Cardiovascular and Limb Events Following Endovascular Revascularization Among Patients ≥65 Years Old: An American College of Cardiology PVI Registry Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weissler EH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9238644 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe connection between paclitaxel-coated devices (PCD) use during peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) and mortality is debated. We aimed to analyze patterns of PCD use and the safety and effectiveness of PCD use in the superficial femoral and/or popliteal arteries.MethodsPatients undergoing PVI of femoropopliteal lesions with and without PCD between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2017 were compared using the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry PVI Registry. Outcomes were derived from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid claims data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 6-, 12-, and 24-months following PVI. Inverse probability weighting and frailty models were used to assess the differences between groups. The analysis was IRB-approved.ResultsIn the overall cohort consisting of 6,302 femoropopliteal PVIs, PCD-PVI patients were more likely to be treated for claudication (63.5% vs 51.3%, P< .001), less likely to have a chronic total occlusion (24.6% vs 34.7%, P < .001), and more likely to be treated in certain geographic and practice settings. In the analytic cohort consisting of 1,666 femoropopliteal PVIs with linked claims outcomes (888 PCD-PVI, 53.3%), unadjusted rates of all outcomes were lower in PCD-PVI patients. After adjustment, there were no significant differences in mortality following PCD-PVI versus non-PCD PVI at 1 year (adjusted RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60-1.01, P= .055) or 2 years (aRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.24, P= .844).ConclusionThere were significant differences between the patients in whom and settings in which PCD-PVI was versus was not used. PCD-PVI was not associated with an increased risk of 2-year mortality in real-world use.
| S-EPMC8078180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline recommends moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy in eligible patients.ObjectiveTo examine adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline in US cardiology practices.Design, setting, and participantsAmong 161 cardiology practices, trends in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were analyzed before (September 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually exclusive risk groups within the ACC Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate for differences in trend in use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use in hierarchical logistic regression models. Participants were a population-based sample of 1 105 356 preguideline patients (2 431 192 patient encounters) and 1 116 472 postguideline patients (2 377 219 patient encounters). Approximately 97% of patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).ExposuresModerate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline.Main outcomes and measuresTime trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT.ResultsIn the study cohort, the mean (SD) age was 69.6 (12.1) years among 1 105 356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1 116 472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline. Although there was a trend toward increasing use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins overall and in the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline. No significant difference in trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins was observed in other groups. The use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy was 62.1% (before publication of the guideline) and 66.6% (after publication of the guideline) in the overall cohort, 62.7% (before publication) and 67.0% (after publication) in the ASCVD cohort, 50.6% (before publication) and 52.3% (after publication) in the cohort with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (ie, ≥190 mg/dL), 52.4% (before publication) and 55.2% (after publication) in the diabetes cohort, and 41.9% (before publication) and 46.9% (after publication) in the remaining group with 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher. In hierarchical logistic regression models, there was a significant increase in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins in the overall cohort (4.8%) and in the ASCVD cohort (4.3%) (P < .01 for slope for both). There was no significant change for other risk cohorts. Nonstatin LLT use remained unchanged in the preguideline and postguideline periods in the hierarchical logistic regression models for all of the risk groups.Conclusions and relevanceAdoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guideline in cardiology practices was modest. Timely interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant practice to reduce the burden of ASCVD.
| S-EPMC5470413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceClinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence.ObjectiveTo determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time.Data sourcesCurrent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents.Study selectionComprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE.Data extraction and synthesisThe number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A).ResultsAcross 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.
| S-EPMC6439920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Clinical implications of change in the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline on the diagnosis and management of hypertension, compared with recommendations by 2014 expert panel and Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7), are not known. Methods and Results Using data from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) Registry (January 2013-Decemver 2016), we compared the proportion and clinical characteristics of patients seen in cardiology practices diagnosed with hypertension, recommended antihypertensive treatment, and achieving blood pressure (BP) goals per each guideline document. In addition, we evaluated the proportion of patients at the level of practices meeting BP targets defined by each guideline. Of 6 042 630 patients evaluated, 5 027 961 (83.2%) were diagnosed with hypertension per the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline, compared with 4 521 272 (74.8%) per the 2014 panel and 4 545 976 (75.2%) per JNC7. The largest increase in hypertension prevalence was seen in younger ages, women, and those with lower cardiovascular risk. Antihypertensive medication was recommended to 70.6% of patients per the ACC/AHA guideline compared with 61.8% and 65.9% per the 2014 panel and JNC7, respectively. Among those on antihypertensive agents, 41.2% achieved BP targets per the ACC/AHA guideline, compared with 79.4% per the 2014 panel and 64.3% per JNC7. Lower proportions of women, non-White (Black and "other") races, and those at higher cardiovascular risk achieved BP goals. Median practice-level proportion of patients meeting BP targets per the 2014 panel but not the ACC/AHA guideline was 37.8% (interquartile range, 34.8%-40.7%) and per JNC7 but not the ACC/AHA guideline was 22.9% (interquartile range, 19.8%-25.9%). Conclusions Following publication of the 2017 guideline, significantly more people, particularly younger people and those with lower cardiovascular risk, will be diagnosed with hypertension and need antihypertensive treatment compared with previous recommendations. Significant practice-level variation in BP control also exists. Efforts are needed to improve guideline-concordant hypertension management in an effort to improve outcomes.
| S-EPMC9238704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Consensus is lacking regarding intervention for patients with acute lower limb ischaemia (ALI). The aim was to study amputation-free survival in patients treated for ALI by either primary open or endovascular revascularization. METHODS:The Swedish Vascular Registry (Swedvasc) was combined with the Population Registry and National Patient Registry to determine follow-up on mortality and amputation rates. Revascularization techniques were compared by propensity score matching 1?:?1. RESULTS:Of 9736 patients who underwent open surgery and 6493 who had endovascular treatment between 1994 and 2014, 3365 remained in each group after propensity score matching. Results are from the matched cohort only. Mean age of the patients was 74·7?years; 47·5 per cent were women and mean follow-up was 4·3?years. At 30-day follow-up, the endovascular group had better patency (83·0 versus 78·6 per cent; P <?0·001). Amputation rates were similar at 30?days (7·0 per cent in the endovascular group versus 8·2 per cent in the open group; P =?0·113) and at 1?year (13·8 versus 14·8 per cent; P =?0·320). The mortality rate was lower after endovascular treatment, at 30?days (6·7 versus 11·1 per cent; P <?0·001) and after 1?year (20·2 versus 28·6 per cent; P <?0·001). Accordingly, endovascular treatment had better amputation-free survival at 30?days (87·5 versus 82·1 per cent; P <?0·001) and 1?year (69·9 versus 61·1 per cent; P <?0·001). The number needed to treat to prevent one death within the first year was 12 with an endovascular compared with an open approach. Five years after surgery, endovascular treatment still had improved survival (HR 0·78, 99 per cent c.i. 0·70 to 0·86) but the difference between the treatment groups occurred mainly in the first year. CONCLUSION:Primary endovascular treatment for ALI appeared to reduce mortality compared with open surgery, without any difference in the risk of amputation.
| S-EPMC6221085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.To characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations.Textual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013.We abstracted all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. We classified recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations as having been downgraded or reversed; we classified recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified as having been omitted. We tested for differences in the durability of recommendations according to guideline topic and underlying level of evidence using bivariable hypothesis tests and conditional logistic regression.Of 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%) were retained in the subsequent guideline version, 57 (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.0%-11.8%) were downgraded or reversed, and 67 (10.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-13.3%) were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-45.4%) to 94.1% (95% CI, 80.3%-99.3%; P?<?.001). Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5% (95% CI, 83.2%-95.3%) of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-86.3%) of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7% (95% CI, 65.8%-80.5%) of recommendations supported by opinion (P?=?.001). After accounting for guideline-level factors, the probability of being downgraded, reversed, or omitted was greater for recommendations based on opinion (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.69-5.85; P?<?.001) or on 1 trial or observational data (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.41; P?=?.005) vs recommendations based on multiple trials.The durability of class I cardiology guideline recommendations for procedures and treatments promulgated by the ACC/AHA varied across individual guidelines and levels of evidence. Downgrades, reversals, and omissions were most common among recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies.
| S-EPMC4346183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in older individuals receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS).Comparative effectiveness of DES relative to BMS remains unclear.Outcomes were evaluated in 262,700 patients from 650 National Cardiovascular Data Registry sites during 2004 to 2006 with procedural registry data linked to Medicare claims for follow-up. Outcomes including death, myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, major bleeding, stroke, death or MI, death or MI or revascularization, and death or MI or stroke were compared with estimated cumulative incidence rates with inverse probability weighted estimators and Cox proportional hazards ratios.The DES were implanted in 217,675 patients and BMS were implanted in 45,025. At 30 months, DES patients had lower unadjusted rates of death (12.9% vs. 17.9%), MI (7.3 of 100 patients vs. 10.0 of 100 patients), and revascularization (23.0 of 100 patients vs. 24.5 of 100 patients) with no difference in stroke or bleeding. After adjustment, DES patients had lower rates of death (13.5% vs. 16.5%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.79, p < 0.001) and MI (7.5 of 100 patients vs. 8.9 of 100 patients, HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.81, p < 0.001), with minimal difference in revascularization (23.5 of 100 patients vs. 23.4 of 100 patients; HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.96), stroke (3.1 of 100 patients vs. 2.7 of 100 patients, HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.07), or bleeding (3.4 of 100 patients vs. 3.6 of 100 patients, HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.00). The DES survival benefit was observed in all subgroups analyzed and persisted throughout 30 months of follow-up.In this largest ever real-world study, patients receiving DES had significantly better clinical outcomes than their BMS counterparts, without an associated increase in bleeding or stroke, throughout 30 months of follow-up and across all pre-specified subgroups.
| S-EPMC2841783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe AHA/ACC-2017 hypertension guideline recommends an age-independent target blood pressure (BP) of less than 130/80 mmHg. In an elderly cohort without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline, we determined the impact of this guideline on the prevalence of hypertension and associated CVD risk.MethodsNineteen thousand, one hundred and fourteen participants aged at least 65 years from the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study were grouped by baseline BP: 'pre-2017 hypertensive' (BP ≥140/90 mmHg and/or on antihypertensive drugs); 'reclassified hypertensive' (normotensive by pre-2017 guidelines; hypertensive by AHA/ACC-2017 guideline), and 'normotensive' (BP <130 and <80 mmHg). For each group, we evaluated CVD risk factors, predicted 10-year CVD risk using the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk equation, and reported observed CVD event rates during a median 4.7-year follow-up.ResultsOverall, 74.4% (14 213/19 114) were 'pre-2017 hypertensive'; an additional 12.3% (2354/19 114) were 'reclassified hypertensive' by the AHA/ACC-2017 guideline. Of those 'reclassified hypertensive', the majority (94.5%) met criteria for antihypertensive treatment although 29% had no other traditional CVD risk factors other than age. Further, a relatively lower mean 10-year predicted CVD risk (18% versus 26%, P < 0.001) and lower CVD rates (8.9 versus 12.1/1000 person-years, P = 0.01) were observed in 'reclassified hypertensive' compared with 'pre-2017 hypertensive'. Compared with 'normotensive', a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for CVD events of 1.60 (1.26-2.02) for 'pre-2017 hypertensive' and 1.26 (0.93-1.71) for 'reclassified hypertensive' was observed.ConclusionApplying current CVD risk calculators in the elderly 'reclassified hypertensive', as a result of shifting the BP threshold lower, increases eligibility for antihypertensive treatment but documented CVD rates remain lower than hypertensive patients defined by pre2017 BP thresholds.
| S-EPMC8218338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality, and PAD risk factors overlap with those for aortic stenosis. The prevalence and outcomes associated with PAD in a population undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS:Using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry linked to Medicare claims data, we identified patients ?65 years old undergoing TAVR from 2011 to 2015. We calculated hazard ratios for 1-year adverse outcomes, including mortality, readmission, and bleeding, for patients with PAD compared with those without, adjusting for baseline characteristics and postprocedure medications. Analyses were performed separately by access site (transfemoral and nontransfemoral). Of 19 660 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, 4810 (24.5%) had PAD; 3730 (47.9%) of 7780 patients undergoing nontransfemoral TAVR had PAD. In both groups, patients with PAD were significantly more likely to have coronary and carotid artery diseases. At 1-year follow-up, patients with PAD undergoing TAVR via transfemoral access had a higher incidence of death (16.8% versus 14.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; P=0.01), readmission (45.5% versus 42.1%; hazard ratio, 1.11; P<0.001), and bleeding (23.1% versus 19.7%; hazard ratio, 1.18; P<0.001) compared with patients without PAD. Patients with PAD undergoing TAVR via nontransfemoral access did not have significantly higher rates of 1-year mortality or readmission compared with patients without PAD. CONCLUSIONS:PAD is common among patients undergoing commercial TAVR via transfemoral and nontransfemoral access. Among patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, PAD is associated with a higher incidence of 1-year adverse outcomes compared with absence of PAD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01737528.
| S-EPMC5683430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether diabetes mellitus has an independent impact on major limb outcomes at 1 year after endovascular treatment of lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD).The study involved 1906 consecutive patients (mean age 66 years; 1469 men) enrolled in the observational Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01904851) between January 2005 and October 2015 after undergoing index endovascular procedures in 2426 limbs for arterial occlusive disease. Patient outcomes included 12-month target limb amputation (above ankle) and target limb revascularization as well as all-cause death. Kaplan-Meier analysis and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used for time-to-event analysis of outcomes for the entire study sample as well as for the critical limb ischemia (CLI) and claudication subgroups. Results of the Cox regression models are reported as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).Diabetics undergoing endovascular procedures had higher rates of comorbid conditions (p<0.001), CLI (p<0.001), heavily calcified lesions (p=0.002), multivessel disease (p=0.030), and fewer infrapopliteal runoff vessels (p<0.001). Regression analysis after adjusting for confounders revealed significantly higher target limb major amputation in diabetics compared with nondiabetics (HR 5.02, 95% CI 1.44 to 17.56, p=0.011). However, repeat revascularization rates were similar. When considering CLI and claudication subgroups, diabetes was associated with a nonsignificant increased risk of 12-month major amputation only for patients presenting with CLI (HR 3.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 12.51, p=0.056). Diabetes was also associated with an increased risk of 12-month all-cause mortality in the overall study sample (HR 4.64, 95% CI 2.01 to 10.70, p<0.001) and in the CLI subgroup (HR 14.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 63.32, p<0.001) but not in the claudication subgroup (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.54, p=0.552).Diabetes increases the risk of major amputation and all-cause death at 12 months following endovascular revascularization in patients with symptomatic PAD. These risks are especially heightened in patients presenting with CLI.
| S-EPMC5624231 | biostudies-literature