Search

Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has been associated with rapid recovery of right ventricular (RV) function. The Bashir catheter was developed for enhanced thrombolysis in large vessels such as the pulmonary arteries (PAs) with lower doses of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA).The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tPA infused using a pharmacomechanical (PM) CDT device called the Bashir endovascular catheter in patients with intermediate-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE).Patients with symptoms of acute PE with computed tomographic evidence of RV dilatation were enrolled. The Bashir catheter was used to deliver 7 mg tPA into each PA over 5 hours. The primary efficacy endpoint was the core laboratory-assessed change in computed tomographic angiography-derived RV/left ventricular (LV) diameter ratio at 48 hours, and the primary safety endpoint was serious adverse events (SAEs) including major bleeding at 72 hours.At 18 U.S. sites, 109 patients were enrolled. The median device placement time was 15 minutes. At 48 hours after PM-CDT, the RV/LV diameter ratio decreased by 0.56 (33.3%; P 0.0001). PA obstruction as measured by the refined modified Miller index was reduced by 35.9% (P 0.0001). One patient (0.92%) had 2 SAEs: a retroperitoneal bleed (procedure related) and iliac vein thrombosis (device related). Two other procedure-related SAEs were epistaxis and non-access site hematoma with anemia.PM-CDT with the Bashir endovascular catheter is associated with a significant reduction in RV/LV diameter ratio and a very low rate of adverse events or major bleeding in patients with intermediate-risk acute PE. The notable finding was a significant reduction in PA obstruction with low-dose tPA. (Recombinant tPA by Endovascular Administration for the Treatment of Submassive PE Using CDT for the Reduction of Thrombus Burden [RESCUE]; NCT04248868).

The aim of this study was to assess safety outcomes of femoropopliteal drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty using patient-level data from the Lutonix clinical program.A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of heterogenous trials and summary-level data identified increased long-term mortality in patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents.We evaluated DCB angioplasty (n = 1,093) and uncoated balloon angioplasty (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty [PTA]) (n = 250) outcomes in LEVANT 1 (The Lutonix Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Prevention of Femoropopliteal Restenosis), LEVANT 2 (Moxy Drug Coated Balloon vs. Standard Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Arteries), and the LEVANT Japan Clinical Trial. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with Cox proportional hazards modeling.There were no significant differences in mortality rates between DCB angioplasty and PTA. The 5-year HR was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.52) in the aggregated LEVANT trials. The 2-year HR after DCB angioplasty was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.25 to 3.95) in LEVANT 1, 1.40 (95% CI: 0.62 to 3.14) in LEVANT 2, and 0.32 (95% CI: 0.05 to 1.92) in the LEVANT Japan Clinical Trial. The 5-year HR was 1.60 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.72) in LEVANT 2. Adverse events and causes of death were balanced, without clustering between DCB angioplasty and PTA. Patients who underwent paclitaxel or nonpaclitaxel reinterventions had higher survival rates than those who did not undergo reinterventions. Baseline covariates predicting mortality included, among others, age (HR: 1.03 per year; p 0.0001), prior treatment of target lesion (HR: 1.67; p = 0.022), arrhythmia (HR: 1.65; p = 0.031), and diabetes (HR: 1.18; p = 0.047), without differences between the 2 arms. No dose-response relationship was identified when adjusted for key predictors of mortality.Analyses of patient-level data identified no mortality differences between DCB angioplasty and PTA. Furthermore, the lack of dose-response relationships or clustering of causes of death argues against a causal relationship between paclitaxel and mortality. (LEVANT 1, The Lutonix Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon for the Prevention of Femoropopliteal Restenosis [LEVANT 1], NCT00930813; Moxy Drug Coated Balloon vs. Standard Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Arteries [LEVANT 2], NCT01412541; LEVANT 2 Continued Access Registry, NCT01628159; LEVANT Japan Clinical Trial, NCT01816412).

A 55-year-old man presented with profound unilateral right leg swelling. Approximately 1 month before, he had suffered a pulmonary embolism complicated by bleeding on anticoagulation, prompting placement of a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. On this admission, ultrasound evaluation

The aim of this study was to compare the stroke/death rates between proximal embolic protection devices (P-EPDs) and distal filter embolic protection devices (F-EPDs) in elective carotid artery stenting (CAS).P-EPDs have theoretical advantages that may make them superior to F-EPDs for stroke prevention during CAS.We examined 10,246 consecutive elective CAS procedures performed with embolic protection in the NCDR CARE registry between January 2009 and March 2013. We analyzed crude and propensity-matched rates of in-hospital combined death/stroke in patients treated with P-EPDs versus F-EPDs. Secondary analyses included 30-day adverse event rates and stroke rates by the involved cerebrovascular territory.P-EPDs were used in 590 of 10,246 cases (5.8%). Patients treated with P-EPDs had higher rates of symptomatic lesion status (46.8% vs. 39.7%, p0.001), atrial fibrillation/flutter (16.1% vs. 13.0%, p=0.03), and history of a neurological event (51.2% vs. 46.6%, p=0.03). In unadjusted and propensity-matched analyses, differences in in-hospital stroke/death between P-EPD and F-EPD cohorts were nonsignificant (1.5% vs. 2.4%, p=0.16 and 1.6% vs. 2.0%, p=0.56, respectively). For patients with available data (n=7,693, 75.1%), 30-day adverse events rates were similar for P-EPDs and F-EPDs before (2.5% vs. 4.2%, p=0.07) and after (2.7% vs. 4.0%, p=0.22) propensity matching.Use of a P-EPD during CAS was associated with low rates of in-hospital stroke/death similar to those with an F-EPD in the first comparative effectiveness study of the devices. An adequately powered randomized trial comparing clinical outcomes between these devices is unlikely to be feasible.

This study sought to characterize usage and outcomes of carotid stenting platforms.A variety of stents and embolic protection devices (EPDs) are used for carotid artery stenting. Little is known about current usage patterns and differences in outcomes with these devices.We analyzed 12,135 consecutive carotid stent procedures in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) registry performed between January 1, 2007 and March 31, 2012. We compared baseline characteristics and crude and multivariable-adjusted rates of in-hospital combined death/stroke among patients treated with Acculink/Accunet (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois), Xact/Emboshield (Abbott), and Precise/Angioguard (Cordis Corporation, Bridgewater, New Jersey) stent/EPD combinations.In 78.2% of cases, stents were used in conjunction with their specific, corresponding U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved EPD. The Acculink/Accunet (n = 2,617, 21.6%), Xact/Emboshield (n = 3,507, 28.9%), and Precise/Angioguard (n = 2,696, 22.2%) stent/EPD combinations were used in 72.7% of all cases. The Protégé/SpiderFx (ev3 Endovascular Inc., Plymouth, Minnesota) (n = 453, 3.7%) and Wallstent/Filterwire (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) (n = 213, 1.8%) devices were used in a minority of cases. In unadjusted analyses, the Precise/Angioguard system was associated with higher rates of the primary outcome than were the Acculink/Accunet (2.5% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.058) and Xact/Emboshield (2.5% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.14) systems that were not statistically different. In adjusted analyses, differences between Precise/Angioguard and Accunet/Acculink (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 2.47; p = 0.065), Precise/Angioguard and Xact/Emboshield (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.76; p = 0.38), and Xact/Emboshield and Accunet/Acculink (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.97; p = 0.18) remained nonsignificant.In modern U.S. practice, the Acculink/Accunet, Xact/Emboshield, and Precise/Angioguard carotid stenting systems are used in most cases and are associated with similarly low rates of adverse events.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare outcomes of patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for ipsilateral restenosis, after either previous CAS or carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) (CAS-R group), with those of patients who had CAS performed for de novo carotid atherosclerotic stenosis (CAS-DN group).Therapeutic revascularization strategies to reduce stroke include CAS and CEA. Limited data exist concerning the outcomes of CAS in the setting of previous ipsilateral carotid revascularization.Patients enrolled in the CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) registry who underwent CAS were identified and separated into 2 groups: those undergoing CAS after previous ipsilateral CEA or CAS (CAS-R group, n = 1,996) and those who had CAS performed for de novo atherosclerotic carotid stenosis (CAS-DN group, n = 10,122). We analyzed the clinical and procedural factors associated with CAS-R and CAS-DN between January 1, 2005, and October 8, 2012. Propensity score matching using 19 clinical and 9 procedural characteristics was used, yielding 1,756 patients in each CAS cohort.The primary endpoint composite of in-hospital death or stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) occurred less often in the CAS-R compared with CAS-DN patients (1.9% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.019). In-hospital adverse cerebrovascular events (stroke or transient ischemic attack) occurred less frequently in the CAS-R cohort (2.2% vs. 3.6%; p0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the composite of death, stroke, or MI at 30 days between both groups.Patients who underwent CAS for restenosis after previous ipsilateral revascularization had lower periprocedural adverse event rates and comparable 30-day adverse event rates compared with CAS for de novo carotid artery stenosis.

We describe characteristics associated with use of endarterectomy (CEA) versus stenting (CAS) in patients before urgent cardiac surgery.The optimal modality of carotid revascularization preceding cardiac surgery is unknown.Retrospective evaluation of the CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) registry from January 2005 to April 2010 was performed on patients undergoing CEA or CAS preceding urgent cardiac surgery within 30 days. Baseline characteristics were compared, and multivariate adjustment was performed.Of 451 patients who met study criteria, 255 underwent CAS and 196 underwent CEA. Both procedures increased over time to a similar degree (p = 0.18). Patients undergoing CAS had more frequent history of peripheral artery disease (38.2% vs. 26.5%, p0.01), neck surgery (5.5% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.01), neck radiation (4.3% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.04), left-main coronary disease (34.8% vs. 23.5%, p0.01), neurological events (45.8% vs. 31.3%, p0.01), carotid intervention (20.8% vs. 7.6%, p0.01), and higher baseline creatinine (1.3 vs. 1.1 mg/dl, p = 0.02). The target carotid arteries of CAS patients were more likely to be symptomatic in the 6 months before revascularization and have restenosis from prior CEA. Patients undergoing CAS had a lower American Society of Anesthesiology grade. Midwest hospitals were less likely to perform CAS than CEA, whereas in the other regions CAS was more common (p0.01). Non-Caucasian race, a history of heart failure, previous carotid procedures, prior stroke, left main coronary artery stenosis, lower American Society of Anesthesiology grade, and teaching hospital were independent predictors of patients who would receive CAS.Carotid artery stenting and CEA have increased among patients undergoing urgent cardiac surgery. Patients who underwent CAS had more vascular disease but lower acute pre-surgical risk. Significant regional variation in procedure selection exists.