracoronary acetylcholine is safe, particularly among Western patients, suggests a large systematic review that underscores the importance of functional coronary angiography to diagnose epicardial or microvascular spasm.

The results, derived from more than 12,000 patients in 16 studies, showed a 0.5% risk of major complications, defined as death, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and shock requiring resuscitation.

Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation were the most common events and mainly reported from two Japanese studies. There were no deaths.

Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed significantly fewer major complications in Western populations (0.0%; P for heterogeneity = .938), compared with Asian populations (2.3%; P for heterogeneity < .001).

The pooled positive vasospasm rate was also lower in Western versus Asian studies (37.9% vs. 50.7%; P for between-group heterogeneity = .010), as reported by the Microvascular Network in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“If you look at the data between Asian studies versus others, mainly European or U.S. studies, primarily in Caucasian populations, it’s like zero percent history of major complications. So, it sounds extremely safe to do this testing in Caucasian populations,” Yuhei Kobayashi, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, said.

Safety will need to be assessed in African Americans and other racial/ethnic groups, but “it makes us think we should end up testing more in the United States,” he told this news organization.

Intracoronary acetylcholine testing is daily practice in Japan but is limited in the United States and Europe to a few specialized centers due to safety concerns. Three deaths were reported in 1980 with intravenous ergonovine testing, whereas the safety of acetylcholine protocols has been studied largely in single-center retrospective studies, typically in Asian populations.

Growing recognition of myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA), however, is changing the landscape. In recent U.S. and European guidelines, intracoronary acetylcholine testing is indicated as a class 2a recommendation in MINOCA/INOCA.

“More and more institutions in Europe and the United States are starting to do acetylcholine testing, because now we know that chest pain isn’t necessarily coming from the blocked arteries,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “There are functional abnormalities, including coronary spasm, and if we diagnose it, we have appropriate medical regimens for this kind of disease.”
 

First safety meta-analysis

The present review and meta-analysis included 12,585 participants in 16 studies through November 2021. Of these, 63% were conducted in Western countries, and most were prospective studies published over the past decade in patients with MINOCA or INOCA.

Ten studies used the contemporary diagnostic criteria for epicardial spasm of at least 90% reduction in coronary diameter. Acetylcholine was administered into the left coronary artery at up to 100 mcg and 200 mcg in seven and six studies, respectively, and was used in the other three studies to assess endothelial function with a slower infusion of up to 36.4 mcg.

Major complications were significantly higher in studies following the contemporary diagnostic cutoff than in those using a lower cutoff of at least 75% diameter reduction (1.0% vs. 0.0%; P for between-group heterogeneity < .001).

The incidence of major complications was 0.2% with the slower infusion of up to 36.4 mcg, 0.8% with a maximum dose of 100 mcg, and 0.3% with a maximum dose of 200 mcg. The positive vasospasm rate was similar with the latter two protocols, at 46.3% and 41.4%, respectively.

Minor complications occurred in 3.3% of patients but were not detailed. They can include paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, ventricular ectopic beats, transient hypotension, and bradycardia requiring intervention.

As with major complications, minor complications were lower in studies using noncontemporary versus contemporary diagnostic cutoffs for epicardial spasm (1.8% vs. 4.7%) and in Western versus Asian populations (2.6% vs. 9.4%). Minor complications were similar between protocols with maximum doses of 100 mcg and 200 mcg (3.6% vs. 3.8%).

Dr. Kobayashi suggested that several factors may explain the racial differences, including previously reported smooth muscle hyperresponsiveness to provocation stimuli in Japanese patients and the inclusion of a wide range of patients in Japanese studies, such as those with obstructive coronary disease.

Japanese studies also used sequential acetylcholine injection into both the right and left coronaries, a faster injection speed of 20 seconds, and upfront placement of a temporary pacing catheter in case of acetylcholine-induced bradycardia, particularly with right coronary injection.

Although the protocol is largely settled in Japan, he said, provocation protocols need to be standardized because “depending on the country and depending on the institution, people are doing totally different things.”
 

A big step forward

Commenting on the study, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, from Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, said it has “widespread relevance” because half of all coronary angiograms done invasively in the United States for suspected ischemia find no obstructive coronary disease. Left untreated, however, MINOCA has a 2.5% annual event rate, and a quarter of that is death.

“This is a big step forward with likely equal opportunity to improve women and men’s ischemic heart disease,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Provocation testing with intracoronary acetylcholine is safe, particularly among Western patients, suggests a large systematic review that underscores the importance of functional coronary angiography to diagnose epicardial or microvascular spasm.

The results, derived from more than 12,000 patients in 16 studies, showed a 0.5% risk of major complications, defined as death, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and shock requiring resuscitation.

Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation were the most common events and mainly reported from two Japanese studies. There were no deaths.

Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed significantly fewer major complications in Western populations (0.0%; P for heterogeneity = .938), compared with Asian populations (2.3%; P for heterogeneity < .001).

The pooled positive vasospasm rate was also lower in Western versus Asian studies (37.9% vs. 50.7%; P for between-group heterogeneity = .010), as reported by the Microvascular Network in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“If you look at the data between Asian studies versus others, mainly European or U.S. studies, primarily in Caucasian populations, it’s like zero percent history of major complications. So, it sounds extremely safe to do this testing in Caucasian populations,” Yuhei Kobayashi, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, said.

Safety will need to be assessed in African Americans and other racial/ethnic groups, but “it makes us think we should end up testing more in the United States,” he told this news organization.

Intracoronary acetylcholine testing is daily practice in Japan but is limited in the United States and Europe to a few specialized centers due to safety concerns. Three deaths were reported in 1980 with intravenous ergonovine testing, whereas the safety of acetylcholine protocols has been studied largely in single-center retrospective studies, typically in Asian populations.

Growing recognition of myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA), however, is changing the landscape. In recent U.S. and European guidelines, intracoronary acetylcholine testing is indicated as a class 2a recommendation in MINOCA/INOCA.

“More and more institutions in Europe and the United States are starting to do acetylcholine testing, because now we know that chest pain isn’t necessarily coming from the blocked arteries,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “There are functional abnormalities, including coronary spasm, and if we diagnose it, we have appropriate medical regimens for this kind of disease.”
 

First safety meta-analysis

The present review and meta-analysis included 12,585 participants in 16 studies through November 2021. Of these, 63% were conducted in Western countries, and most were prospective studies published over the past decade in patients with MINOCA or INOCA.

Ten studies used the contemporary diagnostic criteria for epicardial spasm of at least 90% reduction in coronary diameter. Acetylcholine was administered into the left coronary artery at up to 100 mcg and 200 mcg in seven and six studies, respectively, and was used in the other three studies to assess endothelial function with a slower infusion of up to 36.4 mcg.

Major complications were significantly higher in studies following the contemporary diagnostic cutoff than in those using a lower cutoff of at least 75% diameter reduction (1.0% vs. 0.0%; P for between-group heterogeneity < .001).

The incidence of major complications was 0.2% with the slower infusion of up to 36.4 mcg, 0.8% with a maximum dose of 100 mcg, and 0.3% with a maximum dose of 200 mcg. The positive vasospasm rate was similar with the latter two protocols, at 46.3% and 41.4%, respectively.

Minor complications occurred in 3.3% of patients but were not detailed. They can include paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, ventricular ectopic beats, transient hypotension, and bradycardia requiring intervention.

As with major complications, minor complications were lower in studies using noncontemporary versus contemporary diagnostic cutoffs for epicardial spasm (1.8% vs. 4.7%) and in Western versus Asian populations (2.6% vs. 9.4%). Minor complications were similar between protocols with maximum doses of 100 mcg and 200 mcg (3.6% vs. 3.8%).

Dr. Kobayashi suggested that several factors may explain the racial differences, including previously reported smooth muscle hyperresponsiveness to provocation stimuli in Japanese patients and the inclusion of a wide range of patients in Japanese studies, such as those with obstructive coronary disease.

Japanese studies also used sequential acetylcholine injection into both the right and left coronaries, a faster injection speed of 20 seconds, and upfront placement of a temporary pacing catheter in case of acetylcholine-induced bradycardia, particularly with right coronary injection.

Although the protocol is largely settled in Japan, he said, provocation protocols need to be standardized because “depending on the country and depending on the institution, people are doing totally different things.”
 

A big step forward

Commenting on the study, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, from Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, said it has “widespread relevance” because half of all coronary angiograms done invasively in the United States for suspected ischemia find no obstructive coronary disease. Left untreated, however, MINOCA has a 2.5% annual event rate, and a quarter of that is death.

“This is a big step forward with likely equal opportunity to improve women and men’s ischemic heart disease,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Provocation testing with intracoronary acetylcholine is safe, particularly among Western patients, suggests a large systematic review that underscores the importance of functional coronary angiography to diagnose epicardial or microvascular spasm.

The results, derived from more than 12,000 patients in 16 studies, showed a 0.5% risk of major complications, defined as death, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and shock requiring resuscitation.

Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation were the most common events and mainly reported from two Japanese studies. There were no deaths.

Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed significantly fewer major complications in Western populations (0.0%; P for heterogeneity = .938), compared with Asian populations (2.3%; P for heterogeneity < .001).

The pooled positive vasospasm rate was also lower in Western versus Asian studies (37.9% vs. 50.7%; P for between-group heterogeneity = .010), as reported by the Microvascular Network in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“If you look at the data between Asian studies versus others, mainly European or U.S. studies, primarily in Caucasian populations, it’s like zero percent history of major complications. So, it sounds extremely safe to do this testing in Caucasian populations,” Yuhei Kobayashi, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, said.

Safety will need to be assessed in African Americans and other racial/ethnic groups, but “it makes us think we should end up testing more in the United States,” he told this news organization.

Intracoronary acetylcholine testing is daily practice in Japan but is limited in the United States and Europe to a few specialized centers due to safety concerns. Three deaths were reported in 1980 with intravenous ergonovine testing, whereas the safety of acetylcholine protocols has been studied largely in single-center retrospective studies, typically in Asian populations.

Growing recognition of myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA), however, is changing the landscape. In recent U.S. and European guidelines, intracoronary acetylcholine testing is indicated as a class 2a recommendation in MINOCA/INOCA.

“More and more institutions in Europe and the United States are starting to do acetylcholine testing, because now we know that chest pain isn’t necessarily coming from the blocked arteries,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “There are functional abnormalities, including coronary spasm, and if we diagnose it, we have appropriate medical regimens for this kind of disease.”
 

First safety meta-analysis

The present review and meta-analysis included 12,585 participants in 16 studies through November 2021. Of these, 63% were conducted in Western countries, and most were prospective studies published over the past decade in patients with MINOCA or INOCA.

Ten studies used the contemporary diagnostic criteria for epicardial spasm of at least 90% reduction in coronary diameter. Acetylcholine was administered into the left coronary artery at up to 100 mcg and 200 mcg in seven and six studies, respectively, and was used in the other three studies to assess endothelial function with a slower infusion of up to 36.4 mcg.

Major complications were significantly higher in studies following the contemporary diagnostic cutoff than in those using a lower cutoff of at least 75% diameter reduction (1.0% vs. 0.0%; P for between-group heterogeneity < .001).

The incidence of major complications was 0.2% with the slower infusion of up to 36.4 mcg, 0.8% with a maximum dose of 100 mcg, and 0.3% with a maximum dose of 200 mcg. The positive vasospasm rate was similar with the latter two protocols, at 46.3% and 41.4%, respectively.

Minor complications occurred in 3.3% of patients but were not detailed. They can include paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, ventricular ectopic beats, transient hypotension, and bradycardia requiring intervention.

As with major complications, minor complications were lower in studies using noncontemporary versus contemporary diagnostic cutoffs for epicardial spasm (1.8% vs. 4.7%) and in Western versus Asian populations (2.6% vs. 9.4%). Minor complications were similar between protocols with maximum doses of 100 mcg and 200 mcg (3.6% vs. 3.8%).

Dr. Kobayashi suggested that several factors may explain the racial differences, including previously reported smooth muscle hyperresponsiveness to provocation stimuli in Japanese patients and the inclusion of a wide range of patients in Japanese studies, such as those with obstructive coronary disease.

Japanese studies also used sequential acetylcholine injection into both the right and left coronaries, a faster injection speed of 20 seconds, and upfront placement of a temporary pacing catheter in case of acetylcholine-induced bradycardia, particularly with right coronary injection.

Although the protocol is largely settled in Japan, he said, provocation protocols need to be standardized because “depending on the country and depending on the institution, people are doing totally different things.”
 

A big step forward

Commenting on the study, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, from Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, said it has “widespread relevance” because half of all coronary angiograms done invasively in the United States for suspected ischemia find no obstructive coronary disease. Left untreated, however, MINOCA has a 2.5% annual event rate, and a quarter of that is death.

“This is a big step forward with likely equal opportunity to improve women and men’s ischemic heart disease,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.

Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.

As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.

The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.

Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.

For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published  in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).

The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.

The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.

“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”

Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.

The bigger issue

Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.

The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.

Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.

“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”

Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.

Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.

“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”

ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”

He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.

“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”

Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”

“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”

“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Distal radial access is not superior to conventional radial access with regard to radial artery occlusion (RAO) but is a valid alternative for use in percutaneous procedures, according to results of the DISCO RADIAL trial.

The primary endpoint of forearm RAO at discharge was not met, occurring in 0.31% of patients whose radial artery was accessed distally (DRA) at the anatomical snuffbox and in 0.91% of patients with conventional transradial access (TRA) in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = .29).

The DRA group was also twice as likely to crossover to another access point (7.5% vs. 3.7%; P = .002) and to experience radial artery spasm (5.4% vs. 2.7%; P < .015).

“The message first is that if you do a good job with transradial access you can end up with a lower [occlusion] rate,” said coprincipal investigator Adel Aminian, MD, Hôpital Civil Marie Curie, Charleroi, Belgium. “On the other hand, it’s a trade-off between a more demanding puncture for distal radial access but also a simpler hemostatic process, which I think is one of the main advantages of distal radial access.”

The results were presented during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

DISCO-RADIAL (Distal Versus Conventional RADIAL Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention) is the largest trial thus far to compare TRA with the distal radial snuffbox technique, which has shown promise for reducing RAO rates in the recent single-center randomized DAPRAO and ANGIE trials.

The trial was conducted at 15 sites across Europe and Japan in 1,309 patients with an indication for percutaneous coronary procedures using the 6Fr Glidesheath Slender (Terumo). The intention-to-treat population included 657 TRA patients and 650 DRA patients.

The two groups were well matched, with most having a chronic coronary syndrome. Operators had to have performed a minimum of 100 procedures by DRA and follow systematic best practices previously reported by the investigators to prevent RAO, Dr. Aminian said.

The use of DRA did not significantly affect the duration of the coronary procedure (27 minutes vs. 24 minutes with TRA; P = .12) or average radiation dose (1298 mGy vs. 1222 mGy; P = .70).

DRA, however, reduced the need for selective compression devices (88% vs. 99.2%) and shortened the median time to hemostasis from 180 minutes to 153 minutes (P for both < .001).

“These results establish compliance to best practice recommendations for RAO avoidance as a mandatory new reference in transradial practice,” Dr. Aminian concluded. “At the same time, distal radial artery arises as a valid alternative associated with higher crossover rates but with a simpler and shorter hemostasis process.”

A show of hands revealed that about 25% of the audience used distal radial access prior to the presentation but that enthusiasm fell off following the results.

Discussant Hany Eteiba, MD, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said: “I salute your enthusiasm for presenting a negative trial and you tried to persuade the audience to use the distal radial artery results, but nonetheless.”

Dr. Eteiba said he could see a “potential advantage in the shorter hemostasis time,” and asked whether it might be influencing the rapid turnover for day-case angioplasty.

Dr. Aminian responded that “if you do an angioplasty you have to keep the patient for a certain amount of time, but I think for your nurse work and for the health care resources, having a very short hemostasis time is very interesting. We started with a hemostasis time of 2 hours and now we’ve decreased it to 1 hour and it will decrease even more.”

Session moderator Chaim Lotan, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, called DISCO-RADIAL an important study and said, “the question now is what’s the indication in your eyes for using distal radial?”

Dr. Aminian said that one message from the trial is that people who are using transradial access “have to do a better job,” and reminded the audience that RAO rates at many centers are too high, at 10% or upward.

At the same time, Dr. Aminian cautioned that operators wanting to use distal radial access “need to master the technique” or they will “end up with a relatively high failure rate.”

Discussant Eliano Navarese, MD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland, said, “I still think that it is a very valid approach, we use it for almost 20 years ... but it is very true, it is very demanding. And the learning curve of 100 cases in the trial maybe needed more cases.”

In an accompanying editorial, Grigorios Tsigkas, MD, PhD, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece, and colleagues wrote that the incidence of forearm RAO was “surprisingly low” but could be even lower if the authors administered adequate anticoagulation.

Still, they wrote that distal transradial access “for coronary procedures in combination with the systematic implementation of best practices for RAO prevention may be the final solution against RAO.”

The editorialists suggested that exposure to radiation could be the “main limitation of this novel vascular approach” and that forthcoming trials, such as DOSE, could shed light on this issue.

Increased procedure times in the DISCO RADIAL and ANGIE trials are secondary in stable patients, Dr. Tsigkas said, but could be a limitation in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Ongoing research, such as the RESERVE trial from China and a Korean trial, will provide insights into the safety and feasibility of distal transradial access in STEMI.

The study was supported by Terumo Europe. Dr. Aminian reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Terumo Interventional Systems. Dr. Tsigkas reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Distal radial access is not superior to conventional radial access with regard to radial artery occlusion (RAO) but is a valid alternative for use in percutaneous procedures, according to results of the DISCO RADIAL trial.

The primary endpoint of forearm RAO at discharge was not met, occurring in 0.31% of patients whose radial artery was accessed distally (DRA) at the anatomical snuffbox and in 0.91% of patients with conventional transradial access (TRA) in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = .29).

The DRA group was also twice as likely to crossover to another access point (7.5% vs. 3.7%; P = .002) and to experience radial artery spasm (5.4% vs. 2.7%; P < .015).

“The message first is that if you do a good job with transradial access you can end up with a lower [occlusion] rate,” said coprincipal investigator Adel Aminian, MD, Hôpital Civil Marie Curie, Charleroi, Belgium. “On the other hand, it’s a trade-off between a more demanding puncture for distal radial access but also a simpler hemostatic process, which I think is one of the main advantages of distal radial access.”

The results were presented during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

DISCO-RADIAL (Distal Versus Conventional RADIAL Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention) is the largest trial thus far to compare TRA with the distal radial snuffbox technique, which has shown promise for reducing RAO rates in the recent single-center randomized DAPRAO and ANGIE trials.

The trial was conducted at 15 sites across Europe and Japan in 1,309 patients with an indication for percutaneous coronary procedures using the 6Fr Glidesheath Slender (Terumo). The intention-to-treat population included 657 TRA patients and 650 DRA patients.

The two groups were well matched, with most having a chronic coronary syndrome. Operators had to have performed a minimum of 100 procedures by DRA and follow systematic best practices previously reported by the investigators to prevent RAO, Dr. Aminian said.

The use of DRA did not significantly affect the duration of the coronary procedure (27 minutes vs. 24 minutes with TRA; P = .12) or average radiation dose (1298 mGy vs. 1222 mGy; P = .70).

DRA, however, reduced the need for selective compression devices (88% vs. 99.2%) and shortened the median time to hemostasis from 180 minutes to 153 minutes (P for both < .001).

“These results establish compliance to best practice recommendations for RAO avoidance as a mandatory new reference in transradial practice,” Dr. Aminian concluded. “At the same time, distal radial artery arises as a valid alternative associated with higher crossover rates but with a simpler and shorter hemostasis process.”

A show of hands revealed that about 25% of the audience used distal radial access prior to the presentation but that enthusiasm fell off following the results.

Discussant Hany Eteiba, MD, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said: “I salute your enthusiasm for presenting a negative trial and you tried to persuade the audience to use the distal radial artery results, but nonetheless.”

Dr. Eteiba said he could see a “potential advantage in the shorter hemostasis time,” and asked whether it might be influencing the rapid turnover for day-case angioplasty.

Dr. Aminian responded that “if you do an angioplasty you have to keep the patient for a certain amount of time, but I think for your nurse work and for the health care resources, having a very short hemostasis time is very interesting. We started with a hemostasis time of 2 hours and now we’ve decreased it to 1 hour and it will decrease even more.”

Session moderator Chaim Lotan, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, called DISCO-RADIAL an important study and said, “the question now is what’s the indication in your eyes for using distal radial?”

Dr. Aminian said that one message from the trial is that people who are using transradial access “have to do a better job,” and reminded the audience that RAO rates at many centers are too high, at 10% or upward.

At the same time, Dr. Aminian cautioned that operators wanting to use distal radial access “need to master the technique” or they will “end up with a relatively high failure rate.”

Discussant Eliano Navarese, MD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland, said, “I still think that it is a very valid approach, we use it for almost 20 years ... but it is very true, it is very demanding. And the learning curve of 100 cases in the trial maybe needed more cases.”

In an accompanying editorial, Grigorios Tsigkas, MD, PhD, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece, and colleagues wrote that the incidence of forearm RAO was “surprisingly low” but could be even lower if the authors administered adequate anticoagulation.

Still, they wrote that distal transradial access “for coronary procedures in combination with the systematic implementation of best practices for RAO prevention may be the final solution against RAO.”

The editorialists suggested that exposure to radiation could be the “main limitation of this novel vascular approach” and that forthcoming trials, such as DOSE, could shed light on this issue.

Increased procedure times in the DISCO RADIAL and ANGIE trials are secondary in stable patients, Dr. Tsigkas said, but could be a limitation in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Ongoing research, such as the RESERVE trial from China and a Korean trial, will provide insights into the safety and feasibility of distal transradial access in STEMI.

The study was supported by Terumo Europe. Dr. Aminian reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Terumo Interventional Systems. Dr. Tsigkas reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Distal radial access is not superior to conventional radial access with regard to radial artery occlusion (RAO) but is a valid alternative for use in percutaneous procedures, according to results of the DISCO RADIAL trial.

The primary endpoint of forearm RAO at discharge was not met, occurring in 0.31% of patients whose radial artery was accessed distally (DRA) at the anatomical snuffbox and in 0.91% of patients with conventional transradial access (TRA) in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = .29).

The DRA group was also twice as likely to crossover to another access point (7.5% vs. 3.7%; P = .002) and to experience radial artery spasm (5.4% vs. 2.7%; P < .015).

“The message first is that if you do a good job with transradial access you can end up with a lower [occlusion] rate,” said coprincipal investigator Adel Aminian, MD, Hôpital Civil Marie Curie, Charleroi, Belgium. “On the other hand, it’s a trade-off between a more demanding puncture for distal radial access but also a simpler hemostatic process, which I think is one of the main advantages of distal radial access.”

The results were presented during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

DISCO-RADIAL (Distal Versus Conventional RADIAL Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention) is the largest trial thus far to compare TRA with the distal radial snuffbox technique, which has shown promise for reducing RAO rates in the recent single-center randomized DAPRAO and ANGIE trials.

The trial was conducted at 15 sites across Europe and Japan in 1,309 patients with an indication for percutaneous coronary procedures using the 6Fr Glidesheath Slender (Terumo). The intention-to-treat population included 657 TRA patients and 650 DRA patients.

The two groups were well matched, with most having a chronic coronary syndrome. Operators had to have performed a minimum of 100 procedures by DRA and follow systematic best practices previously reported by the investigators to prevent RAO, Dr. Aminian said.

The use of DRA did not significantly affect the duration of the coronary procedure (27 minutes vs. 24 minutes with TRA; P = .12) or average radiation dose (1298 mGy vs. 1222 mGy; P = .70).

DRA, however, reduced the need for selective compression devices (88% vs. 99.2%) and shortened the median time to hemostasis from 180 minutes to 153 minutes (P for both < .001).

“These results establish compliance to best practice recommendations for RAO avoidance as a mandatory new reference in transradial practice,” Dr. Aminian concluded. “At the same time, distal radial artery arises as a valid alternative associated with higher crossover rates but with a simpler and shorter hemostasis process.”

A show of hands revealed that about 25% of the audience used distal radial access prior to the presentation but that enthusiasm fell off following the results.

Discussant Hany Eteiba, MD, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said: “I salute your enthusiasm for presenting a negative trial and you tried to persuade the audience to use the distal radial artery results, but nonetheless.”

Dr. Eteiba said he could see a “potential advantage in the shorter hemostasis time,” and asked whether it might be influencing the rapid turnover for day-case angioplasty.

Dr. Aminian responded that “if you do an angioplasty you have to keep the patient for a certain amount of time, but I think for your nurse work and for the health care resources, having a very short hemostasis time is very interesting. We started with a hemostasis time of 2 hours and now we’ve decreased it to 1 hour and it will decrease even more.”

Session moderator Chaim Lotan, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, called DISCO-RADIAL an important study and said, “the question now is what’s the indication in your eyes for using distal radial?”

Dr. Aminian said that one message from the trial is that people who are using transradial access “have to do a better job,” and reminded the audience that RAO rates at many centers are too high, at 10% or upward.

At the same time, Dr. Aminian cautioned that operators wanting to use distal radial access “need to master the technique” or they will “end up with a relatively high failure rate.”

Discussant Eliano Navarese, MD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland, said, “I still think that it is a very valid approach, we use it for almost 20 years ... but it is very true, it is very demanding. And the learning curve of 100 cases in the trial maybe needed more cases.”

In an accompanying editorial, Grigorios Tsigkas, MD, PhD, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece, and colleagues wrote that the incidence of forearm RAO was “surprisingly low” but could be even lower if the authors administered adequate anticoagulation.

Still, they wrote that distal transradial access “for coronary procedures in combination with the systematic implementation of best practices for RAO prevention may be the final solution against RAO.”

The editorialists suggested that exposure to radiation could be the “main limitation of this novel vascular approach” and that forthcoming trials, such as DOSE, could shed light on this issue.

Increased procedure times in the DISCO RADIAL and ANGIE trials are secondary in stable patients, Dr. Tsigkas said, but could be a limitation in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Ongoing research, such as the RESERVE trial from China and a Korean trial, will provide insights into the safety and feasibility of distal transradial access in STEMI.

The study was supported by Terumo Europe. Dr. Aminian reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Terumo Interventional Systems. Dr. Tsigkas reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the Onyx Frontier drug-eluting stent (DES) to treat patients with coronary artery disease, the device manufacturer, Medtronic, announced today.

The Onyx Frontier shares the same stent platform and clinical indications as the previous-generation Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent, including the most recent approval for patients at high risk of bleeding who may benefit from just 1 month dual-antiplatelet therapy.

“Meaningful design changes, including increased catheter flexibility, an innovative dual-layer balloon technology and a lower crossing profile led to a 16% improvement in deliverability with Onyx Frontier vs. the previous generation Resolute Onyx DES,” Medtronic said in a news release.

Onyx Frontier also offers a broad size matrix to treat more patients, and joins the Resolute Onyx as the only 2-mm DES available in the United States, the company noted. The stent is available in 4.5- to 5-mm sizes that can be expanded to 6 mm, specifically designed to support extra-large vessels.

The Onyx Frontier DES is pending CE Mark in Europe.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the Onyx Frontier drug-eluting stent (DES) to treat patients with coronary artery disease, the device manufacturer, Medtronic, announced today.

The Onyx Frontier shares the same stent platform and clinical indications as the previous-generation Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent, including the most recent approval for patients at high risk of bleeding who may benefit from just 1 month dual-antiplatelet therapy.

“Meaningful design changes, including increased catheter flexibility, an innovative dual-layer balloon technology and a lower crossing profile led to a 16% improvement in deliverability with Onyx Frontier vs. the previous generation Resolute Onyx DES,” Medtronic said in a news release.

Onyx Frontier also offers a broad size matrix to treat more patients, and joins the Resolute Onyx as the only 2-mm DES available in the United States, the company noted. The stent is available in 4.5- to 5-mm sizes that can be expanded to 6 mm, specifically designed to support extra-large vessels.

The Onyx Frontier DES is pending CE Mark in Europe.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the Onyx Frontier drug-eluting stent (DES) to treat patients with coronary artery disease, the device manufacturer, Medtronic, announced today.

The Onyx Frontier shares the same stent platform and clinical indications as the previous-generation Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent, including the most recent approval for patients at high risk of bleeding who may benefit from just 1 month dual-antiplatelet therapy.

“Meaningful design changes, including increased catheter flexibility, an innovative dual-layer balloon technology and a lower crossing profile led to a 16% improvement in deliverability with Onyx Frontier vs. the previous generation Resolute Onyx DES,” Medtronic said in a news release.

Onyx Frontier also offers a broad size matrix to treat more patients, and joins the Resolute Onyx as the only 2-mm DES available in the United States, the company noted. The stent is available in 4.5- to 5-mm sizes that can be expanded to 6 mm, specifically designed to support extra-large vessels.

The Onyx Frontier DES is pending CE Mark in Europe.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study finds clinicians are shifting away from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved combination of warfarin and aspirin after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device and that adverse events, particularly bleeding, are lower when aspirin is dropped.

Of 31,994 patients successfully implanted with the Watchman 2.5 device in the 3 years after its March 2015 approval, only 1 in 10 received the full postprocedure protocol studied in pivotal trials and codified into the FDA-device approval.

The protocol consisted of aspirin (81-325 mg) indefinitely and warfarin for 45 days. Following transesophageal echocardiography, patients were then maintained on warfarin and aspirin if there was a peridevice leak greater than 5 mm or switched to clopidogrel 75 mg for 6 months if a peridevice leak was ruled out or was 5 mm or less.

Based on the results, drawn from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry, the most common discharge medications were warfarin and aspirin in 36.9% of patients, followed by a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin alone (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (5%).

“There’s a little bit of practice leading the science in this space,” lead author James V. Freeman, MD, MPH, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Patients who couldn’t tolerate long-term anticoagulation were excluded from the pivotal trials but are now the patients in whom the device is most often used, because of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid reimbursement mandate for a relative or absolute contraindication to long-term anticoagulation, he noted.

Not surprisingly, 70% of patients in the registry had history of clinically relevant bleeding, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3. At an average age of 76, they were also older, by years, than those in the clinical trials.

Secular trends at the time also saw the ascendancy of the DOACs relative to warfarin, observed Dr. Freeman. “So I think it’s pretty reasonable for physicians to be considering DOACs rather than warfarin in this context.”
 

Aspirin takes another hit

Results, published May 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed that any adverse event occurred at 45 days in 5.7% of patients discharged on warfarin and aspirin, 4% on warfarin alone, 5.2% on DOAC and aspirin, 3.8% on DOAC only, and 5.5% on DAPT.

Rates of any major adverse event were 4.4%, 3.3%, 4.3%, 3.1%, and 4.2% respectively, and for major bleeding were 3%, 1.8%, 2.8%, 1.7%, and 2.2% respectively. Although patients were similar across treatment groups, those treated with DAPT were slightly older and had more comorbidities, Dr. Freeman said.

In Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event at 45 days was significantly lower when patients were discharged on warfarin alone (hazard ratio, 0.692; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.84) and a DOAC alone (HR, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), compared with warfarin and aspirin. There were no differences among the other groups.

The risk of any major adverse event was also significantly lower with warfarin alone (HR, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.53-0.80) and DOAC alone (HR, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98).

At 6 months, rates of any adverse event (HR, 0.814; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) and any major adverse event (HR, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) were significantly lower only in patients treated with warfarin alone.

“I think if there’s a take-home [message] here, it’s that for a lot of patients there’s good data now to suggest getting rid of the aspirin is a very reasonable thing to do,” Dr. Freeman said.

Further studies are needed in the space, but the results are consistent with those from transcatheter aortic valve replacement studies showing discharge on warfarin or DOAC anticoagulation alone reduces major adverse events without increasing thrombotic events, he said.

“I do think if there’s a strong indication for aspirin – someone has terrible coronary disease – there may be a role for using it,” Dr. Freeman said. But for a lot of these patients, anticoagulation alone without aspirin “may present a big opportunity to mitigate morbidity associated with this procedure.”

Dr. Freeman said he doesn’t expect the findings would be dramatically different with the second-generation Watchman FLX device but noted that randomized data will be forthcoming, as Boston Scientific changed the CHAMPION-AF trial protocol to include DOAC alone without aspirin.

Commenting for this news organization, Domenico Della Rocca, MD, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center, Austin, said the study is a useful overview of post-LAAO therapies in a large population – but not surprising.

“Practice has changed over the years. More and more we are adopting and trusting the DOACs,” he said. “And, we are realizing that dual antiplatelet therapy is so aggressive and antiplatelet therapy alone maybe is not the best choice based on data on activation of coagulation.”

Commenting further, he said “I think it’s too early to suggest being too keen to completely drop aspirin,” noting that 20%-25% of patients have clopidogrel resistance and that the combination of two antiplatelets may be too aggressive a strategy for others.

Dr. Della Rocca and colleagues recently reported favorable long-term results with half-dose DOAC therapy after Watchman implantation and said the team is launching a randomized trial in more than 500 LAAO patients in the United States and Europe later this year. The trial will be comparing a DOAC-based strategy with low-dose apixaban long-term versus clopidogrel and aspirin initially and then switching to 100 mg aspirin long-term.

“We hope that in the next 2-3 years we will have some better answers, but at this point I would say that clopidogrel is kind of an obsolete strategy for appendage closure,” Dr. Della Rocca said.

In an accompanying editorial, David R. Holmes Jr., MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., says “the cornucopia of these specific strategies can be expected to change as practices evolve, as instructions for use broaden and, hopefully, with the results of well-done, scientifically performed trials. This current LAAO Registry report, however, serves as a useful benchmark.”

He cautioned that this is an observational cohort study and that unmeasured imbalances still may affect the ability to identify an unbiased treatment signal. The use of DAPT was also infrequent during the study and “conclusions based on this information are soft.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) grants. Dr. Freeman has received salary support from the ACC NCDR and the NHLBI and has received consulting/advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biosense Webster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study finds clinicians are shifting away from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved combination of warfarin and aspirin after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device and that adverse events, particularly bleeding, are lower when aspirin is dropped.

Of 31,994 patients successfully implanted with the Watchman 2.5 device in the 3 years after its March 2015 approval, only 1 in 10 received the full postprocedure protocol studied in pivotal trials and codified into the FDA-device approval.

The protocol consisted of aspirin (81-325 mg) indefinitely and warfarin for 45 days. Following transesophageal echocardiography, patients were then maintained on warfarin and aspirin if there was a peridevice leak greater than 5 mm or switched to clopidogrel 75 mg for 6 months if a peridevice leak was ruled out or was 5 mm or less.

Based on the results, drawn from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry, the most common discharge medications were warfarin and aspirin in 36.9% of patients, followed by a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin alone (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (5%).

“There’s a little bit of practice leading the science in this space,” lead author James V. Freeman, MD, MPH, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Patients who couldn’t tolerate long-term anticoagulation were excluded from the pivotal trials but are now the patients in whom the device is most often used, because of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid reimbursement mandate for a relative or absolute contraindication to long-term anticoagulation, he noted.

Not surprisingly, 70% of patients in the registry had history of clinically relevant bleeding, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3. At an average age of 76, they were also older, by years, than those in the clinical trials.

Secular trends at the time also saw the ascendancy of the DOACs relative to warfarin, observed Dr. Freeman. “So I think it’s pretty reasonable for physicians to be considering DOACs rather than warfarin in this context.”
 

Aspirin takes another hit

Results, published May 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed that any adverse event occurred at 45 days in 5.7% of patients discharged on warfarin and aspirin, 4% on warfarin alone, 5.2% on DOAC and aspirin, 3.8% on DOAC only, and 5.5% on DAPT.

Rates of any major adverse event were 4.4%, 3.3%, 4.3%, 3.1%, and 4.2% respectively, and for major bleeding were 3%, 1.8%, 2.8%, 1.7%, and 2.2% respectively. Although patients were similar across treatment groups, those treated with DAPT were slightly older and had more comorbidities, Dr. Freeman said.

In Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event at 45 days was significantly lower when patients were discharged on warfarin alone (hazard ratio, 0.692; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.84) and a DOAC alone (HR, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), compared with warfarin and aspirin. There were no differences among the other groups.

The risk of any major adverse event was also significantly lower with warfarin alone (HR, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.53-0.80) and DOAC alone (HR, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98).

At 6 months, rates of any adverse event (HR, 0.814; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) and any major adverse event (HR, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) were significantly lower only in patients treated with warfarin alone.

“I think if there’s a take-home [message] here, it’s that for a lot of patients there’s good data now to suggest getting rid of the aspirin is a very reasonable thing to do,” Dr. Freeman said.

Further studies are needed in the space, but the results are consistent with those from transcatheter aortic valve replacement studies showing discharge on warfarin or DOAC anticoagulation alone reduces major adverse events without increasing thrombotic events, he said.

“I do think if there’s a strong indication for aspirin – someone has terrible coronary disease – there may be a role for using it,” Dr. Freeman said. But for a lot of these patients, anticoagulation alone without aspirin “may present a big opportunity to mitigate morbidity associated with this procedure.”

Dr. Freeman said he doesn’t expect the findings would be dramatically different with the second-generation Watchman FLX device but noted that randomized data will be forthcoming, as Boston Scientific changed the CHAMPION-AF trial protocol to include DOAC alone without aspirin.

Commenting for this news organization, Domenico Della Rocca, MD, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center, Austin, said the study is a useful overview of post-LAAO therapies in a large population – but not surprising.

“Practice has changed over the years. More and more we are adopting and trusting the DOACs,” he said. “And, we are realizing that dual antiplatelet therapy is so aggressive and antiplatelet therapy alone maybe is not the best choice based on data on activation of coagulation.”

Commenting further, he said “I think it’s too early to suggest being too keen to completely drop aspirin,” noting that 20%-25% of patients have clopidogrel resistance and that the combination of two antiplatelets may be too aggressive a strategy for others.

Dr. Della Rocca and colleagues recently reported favorable long-term results with half-dose DOAC therapy after Watchman implantation and said the team is launching a randomized trial in more than 500 LAAO patients in the United States and Europe later this year. The trial will be comparing a DOAC-based strategy with low-dose apixaban long-term versus clopidogrel and aspirin initially and then switching to 100 mg aspirin long-term.

“We hope that in the next 2-3 years we will have some better answers, but at this point I would say that clopidogrel is kind of an obsolete strategy for appendage closure,” Dr. Della Rocca said.

In an accompanying editorial, David R. Holmes Jr., MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., says “the cornucopia of these specific strategies can be expected to change as practices evolve, as instructions for use broaden and, hopefully, with the results of well-done, scientifically performed trials. This current LAAO Registry report, however, serves as a useful benchmark.”

He cautioned that this is an observational cohort study and that unmeasured imbalances still may affect the ability to identify an unbiased treatment signal. The use of DAPT was also infrequent during the study and “conclusions based on this information are soft.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) grants. Dr. Freeman has received salary support from the ACC NCDR and the NHLBI and has received consulting/advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biosense Webster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study finds clinicians are shifting away from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved combination of warfarin and aspirin after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device and that adverse events, particularly bleeding, are lower when aspirin is dropped.

Of 31,994 patients successfully implanted with the Watchman 2.5 device in the 3 years after its March 2015 approval, only 1 in 10 received the full postprocedure protocol studied in pivotal trials and codified into the FDA-device approval.

The protocol consisted of aspirin (81-325 mg) indefinitely and warfarin for 45 days. Following transesophageal echocardiography, patients were then maintained on warfarin and aspirin if there was a peridevice leak greater than 5 mm or switched to clopidogrel 75 mg for 6 months if a peridevice leak was ruled out or was 5 mm or less.

Based on the results, drawn from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry, the most common discharge medications were warfarin and aspirin in 36.9% of patients, followed by a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin alone (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (5%).

“There’s a little bit of practice leading the science in this space,” lead author James V. Freeman, MD, MPH, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Patients who couldn’t tolerate long-term anticoagulation were excluded from the pivotal trials but are now the patients in whom the device is most often used, because of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid reimbursement mandate for a relative or absolute contraindication to long-term anticoagulation, he noted.

Not surprisingly, 70% of patients in the registry had history of clinically relevant bleeding, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3. At an average age of 76, they were also older, by years, than those in the clinical trials.

Secular trends at the time also saw the ascendancy of the DOACs relative to warfarin, observed Dr. Freeman. “So I think it’s pretty reasonable for physicians to be considering DOACs rather than warfarin in this context.”
 

Aspirin takes another hit

Results, published May 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed that any adverse event occurred at 45 days in 5.7% of patients discharged on warfarin and aspirin, 4% on warfarin alone, 5.2% on DOAC and aspirin, 3.8% on DOAC only, and 5.5% on DAPT.

Rates of any major adverse event were 4.4%, 3.3%, 4.3%, 3.1%, and 4.2% respectively, and for major bleeding were 3%, 1.8%, 2.8%, 1.7%, and 2.2% respectively. Although patients were similar across treatment groups, those treated with DAPT were slightly older and had more comorbidities, Dr. Freeman said.

In Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event at 45 days was significantly lower when patients were discharged on warfarin alone (hazard ratio, 0.692; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.84) and a DOAC alone (HR, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), compared with warfarin and aspirin. There were no differences among the other groups.

The risk of any major adverse event was also significantly lower with warfarin alone (HR, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.53-0.80) and DOAC alone (HR, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98).

At 6 months, rates of any adverse event (HR, 0.814; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) and any major adverse event (HR, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) were significantly lower only in patients treated with warfarin alone.

“I think if there’s a take-home [message] here, it’s that for a lot of patients there’s good data now to suggest getting rid of the aspirin is a very reasonable thing to do,” Dr. Freeman said.

Further studies are needed in the space, but the results are consistent with those from transcatheter aortic valve replacement studies showing discharge on warfarin or DOAC anticoagulation alone reduces major adverse events without increasing thrombotic events, he said.

“I do think if there’s a strong indication for aspirin – someone has terrible coronary disease – there may be a role for using it,” Dr. Freeman said. But for a lot of these patients, anticoagulation alone without aspirin “may present a big opportunity to mitigate morbidity associated with this procedure.”

Dr. Freeman said he doesn’t expect the findings would be dramatically different with the second-generation Watchman FLX device but noted that randomized data will be forthcoming, as Boston Scientific changed the CHAMPION-AF trial protocol to include DOAC alone without aspirin.

Commenting for this news organization, Domenico Della Rocca, MD, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center, Austin, said the study is a useful overview of post-LAAO therapies in a large population – but not surprising.

“Practice has changed over the years. More and more we are adopting and trusting the DOACs,” he said. “And, we are realizing that dual antiplatelet therapy is so aggressive and antiplatelet therapy alone maybe is not the best choice based on data on activation of coagulation.”

Commenting further, he said “I think it’s too early to suggest being too keen to completely drop aspirin,” noting that 20%-25% of patients have clopidogrel resistance and that the combination of two antiplatelets may be too aggressive a strategy for others.

Dr. Della Rocca and colleagues recently reported favorable long-term results with half-dose DOAC therapy after Watchman implantation and said the team is launching a randomized trial in more than 500 LAAO patients in the United States and Europe later this year. The trial will be comparing a DOAC-based strategy with low-dose apixaban long-term versus clopidogrel and aspirin initially and then switching to 100 mg aspirin long-term.

“We hope that in the next 2-3 years we will have some better answers, but at this point I would say that clopidogrel is kind of an obsolete strategy for appendage closure,” Dr. Della Rocca said.

In an accompanying editorial, David R. Holmes Jr., MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., says “the cornucopia of these specific strategies can be expected to change as practices evolve, as instructions for use broaden and, hopefully, with the results of well-done, scientifically performed trials. This current LAAO Registry report, however, serves as a useful benchmark.”

He cautioned that this is an observational cohort study and that unmeasured imbalances still may affect the ability to identify an unbiased treatment signal. The use of DAPT was also infrequent during the study and “conclusions based on this information are soft.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) grants. Dr. Freeman has received salary support from the ACC NCDR and the NHLBI and has received consulting/advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biosense Webster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Topline results from the phase 3 DELIVER trial show dapagliflozin (Farxiga) significantly reduced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca announced today.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is not approved in this setting but is already approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“The results of DELIVER extend the benefit of dapagliflozin to the full spectrum of patients with heart failure,” principal investigator of the trial, Scott Solomon, MD, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the news release.

The safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin in the trial were consistent with its established safety profile, the company says.

The full trial results will be submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting, and regulatory submissions will be made in the coming months, it notes.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Topline results from the phase 3 DELIVER trial show dapagliflozin (Farxiga) significantly reduced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca announced today.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is not approved in this setting but is already approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“The results of DELIVER extend the benefit of dapagliflozin to the full spectrum of patients with heart failure,” principal investigator of the trial, Scott Solomon, MD, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the news release.

The safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin in the trial were consistent with its established safety profile, the company says.

The full trial results will be submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting, and regulatory submissions will be made in the coming months, it notes.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Topline results from the phase 3 DELIVER trial show dapagliflozin (Farxiga) significantly reduced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca announced today.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is not approved in this setting but is already approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“The results of DELIVER extend the benefit of dapagliflozin to the full spectrum of patients with heart failure,” principal investigator of the trial, Scott Solomon, MD, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the news release.

The safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin in the trial were consistent with its established safety profile, the company says.

The full trial results will be submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting, and regulatory submissions will be made in the coming months, it notes.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has issued the first statement on best practices for percutaneous axillary arterial access and training.

The position statement helps fill a gap amid increasing use of transaxillary access as an alternative to the femoral route for large-bore transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), and mechanical circulatory support.

“The need for alternative access has increased as we are using more and more TAVR for our elderly population, and EVAR has also increased,” writing committee chair Arnold H. Seto, MD, Long Beach VA Health Care System (California) said in an interview. “There’s also a set of patients who require balloon pumps for a prolonged period, and people were using balloon pumps from the axillary approach, which were not custom-designed for that purpose.”

He noted that the evidence base leans heavily on case reports and case series, and that they were approached for guidance by a vendor developing a balloon pump specific to axillary access. “So that helped spur all of us to get together and decide to write up something on this topic, which was developing, but was certainly picking up steam rapidly.”

The statement was published in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and it reflects the consensus of experts in heart failure, interventional cardiology and radiology, and cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. It reviews anatomic considerations and risks for percutaneous axillary access and suggests techniques for insertion, closure, and complication management.

Although the femoral artery is the most frequent access site for percutaneous large-bore procedures, the document notes that this approach may be limited in 13%-20% of patients because of prior surgeries or severe aortoiliac and/or iliofemoral atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity, or calcification.

“Absolutely, the femoral should be the predominant access site,” Dr. Seto said. Whenever there is a compromised femoral artery, “the axillary artery, which is rarely involved with atherosclerosis, makes for the most optimal alternative access. Other forms of alternative access, including transcaval and transcarotid, are possible but have their own issues and difficulties.”

Axillary access has traditionally been done through an open surgical approach, which allows for direct puncture, primary arterial repair, or placement of a sidearm conduit. Percutaneous transaxillary access avoids a surgical incision and general anesthesia and, theoretically, reduces the risk of infection, he said. It also allows for better mobility for patients, for example, who may have a balloon pump in place for weeks or even a month when waiting for a bridge to transplant.

In terms of technique, key recommendations include:

• Gaining access preferably through the left axillary
• Inserting the needle directly through the pectoralis minor into the second segment of the axillary artery
• Using a shallow-needle angle of 25-30 degrees to improve access success and decrease sheath malformation, kinking, bleeding, or vessel perforation
• Using micropuncture needles to minimize trauma to adjacent tissues
• Abducting the patient’s arm to 45-90 degrees to reduce tortuosity
• Using angiographic and ultrasound techniques to optimize vascular access

The latter point was the one area of debate among the writing committee, Dr. Seto observed. “That is one of the controversies: Should we make ultrasound mandatory? ... Everybody agreed that it can be quite useful and was likely to be useful because of its success in every other access area,” he said. “But in the absence of randomized evidence, we couldn’t make it mandatory or a strong recommendation. We just had to make it one of several options for the operator.”

The document highlights the need for familiarity with potential axillary artery complications and their management, noting that the axillary is more fragile than the femoral artery and, thus, potentially more prone to complications during instrumentation.

Data from the ARMS study in 102 patients undergoing transaxillary access for mechanical hemodynamic support reported 17 procedural complications, including 10 minor access site bleeding events, one stroke, and one pseudoaneurysm. A small study of 25 complex EVAR procedures reported a perioperative access complication rate of 8%, including one axillary artery dissection and one stenosis.

“Despite the brachial plexus being around there, there’s actually rare reports of neurologic injury and certainly none that have been permanent,” Dr. Seto said. “Also, stroke risk is probably more related to your device size and type of device rather than the approach itself.”

A significant amount of the paper is also devoted to training and privileging suggestions with an emphasis on a multidisciplinary team. The writing group recommends graduate medical education programs develop training curricula in percutaneous axillary artery access.

Those already in practice should participate in a formal training program that focuses on axillary artery anatomy, training in large bore access and closure devices, and didactic training in imaging modalities as applied to the axillary artery. Training can occur hands-on or using online simulations.

They also recommend outlining the potential need or role for proctoring and call for ongoing formal professional monitoring programs to evaluate operator outcomes using local or registry data.

“From a privileging standpoint, it was important for hospitals to be equally fair, regardless of the specialty that a requesting practitioner came from,” Dr. Seto said. “In other words, treat the vascular surgeons and interventional cardiologists and radiologists equally in terms of who has the privilege to do transaxillary access.”

The SCAI position statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Vascular & Endovascular Surgery Society.

Dr. Seto reported receiving honoraria from Getinge prior to initiation of the document. Disclosures for the rest of the writing group are available with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has issued the first statement on best practices for percutaneous axillary arterial access and training.

The position statement helps fill a gap amid increasing use of transaxillary access as an alternative to the femoral route for large-bore transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), and mechanical circulatory support.

“The need for alternative access has increased as we are using more and more TAVR for our elderly population, and EVAR has also increased,” writing committee chair Arnold H. Seto, MD, Long Beach VA Health Care System (California) said in an interview. “There’s also a set of patients who require balloon pumps for a prolonged period, and people were using balloon pumps from the axillary approach, which were not custom-designed for that purpose.”

He noted that the evidence base leans heavily on case reports and case series, and that they were approached for guidance by a vendor developing a balloon pump specific to axillary access. “So that helped spur all of us to get together and decide to write up something on this topic, which was developing, but was certainly picking up steam rapidly.”

The statement was published in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and it reflects the consensus of experts in heart failure, interventional cardiology and radiology, and cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. It reviews anatomic considerations and risks for percutaneous axillary access and suggests techniques for insertion, closure, and complication management.

Although the femoral artery is the most frequent access site for percutaneous large-bore procedures, the document notes that this approach may be limited in 13%-20% of patients because of prior surgeries or severe aortoiliac and/or iliofemoral atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity, or calcification.

“Absolutely, the femoral should be the predominant access site,” Dr. Seto said. Whenever there is a compromised femoral artery, “the axillary artery, which is rarely involved with atherosclerosis, makes for the most optimal alternative access. Other forms of alternative access, including transcaval and transcarotid, are possible but have their own issues and difficulties.”

Axillary access has traditionally been done through an open surgical approach, which allows for direct puncture, primary arterial repair, or placement of a sidearm conduit. Percutaneous transaxillary access avoids a surgical incision and general anesthesia and, theoretically, reduces the risk of infection, he said. It also allows for better mobility for patients, for example, who may have a balloon pump in place for weeks or even a month when waiting for a bridge to transplant.

In terms of technique, key recommendations include:

• Gaining access preferably through the left axillary
• Inserting the needle directly through the pectoralis minor into the second segment of the axillary artery
• Using a shallow-needle angle of 25-30 degrees to improve access success and decrease sheath malformation, kinking, bleeding, or vessel perforation
• Using micropuncture needles to minimize trauma to adjacent tissues
• Abducting the patient’s arm to 45-90 degrees to reduce tortuosity
• Using angiographic and ultrasound techniques to optimize vascular access

The latter point was the one area of debate among the writing committee, Dr. Seto observed. “That is one of the controversies: Should we make ultrasound mandatory? ... Everybody agreed that it can be quite useful and was likely to be useful because of its success in every other access area,” he said. “But in the absence of randomized evidence, we couldn’t make it mandatory or a strong recommendation. We just had to make it one of several options for the operator.”

The document highlights the need for familiarity with potential axillary artery complications and their management, noting that the axillary is more fragile than the femoral artery and, thus, potentially more prone to complications during instrumentation.

Data from the ARMS study in 102 patients undergoing transaxillary access for mechanical hemodynamic support reported 17 procedural complications, including 10 minor access site bleeding events, one stroke, and one pseudoaneurysm. A small study of 25 complex EVAR procedures reported a perioperative access complication rate of 8%, including one axillary artery dissection and one stenosis.

“Despite the brachial plexus being around there, there’s actually rare reports of neurologic injury and certainly none that have been permanent,” Dr. Seto said. “Also, stroke risk is probably more related to your device size and type of device rather than the approach itself.”

A significant amount of the paper is also devoted to training and privileging suggestions with an emphasis on a multidisciplinary team. The writing group recommends graduate medical education programs develop training curricula in percutaneous axillary artery access.

Those already in practice should participate in a formal training program that focuses on axillary artery anatomy, training in large bore access and closure devices, and didactic training in imaging modalities as applied to the axillary artery. Training can occur hands-on or using online simulations.

They also recommend outlining the potential need or role for proctoring and call for ongoing formal professional monitoring programs to evaluate operator outcomes using local or registry data.

“From a privileging standpoint, it was important for hospitals to be equally fair, regardless of the specialty that a requesting practitioner came from,” Dr. Seto said. “In other words, treat the vascular surgeons and interventional cardiologists and radiologists equally in terms of who has the privilege to do transaxillary access.”

The SCAI position statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Vascular & Endovascular Surgery Society.

Dr. Seto reported receiving honoraria from Getinge prior to initiation of the document. Disclosures for the rest of the writing group are available with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has issued the first statement on best practices for percutaneous axillary arterial access and training.

The position statement helps fill a gap amid increasing use of transaxillary access as an alternative to the femoral route for large-bore transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), and mechanical circulatory support.

“The need for alternative access has increased as we are using more and more TAVR for our elderly population, and EVAR has also increased,” writing committee chair Arnold H. Seto, MD, Long Beach VA Health Care System (California) said in an interview. “There’s also a set of patients who require balloon pumps for a prolonged period, and people were using balloon pumps from the axillary approach, which were not custom-designed for that purpose.”

He noted that the evidence base leans heavily on case reports and case series, and that they were approached for guidance by a vendor developing a balloon pump specific to axillary access. “So that helped spur all of us to get together and decide to write up something on this topic, which was developing, but was certainly picking up steam rapidly.”

The statement was published in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and it reflects the consensus of experts in heart failure, interventional cardiology and radiology, and cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. It reviews anatomic considerations and risks for percutaneous axillary access and suggests techniques for insertion, closure, and complication management.

Although the femoral artery is the most frequent access site for percutaneous large-bore procedures, the document notes that this approach may be limited in 13%-20% of patients because of prior surgeries or severe aortoiliac and/or iliofemoral atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity, or calcification.

“Absolutely, the femoral should be the predominant access site,” Dr. Seto said. Whenever there is a compromised femoral artery, “the axillary artery, which is rarely involved with atherosclerosis, makes for the most optimal alternative access. Other forms of alternative access, including transcaval and transcarotid, are possible but have their own issues and difficulties.”

Axillary access has traditionally been done through an open surgical approach, which allows for direct puncture, primary arterial repair, or placement of a sidearm conduit. Percutaneous transaxillary access avoids a surgical incision and general anesthesia and, theoretically, reduces the risk of infection, he said. It also allows for better mobility for patients, for example, who may have a balloon pump in place for weeks or even a month when waiting for a bridge to transplant.

In terms of technique, key recommendations include:

• Gaining access preferably through the left axillary
• Inserting the needle directly through the pectoralis minor into the second segment of the axillary artery
• Using a shallow-needle angle of 25-30 degrees to improve access success and decrease sheath malformation, kinking, bleeding, or vessel perforation
• Using micropuncture needles to minimize trauma to adjacent tissues
• Abducting the patient’s arm to 45-90 degrees to reduce tortuosity
• Using angiographic and ultrasound techniques to optimize vascular access

The latter point was the one area of debate among the writing committee, Dr. Seto observed. “That is one of the controversies: Should we make ultrasound mandatory? ... Everybody agreed that it can be quite useful and was likely to be useful because of its success in every other access area,” he said. “But in the absence of randomized evidence, we couldn’t make it mandatory or a strong recommendation. We just had to make it one of several options for the operator.”

The document highlights the need for familiarity with potential axillary artery complications and their management, noting that the axillary is more fragile than the femoral artery and, thus, potentially more prone to complications during instrumentation.

Data from the ARMS study in 102 patients undergoing transaxillary access for mechanical hemodynamic support reported 17 procedural complications, including 10 minor access site bleeding events, one stroke, and one pseudoaneurysm. A small study of 25 complex EVAR procedures reported a perioperative access complication rate of 8%, including one axillary artery dissection and one stenosis.

“Despite the brachial plexus being around there, there’s actually rare reports of neurologic injury and certainly none that have been permanent,” Dr. Seto said. “Also, stroke risk is probably more related to your device size and type of device rather than the approach itself.”

A significant amount of the paper is also devoted to training and privileging suggestions with an emphasis on a multidisciplinary team. The writing group recommends graduate medical education programs develop training curricula in percutaneous axillary artery access.

Those already in practice should participate in a formal training program that focuses on axillary artery anatomy, training in large bore access and closure devices, and didactic training in imaging modalities as applied to the axillary artery. Training can occur hands-on or using online simulations.

They also recommend outlining the potential need or role for proctoring and call for ongoing formal professional monitoring programs to evaluate operator outcomes using local or registry data.

“From a privileging standpoint, it was important for hospitals to be equally fair, regardless of the specialty that a requesting practitioner came from,” Dr. Seto said. “In other words, treat the vascular surgeons and interventional cardiologists and radiologists equally in terms of who has the privilege to do transaxillary access.”

The SCAI position statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Vascular & Endovascular Surgery Society.

Dr. Seto reported receiving honoraria from Getinge prior to initiation of the document. Disclosures for the rest of the writing group are available with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.