Search

AbstractThis article represents the inaugural edition of our new “Second Thoughts on First Thoughts” section with Dr Aly as our featured master surgeon. In this article we will explore the evolution of his now renowned surgical strategies from their birth, through their active tinkering, to their ongoing tweaking, even today. The reader will then come away with a deeper understanding of Dr Aly’s “learning curve” and in so doing be spurred forward on their own learning curves.

The clinical presentation and epidemiology of infective endocarditis (IE) have evolved over time. While the cornerstones of IE treatment remain antimicrobial therapy and surgery, percutaneous mechanical aspiration (PMA) has emerged as an option for carefully selected patients as a complementary modality, based on retrospective data, case series, and expert experience. In this comprehensive review, we summarize the proceedings from an inaugural summit dedicated to the discussion of PMA in the global management of IE, consisting of experts across multiple disciplines from diverse geographic regions and care environments. After conceptualizing the 3 major roles of PMA as a bridge to decision, destination therapy, and adjunctive therapy, we then review the clinical scenarios in which PMA might be considered by IE subtype. We discuss patient selection, the rationale for intervention, and the most recent evidence for each. Next, we consider PMA for IE in the larger context of our health care system across 3 domains: clinical collaboration, financial considerations, and academic innovation, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary teams and cross-organizational partnerships, reimbursement models, and the need for high-quality research. Finally, we outline what we determined to be the most pressing outstanding questions in this space. In doing so, we propose a national consortium to help organize efforts to move this field forward and share our progress in these endeavors to date. PMA for IE has great promise, but significant work remains if we are to fully realize its potential to safely and effectively improve outcomes for modern endocarditis patients., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) may provoke hypertension and/or impaired kidney function. Some patients develop uncontrolled hypertension and deteriorating kidney function despite optimal medical therapy. In these patients, endovascular treatment is an important therapeutic option. ARTISAN was a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the iCast RX covered stent both functionally for reestablishing renal artery flow, and clinically for controlling resistant hypertension., Methods: Patients considered for enrollment had average systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥155 mm Hg despite taking 3 antihypertensive medications. Prior to enrollment and covered stent placement, angiographic confirmation of ARAS ≥80% with physiologic significance was required. Clinical assessments were performed at 30 days, 9 months, and annually through 36 months. Covered stent safety and efficacy were based on 9-month coprimary end points, including primary vessel patency and SBP improvement at 9 months. Secondary outcomes included target lesion revascularization, major adverse events, and secondary patency., Results: Sixty-eight of the planned 138 subjects were enrolled. Primary patency was seen in 94.3% of subject lesions; the mean SBP reduction was 15.7 mm Hg. The functional and clinical end points met prespecified performance goals of 70% primary patency ( P < .0001) and ≥10 mm Hg SBP decrease ( P = .0192), respectively, at 9 months. Six subjects (8.8%) experienced 7 major adverse events within 36 months. The clinically driven target lesion revascularization rate was 7.3% at 36 months., Conclusions: The high primary patency and improvement in SBP, persisting through 36 months, suggest that the iCast RX covered stent is safe and effective for the treatment of appropriately selected patients with ARAS., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Venous thromboembolism, commonly presented as pulmonary embolism and deep-vein thrombosis, is a paramount and potentially fatal condition with variable clinical presentation. Diagnosis is key to providing appropriate treatment in a safe and timely fashion. Clinical judgment and assessment using clinical scoring systems should guide diagnostic testing, including laboratory and imaging modalities, for optimal results and to avoid unnecessary testing.

In recent years, there has been a shift in the epidemiology of patients with infective endocarditis (IE). This has been characterized by an alarming increase in IE in patients who inject drugs, cardiac implantable electronic device-related IE, and those with comorbid conditions and high surgical risk. This unmet need has mandated a reevaluation of complex management strategies in these patients and introduction of unconventional approaches in treatment. Percutaneous mechanical aspiration has emerged as both a diagnostic and therapeutic option in selected patients with IE. In this review, the authors discuss the gaps in care of IE, rationale, device armamentarium, procedural, and technical considerations and applications of percutaneous mechanical aspiration in IE., Competing Interests: David Zlotnick is on the speaker’s bureau for Abiomed, Inari Medical. John Moriarty consults for AngioDynamics, Penumbra Medical, Innova Vascular, Pavmed, Pfizer, and Boston Scientific. Nadira Hamid consults for Abbott Structural, Anteris, AMX, 4C Medical Technologies, Alleviant Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Philips, GE, Valcare Med, VDyne, and WL Gore. Yasir Akhtar received honoraria and is on speaker bureau for AngioDynamics and Penumbra. Kenneth Rosenfield consults for and/or is on the scientific advisory board member for Althea Medical, AngioDynamics, Boston Scientific, Contego, InspireMD, Magneto, Mayo Clinic, Neptune Medical, Philips, Summa Therapeutics, SurModics, Thrombolex, Terumo, and Truvic; holds equity in Accolade, Access Vascular, Aerami, Althea Medical, Contego, Cruzar Systems, Embolitech, Endospan, InspireMD, JanaCare, Magneto, Orchestra BioMed, PQ Bypass, Prosomnus, Shockwave Medical, Summa Therapeutics, Thrombolex, Truvic, and Valcare; and is a board member for National PERT Consortium. Christoph Starck received honoraria, consults for, and is on the advisory board of AngioDynamics, Abiomed, Atricure, Medtronic, Spectranetics, Biotronik, LivaNova (Sorin), and Cook Medical and received departmental or institutional research funding from Cook Medical and Hylomorph. Sripal Bangalore is on the advisory board for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, REATA, Inari Medical, and Truvic. Sahil Parikh receives institutional grants/research support from Abbott Vascular, Shockwave Medical, TriReme Medical, SurModics, Silk Road Medical, and the National Institutes of Health; has received consulting fees from Terumo and Abiomed; and has served on the advisory boards of Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, CSI, Janssen, and Philips. Sanjum Sethi reports honoraria from Janssen and Chiesi. Abdallah Sabbagh, Evin Yucel, Stephanie Younes, Larry Baddour, and Patrick O’Gara reported no financial interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Contemporary care patterns/outcomes in high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients are unknown., Objectives: This study sought to characterize the management of high-risk PE patients and identify factors associated with poor outcomes., Methods: A retrospective analysis of the PERT (Pulmonary Embolism Response Team) Consortium Registry was performed. Patients presenting with intermediate-risk PE, high-risk PE, and catastrophic PE (those with hemodynamic collapse) were identified. Patient characteristics were compared with chi-square testing for categorical covariates and Student's t-test for continuous covariates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations between clinical characteristics and outcomes in the high-risk population., Results: Of 5,790 registry patients, 2,976 presented with intermediate-risk PE and 1,442 with high-risk PE. High-risk PE patients were more frequently treated with advanced therapies than intermediate-risk PE patients (41.9% vs 30.2%; P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality (20.6% vs 3.7%; P < 0.001) and major bleeding (10.5% vs. 3.5%; P < 0.001) were more common in high-risk PE. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated vasopressor use (OR: 4.56; 95% CI: 3.27-6.38; P < 0.01), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use (OR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.12-7.30; P = 0.03), identified clot-in-transit (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.13-4.52; P = 0.02), and malignancy (OR: = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.13-2.56; P = 0.01) as factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Catastrophic PE patients (n = 197 [13.7% of high-risk PE patients]) had higher in-hospital mortality (42.1% vs 17.2%; P < 0.001) than those presenting with noncatastrophic high-risk PE. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13.3% vs. 4.8% P < 0.001) and systemic thrombolysis (25% vs 11.3%; P < 0.001) were used more commonly in catastrophic PE., Conclusions: In the largest analysis of high-risk PE patients to date, mortality rates were high with the worst outcomes among patients with hemodynamic collapse., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was funded through a grant from the PERT Consortium, a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. Dr Kobayashi’s institution has received funding for research from Inari medical and Endovascular Engineering. Dr Sethi has received honoraria/consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Janssen, Chiesi, Terumo, and Inari. Dr Parikh has received institutional research funding from Abbott, Boston Scientific, TriReme Medical, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, Reflow Medical, Concept Medical, Veryan Medical, and MedAlliance; has served as an advisor to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, and Philips; and has served as a consultant for Terumo, Inari, Penumbra, and Canon. Dr Rosenfield has served as a consultant or on the scientific advisory board for Abbott Vascular, Althea Medical, Angiodynamics, Auxetics, Becton Dickinson, Boston Scientific, Contego, Crossliner, Imperative Care/Truvic, Innova Vascular, Inspire MD, Janssen/Johnson and Johnson, Magneto, Mayo Clinic, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Neptune Medical, Penumbra, Philips, Surmodics, Terumo, Thrombolex, Vasorum, Vantis Vascular, and Vumedi; owns equity or stock options in Access Vascular, Aerami, Althea Medical, Auxetics, Contego, Endospan, Imperative Care/Truvic, Innova Vascular, InspireMD, JanaCare, Magneto, MedAlliance, Neptune Medical, Orchestra, Prosomnus, Shockwave, Skydance, Summa Therapeutics, Thrombolex, Valcare, Vantis Vascular, Vasorum, and Vumedi; his institution has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Novo Nordisk, Penumbra, Gettinge-Atrium; and has served on the Board of Directors of the National PERT Consortium. Dr Lookstein has served on the advisory board for Boston Scientific and Medtronic; has served as a consultant for Penumbra Vascular, Abbott Vascular, Neptune Medical, Imperative Vascular, Becton Dickinson Vascular, Biosense Webster, and Cordis Vascular; and owns equity in Imperative Vascular, Innova Vascular, Thrombolex, and Summa Vascular. Dr Gibson has served as a consultant for Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and CytoSorbents. Dr Khandhar has received consulting fees from Inari Medical. Dr Secemsky has received consulting fees from Abbott, Bayer, BD, Boston Scientific, Cook, Cordis, CSI, HeartFlow, Inari, InfraRedx, Medtronic, Philips, RapidAI, Shockwave, and VentureMed; and his institution has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL150290), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, BD, Boston Scientific, Cook, CSI, Laminate Medical, Medtronic, and Philips. Dr Giri has served on the advisory board for and his institution has received research funding from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Recor Medical, Inari Medical, Edwards, and Abiomed; and owns equity in Endovascular Engineering. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Reduction in distal vascular volume in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a significant predictor of 30- and 90-day mortality. The likely cause of this is pulmonary arterial obstruction. The effect of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PM-CDT) on the occlusions of these pulmonary artery (PA) branches is not known., Objectives: The RESCUE study evaluated PM-CDT with the Bashir endovascular catheter in patients with acute intermediate-risk PE. This analysis assessed PA occlusions using core laboratory data before and after PM-CDT therapy., Methods: The baseline and 48-hour post-treatment contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography angiography of PE patients with right ventricular dilatation enrolled in the RESCUE trial were used. The primary analysis was the change in the number of segmental and proximal PA branches with total or subtotal (>65%) occlusions after 48 hours compared to baseline using McNemar's test., Results: A total of 107 patients enrolled across 18 United States sites comprised this analysis. At 48 hours post-PM-CDT, the number of segmental PA branches with total or subtotal occlusions decreased from 40.5% to 11.7% ( P < 0.0001). Proximal PA branch total or subtotal occlusions decreased from 28.7% to 11.0% ( P < 0.0001). The reduction in segmental artery occlusions correlated significantly with the magnitude of reduction in right ventricular/left ventricular ratio (correlation coefficient of 0.287 [95% CI: 0.102-0.452]; P = 0.0026), whereas that in the proximal PA arteries did not (correlation coefficient of 0.132 [95% CI: 0.059-0.314] P = 0.173)., Conclusions: PM-CDT with the Bashir catheter was associated with a significant reduction in total and subtotal occlusion of segmental and proximal PAs., Competing Interests: AUTHOR DISCLOSURES All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Objective: Anticipated perioperative morbidity is an important factor for choosing a revascularization method for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Our goal was to assess systemic perioperative complications of patients treated with surgical and endovascular revascularization in the Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI (BEST-CLI) trial., Methods: BEST-CLI was a prospective randomized trial comparing open (OPEN) and endovascular (ENDO) revascularization strategies for patients with CLTI. Two parallel cohorts were studied: Cohort 1 included patients with adequate single-segment great saphenous vein (SSGSV), whereas Cohort 2 included those without SSGSV. Data were queried for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE-composite myocardial infarction, stroke, death), non-serious (non-SAEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (criteria-death/life-threatening/requiring hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization/significant disability/incapacitation/affecting subject safety in trial) 30 days after the procedure. Per protocol analysis was used (intervention received without crossover), and risk-adjusted analysis was performed., Results: There were 1367 patients (662 OPEN, 705 ENDO) in Cohort 1 and 379 patients (188 OPEN, 191 ENDO) in Cohort 2. Thirty-day mortality in Cohort 1 was 1.5% (OPEN 1.8%; ENDO 1.3%) and in Cohort 2 was 1.3% (2.7% OPEN; 0% ENDO). MACE in Cohort 1 was 4.7% for OPEN vs 3.13% for ENDO (P = .14), and in Cohort 2, was 4.28% for OPEN and 1.05% for ENDO (P = .15). On risk-adjusted analysis, there was no difference in 30-day MACE for OPEN vs ENDO for Cohort 1 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-2.64; P = .16) or Cohort 2 (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 0.48-9.88; P = .31). The incidence of acute renal failure was similar across interventions; in Cohort 1 it was 3.6% for OPEN vs 2.1% for ENDO (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.85-3.12; P = .14), and in Cohort 2, it was 4.2% OPEN vs 1.6% ENDO (HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 0.75-10.8; P = .12). The occurrence of venous thromboembolism was low overall and was similar between groups in Cohort 1 (OPEN 0.9%; ENDO 0.4%) and Cohort 2 (OPEN 0.5%; ENDO 0%). Rates of any non-SAEs in Cohort 1 were 23.4% in OPEN and 17.9% in ENDO (P = .013); in Cohort 2, they were 21.8% for OPEN and 19.9% for ENDO (P = .7). Rates for any SAEs in Cohort 1 were 35.3% for OPEN and 31.6% for ENDO (P = .15); in Cohort 2, they were 25.5% for OPEN and 23.6% for ENDO (P = .72). The most common types of non-SAEs and SAEs were infection, procedural complications, and cardiovascular events., Conclusions: In BEST-CLI, patients with CLTI who were deemed suitable candidates for open lower extremity bypass surgery had similar peri-procedural complications following either OPEN or ENDO revascularization: In such patients, concern about risk of peri-procedure complications should not be a deterrent in deciding revascularization strategy. Rather, other factors, including effectiveness in restoring perfusion and patient preference, are more relevant., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The use of optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has not been well-studied. The Best Endovascular vs Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI study (BEST-CLI) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health comparing revascularization strategies in patients with CLTI. We evaluated the use of guideline-based OMT among patients with CLTI at the time of their enrollment into the trial., Methods: A multidisciplinary committee defined OMT criteria related to blood pressure and diabetic management, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medication use, and smoking status for patients enrolled in BEST-CLI. Status reports indicating adherence to OMT were provided to participating sites at regular intervals. Baseline demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and use of OMT at trial entry were evaluated for all randomized patients. A linear regression model was used to identify the relationship of predictors to the use of OMT., Results: At the time of randomization (n = 1830 total enrolled), 87% of patients in BEST-CLI had hypertension, 69% had diabetes, 73% had hyperlipidemia, and 35% were currently smoking. Adherence to four OMT components (controlled blood pressure, not currently smoking, use of one lipid-lowering medication, and use of an antiplatelet agent) was modest. Only 25% of patients met all four OMT criteria; 38% met three, 24% met two, 11% met only one, and 2% met none. Age ≥80 years, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and Hispanic ethnicity were positively associated, whereas Black race was negatively associated, with the use of OMT., Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients in BEST-CLI did not meet OMT guideline-based recommendations at time of entry. These data suggest a persistent major gap in the medical management of patients with advanced peripheral atherosclerosis and CLTI. Changes in OMT adherence over the course of the trial and their impact on clinical outcomes and quality of life will be assessed in future analyses., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Carotid atherosclerotic disease continues to be an important cause of stroke, often disabling or fatal. Such strokes could be largely prevented through optimal medical therapy and carotid revascularization. Advancements in discovery research and imaging along with evidence from recent pharmacology and interventional clinical trials and registries and the progress in acute stroke management have markedly expanded knowledge base for clinical decisions in carotid stenosis. Nevertheless, there is variability in carotid-related stroke prevention and management strategies across medical specialities. Optimal patient care can be achieved by (1) establishing a unified knowledge foundation and (2) fostering multi-specialty collaborative guidelines. The emergent Neuro-Vascular Team concept, mirroring the multi-disciplinary Heart Team, embraces diverse specializations, tailores personalized, stratified medicine approaches to individual patient needs, and integrates innovative imaging and risk-assessment biomarkers. Proposed approach integrates collaboration of multiple specialists central to carotid artery stenosis management such as neurology, stroke medicine, cardiology, angiology, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, endovascular interventions, neuroradiology and neurosurgery. Moreover, patient education regarding current treatment options, their risks and advantages, is pivotal, promting patient's active role in clinical care decisions. This enables optimization of interventions ranging from lifestyle modification, carotid revascularization by stenting or endarterectomy, as well as pharmacological management encompassing statins, novel lipid-lowering and antithrombotic strategies and targeting inflammation and vascular dysfunction. This consensus document provides a harmonized multi-specialty approach to multimorbidity prevention in carotid stenosis patients, based on comprehensive knowledge review, pinpointing research gaps in an evidence-based medicine approach. It aims to be a foundational tool for interdisciplinary collaboration and prioritized patient-centric decision-making., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Catheter-based interventions have emerged for both acute and chronic pulmonary thromboembolic disease. With this development and the need for segmental cannulation, anatomic understanding of pulmonary arterial segmental branch origination is important. We aim to describe the prevalence of different pulmonary arterial segmental branch origination patterns., Methods: This study included 179 consecutive patients who underwent bilateral nonselective invasive pulmonary angiography for the evaluation of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension., Results: In our study population (age, 59.0 ± 14.8 years, 55.3% female, 71% White), we found several anatomic variations of branches to the different lobes. These included 7 branching patterns in the right upper lobe, 3 in the right middle lobe, and 10 in the right lower lobe (4 patterns for the origin of the superior segmental artery and 6 for the origin of the basilar segmental arteries). On the left side, we found 8 patterns in the left upper lobe, with 5 involving lingular branches, and 9 in the left lower lobe (5 for the origin of the superior segmental artery and 4 for the basilar segmental pulmonary arteries). Although there were many variations, only 2-3 variations for each individual lobe accounted for >90% of the angiograms., Conclusions: Up to 3 anatomic branching patterns per lobe were noted to account for >90% of pulmonary artery branching variations in this study. This knowledge is not only useful for the interventionalist performing catheter-directed therapies but also for future research efforts that aim to standardize reporting of pulmonary angiographic findings., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Persistent symptoms of chest pain, dyspnea, fatigue, lightheadedness, and/or syncope more than 3 months after an acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are collectively classified as postpulmonary embolism syndrome (PPES). Although PPES is increasingly recognized as an important long-term sequel of acute PE, its contemporary incidence is unclear. Furthermore, the utilization of diagnostic testing for further phenotypic characterization of these patients is unknown. This study aimed to define the incidence of PPES and evaluate the utilization of diagnostic tests among a national cohort of patients with PE., Methods: Retrospective cohort study was performed using the national administrative database, Clinformatics DataMart Database (Optum Insight), and included adult patients (18 years or older) with no history of acute PE or pulmonary hypertension, diagnosed with acute PE between October 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. With acute PE event as the exposure, the incidence of symptoms consistent with PPES and diagnostic test utilization among patients with PPES were evaluated., Results: Of 21,297 incident patients with acute PE, 11,969 (56.2%) showed ≥1 symptom of PPES, which was new since their pre-PE baseline. New dyspnea was the most common and noted in 3268/15,203 (21.5%) patients, followed by new malaise or fatigue in 2894/15,643 (18.5%) patients. Among the 11,969 patients with PPES, 5128 (42.8%) received ≥1 diagnostic test, with 3242 (27%) receiving a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram, 2997 (25%) receiving an echocardiogram, and 325 (2.7%) received a ventilation-perfusion scan within 3-12 months after PE. Significantly lower use of diagnostic testing was noted in patients older than 65 years (adjusted odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.98)., Conclusions: Symptoms consistent with PPES are common after acute PE, occurring in more than half of the patients. Diagnostic imaging for further phenotypic characterization is used in less than half of such patients with PPES., (© 2023 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) was introduced as a treatment modality for patients with inoperable, medically refractory chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension decades ago; however, reports of high rates of pulmonary vascular injury have led to considerable refinement in procedural technique., Objectives: The authors sought to better understand the evolution of BPA procedure-related complications over time., Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review of original articles published by pulmonary hypertension centers globally and performed a pooled cohort analysis of procedure-related outcomes with BPA., Results: This systematic review identified 26 published articles from 18 countries worldwide from 2013 to 2022. A total of 1,714 patients underwent 7,561 total BPA procedures with an average follow up of 7.3 months. From the first period (2013-2017) to the second period (2018-2022), the cumulative incidence of hemoptysis/vascular injury decreased from 14.1% (474/3,351) to 7.7% (233/3,029) (P < 0.01); lung injury/reperfusion edema decreased from 11.3% (377/3,351) to 1.4% (57/3,943) (P < 0.01); invasive mechanical ventilation decreased from 0.7% (23/3,195) to 0.1% (4/3,062) (P < 0.01); and mortality decreased from 2.0% (13/636) to 0.8% (8/1,071) (P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Procedure-related complications with BPA, including hemoptysis/vascular injury, lung injury/reperfusion edema, mechanical ventilation, and death, were less common in the second period (2018-2022), compared with first period (2013-2017), likely from refinement in patient and lesion selection and procedural technique over time., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Krasuski has been a consultant to Actelion/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Gore Medical and Medtronic; and has received research funding from the Adult Congenital Heart Association, Actelion, Corvia, CryoLife, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Rosenfield has been a consultant to or served on scientific advisory boards for Abbott Vascular, Althea Medical, Angiodynamics, Auxetics, Becton-Dickinson, Boston Scientific, Contego, Crossliner, Innova Vascular, Inspire MD, Janssen/Johnson and Johnson, Magneto, Mayo Clinic, MedAlliance, Neptune Medical, Penumbra, Philips, Surmodics, Terumo, Thrombolex, Truvic, Vasorum, and Vumedi; has received institutional research grants from the NIH, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Novo Nordisk, Penumbra, and Gettinge-Atrium; has equity interest in Accolade, Access Vascular, Aerami, Althea Medical, Auxetics, Contego, Crossliner, Cruzar Systems, Embolitech, Endospan, Imperative Care/Truvic, Innova Vascular, InspireMD, JanaCare, Magneto, MedAlliance, Neptune Medical, Orchestra, PQ Bypass, Prosomnus, Shockwave, Skydance, Summa Therapeutics, Thrombolex, Valcare, Vasorum, and Vumedi; and is a board member and founder of the National PERT Consortium. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, foot Infection) stage measures the extent of wounds, ischemia, and foot infection in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) and has been associated with the risk of major amputation. Patients with CLTI have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be multifactorial. We hypothesized that the severity of the limb threat (WIfI stage) would be associated with poor HRQoL among patients with CLTI presenting for revascularization., Methods: The dataset of the BEST-CLI (best endovascular versus best surgical therapy in patients with CLTI) trial, a prospective, randomized trial comparing open and endovascular revascularization strategies, was queried for HRQoL assessments at patient enrollment. The HRQoL assessments included (1) Vascular Quality of Life; (2) 12-item short form survey (SF-12), containing the utility index score (short-form six-dimension R2 utility index, incorporating physical, emotional, and mental well-being) and mental and physical components; and (3) the EQ-5D. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify the independent associations with the baseline HRQoL assessments., Results: A total of 1568 patients with complete WIfI data were analyzed, of whom 71.5% were men. The WIfI distribution was 35.5% with stage 4, 29.6% with stage 3, 28.6% with stage 2, and 6.3% with stage 1. Patients presenting with WIfI stage 4, compared with stage 1 to 3, were more often men (74.9% vs 69.6%) and current smokers (25.4% vs. 17.6%), had had end-stage renal disease (13.3% vs 8.5%) and diabetes (83.6% vs 60.2%), were not independently ambulatory (56.8% vs 38.5%), and had had higher median morbidity scores (4 vs 3; P < .05 for all). On multivariable analysis, WIfI stage 4, compared with stage 1 to 3, was associated with lower SF-12 mental component scale scores (estimate, -2.43; 95% confidence interval, -3.73 to -1.13; P < .001) and short-form six-dimension R2 utility index scores (estimate, -0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.03 to 0.001; P = .04). The WIfI stage was not independently associated with the baseline Vascular Quality of Life, SF-12 physical component scale, or EQ-5D assessments., Conclusions: WIfI stage was independently associated with poorer quality of life because of mental, rather than physical, health for patients with CLTI. Clinicians should be aware of the burden of mental stress borne by those with the greatest limb impairment., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Research on heterosexual mating has demonstrated that acoustic parameters (e.g., pitch) of men's voices influence their attractiveness to women and appearance of status and formidability to other men. However, little is known about how men's tendency to clearly articulate their speech influences these important social perceptions. In the current study, we used a repeated-measures design to investigate how men's articulatory clarity or conformity influenced women's (N = 45) evaluations of men's attractiveness for both short- and long-term relationships, and men's (N = 46) evaluations of physical formidability and prestige. Results largely supported our hypotheses: men who enunciated phonemes more distinctly were more attractive to women for long-term relationships than short-term relationships and were perceived by other men to have higher prestige than physical dominance. These findings suggest that aspects of articulatory behavior that influence perceptions of prestige and long-term mating attractiveness may indicate an early social history characterized by high socioeconomic status, likely owing to crystallization of articulatory patterns during the critical period of language development. These articulatory patterns may also be honest signals of condition or disposition owing to the nature of complex, multicomponent traits, which deserve further empirical attention., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: 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)., Objectives: 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)., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The study was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) under a Small Business Innovation Research grant to Thrombolex (Grant # R44HL151032-03, Principal investigator, Brian G. Firth, MD, PhD), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Health, and Thrombolex. Dr Bashir is the coinventor of the Bashir endovascular catheter; has equity interest in Thrombolex; and is supported by an NHLBI grant under the Small Business Innovation Research grant mechanism. Dr Sista has received research grant support from the NHLBI; and is an unpaid member of the scientific advisory board of Thrombolex. Dr Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS, a BTG International Group company, Bayer, the Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Daiichi-Sankyo, Portola, and Janssen; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, and Thrombolex. Dr Firth is chief scientific officer for Thrombolex. Dr Comerota is a member of the scientific advisory board of Thrombolex. Dr Rosenfield is a member of the scientific advisory board or a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Access Vascular, Boston Scientific–BTG, Volcano-Philips, Surmodics, Cruzar Systems, Magneto, Summa Therapeutics, and the University of Maryland; is an unpaid member of the scientific advisory board of Thrombolex; has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and Boston Scientific; has equity in Access Vascular, Accolade, Contego, Endospan, Embolitech, Eximo, JanaCare, PQ Bypass, Primacea, MD Insider, Shockwave, Silk Road, Summa Therapeutics, Cruzar Systems, Capture Vascular, Magneto, Micell, and Valcare; and is a board member of VIVA Physicians, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and the National PERT Consortium, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. Dr Darki has received research grant support from EKOS, a BTG International Group company. Dr Jaber has received consultation fees and institutional educational and research grants from Inari Medical and Medtronic. Dr Gandhi is a consultant to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Penumbra, and Inari. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been shown in limited prospective studies to improve procedural outcomes for patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral arterial intervention (PVI)., Objectives: The authors aimed to study temporal trends, practice variation, and associated outcomes with the use of IVUS during PVI among Medicare beneficiaries., Methods: All PVIs performed from 2016 to 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries aged >65 years were included. Temporal trends in IVUS use were stratified by procedural location (inpatient, outpatient, or ambulatory surgery center [ASC]/office-based laboratory [OBL]) and physician specialty. The primary outcome was major adverse limb events (MALE). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Cox regression with competing risks was used to estimate weighted hazard ratios., Results: During the study period, 543,488 PVIs were included, of which 63,372 (11.7%) used IVUS. A substantial growth in IVUS use was observed, which was driven by procedures performed in ASCs/OBLs (23.6% increase from quarter 1 of 2016 through quarter 4 of 2019). Among operators who used IVUS, there was also notable variation in use (median operator use 5.4% of cases; IQR: 2.2%-15.0%; range, <1%-100%). In weighted analysis, IVUS use during PVI was associated with a lower risk of MALE through a median of 514 days (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.70-0.75; P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: In contemporary nationwide data, IVUS use during PVI has increased since 2016, driven by growth in the ASC/OBL setting. However, there remains substantial variation in operator practice. When used during PVI, IVUS was associated with a lower risk of short- and long-term MALE., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was funded by the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, including a research grant from Philips to the Smith Center. Dr Divakaran is supported by a joint KL2/Catalyst Medical Research Investigator Training (CMeRIT) Award from Harvard Catalyst and the Boston Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (5P30AG031679-10). Dr Secemsky is supported by National Institutes of Health/NHLBI K23 HL150290 and Harvard Medical School’s Shore Faculty Development Award. Dr Parikh has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific (DSMB), Shockwave, Surmodics, TriReme, and Veryan Medical; has received consulting fees from Abiomed, Inari, Penumbra, and Terumo; and is an advisory board member for Abbott, Boston Scientific, CSI, Janssen, Medtronic, and Philips. Dr Hawkins has received institutional research grants from Behring, Hemostemix, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and Boston Scientific. Dr Banerjee has received honoraria from Medtronic, Cordis, Livmor, and AngioSafe. Dr Rosenfield has received research grants to his institution from National Institutes of Health and Boston Scientific; has equity in Accolade, Access Vascular, Althea Medical, Contego, Cruzar Systems, Embolitech, Endospan, JanaCare, Magneto, Orchestra, PQ Bypass, Shockwave, Thrombolex, Truvic, and Valcare; is a consultant/has scientific advisory board relationships with Angiodynamics, Boston Scientific, Contego; InspireMD, Magneto, Mayo Clinic, Neptune Medical, Philips, Summa Therapeutics, Surmodics, Thrombolex, and Truvic; and is a board member of the National PERT Consortium. Dr Secemsky has received research grants to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (NIH/NHLBI K23HL150290, Food and Drug Administration, Harvard Medical School’s Shore Faculty Development Award, AstraZeneca, BD, Boston Scientific, Cook, CSI, Laminate Medical, Medtronic, and Philips); and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Bayer, BD, Boston Scientific, Cook, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and VentureMed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This review details the utility of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for the management of peripheral artery and venous disease. The purpose of this document is to provide an update in the use of IVUS in peripheral arterial and venous pathology and demonstrate the use of IVUS as a practical diagnostic imaging procedure to evaluate and treat peripheral vascular disorders. IVUS, a diagnostic tool that relies on sound waves to produce precise images of the vessel being evaluated, was originally introduced to the medical community for the purposes of peripheral artery imaging, though it was quickly adapted for coronary interventions with positive outcomes. The utility of IVUS includes vessel measurement, pre- and post-procedural planning, treatment optimisation, and detection of thrombus, dissection or calcium severity. While angiography remains the standard imaging approach during peripheral intervention, multiple observational studies and small prospective trials have shown that in comparison, IVUS provides more accurate imaging detail, which may improve procedural outcomes. IVUS can also address limitations of angiography, including the need to administer contrast medium and eliminate the ambiguity associated with other forms of imaging. This review provides contemporary examples of where IVUS is being used during peripheral intervention as well as representative imaging to serve as a resource for the practising clinician.

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p < 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p < 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p < 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p < 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p < 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials., Competing Interests: Kenneth Rosenfield reports receiving fees for serving on advisory boards from Abbott Vascular, Cardinal Health, Surmodics, Inari Medical, Volcano/Philips, and Proteon; receiving fees and stock options for serving on advisory boards from Cruzar Systems, Valcare, and Eximo; receiving stock options for serving on advisory boards from Capture Vascular, Shockwave, Micell, Endospan, and Silk Road Vascular; receiving stock options for serving on the advisory boards of and the holding of equity positions in Contego, Access Vascular, and MD Insider; holding stock/stock options in Embolitech, Janacare, Primacea, and PQ Bypass; receipt of a future payout from a previous equity position in Vortex; and receiving grant support paid to his institution from Abbott Vascular, Atrium/Maquet, and Lutonix/Bard. David Christopher Metzger is Co- Principal Investigator in the CGUARDIANS FDA-IDE Trial. Adnan H. Siddiqui has consulted for Amnis Therapeutics Ltd, Cerebrotech Medical, Systems Inc, CereVasc LLC, Claret Medical Inc, Codman, Corindus Inc, GuidePoint Global Consulting, Medtronic (Formerly Covidien), MicroVention, Neuravi, Penumbra, Pulsar Vascular, Rapid Medical, Rebound Therapeutics Corporation, Silk Road Medical, Stryker, The Stroke Project Inc, Three Rivers Medical Inc, W.L. Gore & Associates, and is a Board Member of Intersocietal Accreditation Commission. He has been Principal Investigator and/or served on Steering Committees for: Codman & Shurtleff, LARGE Trial, Covidien (Now Medtronic), SWIFT PRIME and SWIFT DIRECT Trials; MicroVention, FRED Trial, CONFIDENCE Study, MUSC, POSITIVE Trial; Penumbra, 3D Separator Trial, COMPASS Trial, INVEST Trial. AHS has financial interests in BuffaloTechnology Partners Inc, Cardinal, International Medical Distribution Partners, Medina Medical Systems, Neuro Technology Investors, StimMed, and Valor Medical. Piotr Pieniazek has proctored and/or consulted for Terumo, Boston Scientific and Balton. Joachim Schofer has been Co-Principal Investigator in the CARENET Trial. Andrej Schmidt has consulted for Abbott Vascular, BD, Cook and Medtronic. Piotr Musialek has proctored and/or consulted for Abbott Vascular, InspireMD, and Medtronic. PM is Co- Principal Investigator in the CGUARDIANS FDA-IDE Trial and has been Co-Principal Investigator in the CARENET Trial; he is Principal Investigator in a series of Investigator-Initiated studies including PARADIGM/PARADIGM-Extend (NCT04271033), FLOW-GUARD (NCT04461717), OPTIMA (NCT04234854), TOP-GUARD (NCT0454738), C-HEAL (NCT04434456), SIM-GUARD (NCT04973579) and SAFEGUARD-STROKE (NCT05195658). PM is the Polish Cardiac Society Board Representative for Stroke and Vascular Interventions and serves on the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Stroke Council Scientific Documents Task Force and on ESC Research and Grants Committee. Other author declare no conflict of interest.

Balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) is an evolving treatment modality for patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) who are not candidates for pulmonary endarterectomy. Although several imaging modalities currently exist for evaluating CTEPH, their individual use, specifically in the clinical practice of BPA, has not been well described. In this article, we provide a preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural interventional imaging roadmap for safe and effective BPA performance in routine clinical practice. Preprocedural assessment includes transthoracic echocardiography for right ventricular assessment, ventilation/perfusion scan to identify pulmonary segments with the highest degree of hypoperfusion, cross-sectional chest imaging excluding alternative causes of mismatched defects and providing anatomic and perfusion imaging concurrently, and nonselective invasive pulmonary angiography for risk stratification of individual lesion subtypes. Intraprocedural assessment includes subselective segmental angiography (SSA) for delineating segmental and subsegmental branch anatomy, lesion identification, and vessel sizing. Intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography serve as adjunctive intraprocedural tools for more accurate vessel sizing and lesion characterization when SSA alone is insufficient. Postprocedural considerations include chest radiography to monitor for immediate postprocedure complications and echocardiography for the interval assessment of the right ventricle on longer-term follow-up., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background: There has been growing use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during lower extremity arterial and venous revascularization. Observational data suggest that the use of IVUS can improve periprocedural and long-term outcomes, but largescale prospective data remain limited. Consensus opinion regarding the appropriate use of IVUS during peripheral intervention is needed., Objectives: The purpose of this consensus document is to provide guidance on the appropriate use of IVUS in various phases of peripheral arterial and venous interventions., Methods: A 12-member writing committee was convened to derive consensus regarding the appropriate clinical scenarios for use of peripheral IVUS. The group iteratively created a 72-question survey representing 12 lower extremity arterial interventional scenarios. Separately, a 40-question survey representing 8 iliofemoral venous interventional scenarios was constructed. Clinical scenarios were categorized by interventional phases: preintervention, intraprocedure, and postintervention optimization. Thirty international vascular experts (15 for each survey) anonymously completed the survey instrument. Results were categorized by appropriateness using the median value and disseminated to the voting panel to reevaluate for any disagreement., Results: Consensus opinion concluded that IVUS use may be appropriate during the preintervention phase for evaluating the etiology of vessel occlusion and plaque morphology in the iliac and femoropopliteal arteries. IVUS was otherwise rated as appropriate during iliac and femoropopliteal revascularization in most other preintervention scenarios, as well as intraprocedural and postprocedural optimization phases. IVUS was rated appropriate in all interventional phases for the tibial arteries. For iliofemoral venous interventions, IVUS was rated as appropriate in all interventional phases., Conclusions: Expert consensus can help define clinical procedural scenarios in which peripheral IVUS may have value during lower extremity arterial and venous intervention while additional prospective data are collected., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Secemsky is funded in part by National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant K23HL150290. This review was funded in part by unrestricted educational grants from Boston Scientific and Philips IGT. These companies have not seen or participated in the creation of this manuscript, including no contribution in the writing of the manuscript, significant edits, or the decision whether to submit. Dr Secemsky is a consultant and Speakers Bureau and/or advisory board member for Abbott, Bayer, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Boston Scientific, Cook, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and VentureMed; has received grants to the institution from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL150290), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Harvard Medical School (Shore Faculty Development Award), AstraZeneca, BD, Boston Scientific, Cook, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Laminate Medical, Medtronic, and Philips. Dr Kohi is a board member at VIVA Physicians; and is a global principal investigator of the ELEGANCE (Drug-Eluting Registry: Real-World Treatment of Lesions in the Peripheral Vasculature) registry with Boston Scientific but is not being personally compensated. Dr Rosenfield is a consultant and scientific advisory board member for Angiodynamics, Boston Scientific, Contego, InspireMD, Magneto, Mayo Clinic, Neptune Medical, Philips, Summa Therapeutics, Surmodics, Thrombolex, and Truvic; has received grants to the institution from the National Institutes of Health and Boston Scientific; holds equity in Accolade, Access Vascular, Althea Medical, Contego, Cruzar Systems, Embolitech, Endospan, JanaCare, Magneto, Orchestra, PQ Bypass, Shockwave, Thrombolex, Truvic, and Valcare; and is a board member for the National PERT Consortium, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to advancing treatment and improving outcomes in pulmonary embolism. Dr Lichtenberg has received honoraria for lectures from Cagent Vascular, CR Bard, Boston Scientific, AB Medica, Philips, Terumo, Biotronik, Veryan, and Medtronic; has received honoraria for advisory board activities from Cagent Vascular, Biotronik, Veryan, Boston Scientific, Philips, Soundbite, Limflow, Covellus, and Medtronic; has participated in clinical trials for Cagent Vascular, Biotronik, CR Bard, Verya, Boston Scientific, LimFlow, Terumo, and Philips; and has received research funding from Cagent Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Veryan, plusMedica, Philips, and CR Bard. Dr Meissner has served as a consultant for Cook Medical for a project using a Delphi consensus panel for venous stenting; Dr Varcoe consults for Medtronic, Abbott, BD Bard, Philips Healthcare, Intervene, and Surmodics; Dr Holden is a medical advisory board member for Medtronic, Gore, and Boston Scientific; and is a clinical investigator for Bard/BD, Boston Scientific, Cagent Medical, Cook Medical, Endologix, Endospan, Gore Medical, Intact Vascular, Medtronic, Philips, Reflow Medical, Shockwave Medical, and TriReme Medical. Dr Jaff is a part-time employee at Boston Scientific; is a consultant at Glide Healthcare; and holds equity investments in R3 Vascular, Nectero, Vactronix, and EFemoral. Dr Chalyan is an employee at Philips IGT. Dr Clair discloses his involvement with Boston Scientific, Elastimed, Endologix, and Medtronic and clarifies that he does not receive any income from these relationships, as all the income goes to the organization by which he is employed; and serves as a data and safety monitoring board member for Bard/Becton, Dickinson and Company and Boston Scientific (all income goes to the medical group). Dr Hawkins is a consultant at Baim; and conducts institutional research at Behring, Hemostemix, and the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr Parikh is an advisory board member for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Philips, and Cordis; has conducted research for Abbott, Boston Scientific (data and safety monitoring board), Shockwave, Surmodics, TriReme, Veryan Medical, Acotec, and MedAlliance; and is a consultant for Abiomed, Canon, Inari, Penumbra, and Terumo. Dr Mosarla has reported that she has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although angiography has been the primary imaging modality used in peripheral vascular intervention, this technique has major limitations due to the evaluation of three-dimensional vessels in two dimensions. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is an important adjunctive tool that can address some of these limitations. This systematic review assesses the appropriateness of IVUS as an imaging modality for guiding peripheral intervention through evidence collection and clinical appraisal of studies. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a cohort of 48 studies (29 arterial; 19 venous) detailing IVUS use in peripheral vascular intervention were extracted. Qualitative assessment of the studies evaluated pre- and postprocedure efficacy of IVUS and revealed that IVUS-guided peripheral intervention in arterial and venous diagnosis and treatment was superior to other imaging techniques alone. Each study in the cohort was further assessed for reliability and validity using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) level of evidence scale. The majority of both arterial (79.3%) and venous (73.7%) studies received a 2b rating, the second highest level of evidence rating. The evidence to date indicates that IVUS results in better clinical outcomes overall and should be more widely adopted as an adjunctive imaging modality during peripheral intervention. (PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42021232353) .

Significant advances in the field of carotid artery stenting (CAS) have occurred, including new randomized trial data, recent professional societal statements for competency, new techniques and new devices that have been developed, and perhaps most importantly, our understanding of how to better select candidates for CAS to avoid periprocedural complications. The current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage decision regarding CAS is outdated, and our review supports our recommendation to approve CAS in selected candidates who are symptomatic with a carotid stenosis ≥50% and ≤99% and for asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis ≥70% and ≤99% for stroke prevention. Optimized CAS strategies have allowed experienced operators to better assess procedure risk before CAS and have led to continued improvement in CAS outcomes. New technologies including enhanced embolic protection devices and dual-layered stents should result in further improvement., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Siddiqui is supported by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (co-investigator, Grant No. 1R01NS091075 [Virtual Intervention of Intracranial Aneurysms]; co-principal investigator, Grant No. R21 NS109575-01 [Optimizing Approaches to Endovascular Therapy of Acute Ischemic Stroke]). Dr Gray has served as a consultant for and received research support from Contego. Dr Heck has served as a consultant for Stryker. Dr Jovin has served as an advisor for, has been an investor in, or owns stock in Route92, Methinks, Galaxy, Viz.ai, Anaconda, and FreeOx Biotech; has served as a consultant for Cerenovus and Contego Medical; and has received grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular. Dr Lyden has served as a consultant for Endologix, PQ Bypass, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, BD, Penumbra, and VIVA Physicians; has served as a board member for and received departmental research study support from Endologix, Gore, BD, Bolton, Abbott, Penumbra, Boston Scientific, Merit, and Contego Medical; and owns stock options in Centerline Biomedical. Dr Metzger has served as the principal investigator for the C-GUARDIANS, SAPPHIRE WW, and CANOPY CAS trials; and has served as the co-principal investigator for the CONFIDENCE CAS trial; has received symposium and proctor honoraria from Abbott Vascular; and has served on the advisory committee for Boston Scientific. Dr Rosenfield has served as a consultant or on the scientific advisory board for Althea Medical, Angiodynamics, Boston Scientific, Contego, InspireMD, Magneto, Mayo Clinic, Neptune Medical, Philips, Summa Therapeutics, Surmodics, Thrombolex, Terumo, and Truvic; has received institutional grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific; owns equity interests in Accolade, Access Vascular, Aerami, Althea Medical, Contego, Cruzar Systems, Embolitech, Endospan, InspireMD, JanaCare, Magneto, Orchestra, PQ Bypass, Prosomnus, Shockwave, Summa Therapeutics, Thrombolex, Truvic, and Valcare; and has served as a board member for the National PERT Consortium. Dr Roubin has received from Cook Inc; and owns equity in Inspire MD. Dr Sachar has served as a consultant and advisory board member for Boston Scientific and Medtronic; has received institutional funds for research or clinical trials from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Microvention, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, Terumo, and Veryan; and is a major shareholder of Contego Medical. Dr Siddiqui owns financial interest in, is an investor in, owns stock options, or has ownership in Adona Medical, Amnis Therapeutics, Bend IT Technologies, BlinkTBI, Buffalo Technology Partners, Cardinal Consultants, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Cerevatech Medical, Cognition Medical, CVAID, Endostream Medical, Imperative Care, Instylla, International Medical Distribution Partners, Launch NY, NeuroRadial Technologies, Neurotechnology Investors, Neurovascular Diagnostics, PerFlow Medical, Q’Apel Medical, QAS.ai, Radical Catheter Technologies, Rebound Therapeutics (purchased 2019 by Integra Lifesciences), Rist Neurovascular (purchased 2020 by Medtronic), Sense Diagnostics, Serenity Medical, Silk Road Medical, Spinnaker Medical, StimMed, Synchron, Three Rivers Medical, Truvic Medical, Vastrax, VICIS, and Viseon; has served as a consultant or on the advisory board for Amnis Therapeutics, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Cardinal Health 200, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Cerenovus, Cerevatech Medical, Cordis, Corindus, Endostream Medical, Imperative Care, Integra, IRRAS AB, Medtronic, MicroVention, Minnetronix Neuro, Penumbra, Q’Apel Medical, Rapid Medical, Rebound Therapeutics, Serenity Medical, Silk Road Medical, StimMed, Stryker Neurovascular, Three Rivers Medical, VasSol, Viz.ai, and W.L. Gore and Associates; served as the national principal investigator for or on the steering committee of the Cerenovus EXCELLENT and ARISE II trial; the Medtronic SWIFT PRIME, VANTAGE, EMBOLISE and SWIFT DIRECT trials; the MicroVention FRED trial and CONFIDENCE study; the MUSC POSITIVE trial; the Penumbra 3D Separator trial, COMPASS trial, INVEST trial, MIVI neuroscience EVAQ trial; and the Rapid Medical SUCCESS trial. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The incidence of injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis has been increasing rapidly over the last decade. Patients with drug use-associated infective endocarditis present an increasingly common clinical challenge with poor long-term outcomes and high reinfection and readmission rates. Their care raises issues unique to this population, including antibiotic selection and administration, indications for and ethical issues surrounding surgical intervention, and importantly management of the underlying substance use disorder to minimize the risk of reinfection. Successful treatment of these patients requires a broad understanding of these concerns. A multidisciplinary, collaborative approach providing a holistic approach to treating both the acute infection along with effectively addressing substance use disorder is needed to improve short-term and longer-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Bearnot is supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Drug Abuse under grant K12DA043490. Dr Rosenfield has served as a consultant and/or Scientific Advisory Board member for Althea Medical, Angiodynamics, Boston Scientific, Contego, InspireMD, Magneto, Mayo Clinic, Neptune Medical, Phillips, Summa Therapeutics, Surmodics, Thrombolex, Terumo, and Truvic; holds equity in Accolade, Access Vascular, Aerami, Althea Medical, Contego, Cruzar Systems, Embolitech, Endospan, InspireMD, JanaCare, Magneto, Orchestra, PQ Bypass, Prosomnus, Shockwave, Summa Therapeutics, Thrombolex, Truvic, and Valcare; and is a Board Member for National PERT Consortium. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mortality rates for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) remain high despite advances in revascularization strategies and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices., Objectives: This study sought to elucidate the association between comorbid lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) and outcomes in CS and AMI., Methods: PAD status was defined in Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with CS and AMI from October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. Primary outcomes ascertained through December 31, 2018 included in- and out-of-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, amputation, stroke, and lower extremity revascularization. Multivariable regression models with adjustment for confounders were used to estimate risk. Subgroup analyses included patients treated with MCS and those who underwent coronary revascularization., Results: Among 71,690 patients, 5.9% (N = 4,259) had PAD. Mean age was 77.8 ± 7.9 years, 58.7% were male, and 84.3% were White. Cumulative in-hospital mortality was 47.2%, with greater risk among those with PAD (56.3% vs 46.6% without PAD; adjusted OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.40-1.59). PAD patients also had greater risk of in-hospital amputation (1.6% vs 0.2%; adjusted OR: 7.0; 95% CI: 5.26-9.37) and out-of-hospital mortality (67.9% vs 40.7%; adjusted HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.67-1.90). MCS was less frequently utilized in PAD patients (21.5% vs 38.6% without PAD; P < 0.001) and was associated with higher mortality, need for lower extremity revascularization, and amputation risk. Findings were consistent in patients who underwent coronary revascularization., Conclusions: Among patients presenting with AMI and CS, PAD was associated with worse limb outcomes and survival. In addition to lower MCS utilization rates, those with PAD who received MCS had increased mortality, lower extremity revascularization, and amputation rates., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mihatov has been funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant T32HL007208. Dr Kirtane has received funding for research grants, speaking engagements and/or consulting paid to his institutions from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, CSI, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, and ReCor Medical; and has received personal fees for travel expenses/meals from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, CSI, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. Dr Parikh has received institutional research support from Abbott Vascular, TriReme Medical, SurModics, and Shockwave Medical; is an advisory board member for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Medtronic, Janssen, CSI, and Philips; and receives honoraria from Abiomed and Terumo. Dr Rosenfield has served as a consultant to or on the scientific advisory board for Access Vascular, Althea Medical, Angiodynamics, BMS-Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Contego, Janssen, InspireMD, Magneto, Mayo Clinic, Neptune Medical, Philips, Summa Therapeutics, Surmodics, Thrombolex, Terumo, and Truvic; has received institutional grants from the NIH, Philips, Intact Vascular, and Boston Scientific; has equity in Accolade, Access Vascular, Althea Medical, Contego, Cruzar Systems, Embolitech, Endospan, Eximo, InspireMG, JanaCare, Magneto, Micell, Neptune Medical, Orchestra, PQ Bypass, Prosomnus, Shockwave, Summa Therapeutics, Thrombolex, Truvic, and Valcare; and serves as a board member for the National PERT Consortium. Dr Yeh has served on scientific advisory boards, consulted for, and received research support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and receives funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant R01HL136708 and the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr Secemsky has received consulting and/or speaking fees from Bard, Cook Medical, CSI, Medtronic, and Phillips; and receives research support from NIH/NHLBI K23HL150290, Food & Drug Administration, Harvard Medical School’s Shore Faculty Development Award, AstraZeneca, Bard, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Laminate Medical, Medtronic, and Philips. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is the most frequent indication for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the United States. Published trials and guidelines support CEA indications in selected patients with longer projected survival and when periprocedural complications are low. Transfemoral carotid artery stenting with embolic protection (CAS) is a newer treatment option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients treated with CAS vs CEA., Methods: Patient-level data was analyzed from 2544 subjects with ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard medical therapy. One trial enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and another enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility). Independent neurologic assessment and routine cardiac enzyme screening were performed. The prespecified, primary composite endpoint was any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization., Results: There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between CAS and CEA (5.3% vs 5.1%; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.5; P = .91). Periprocedural rates for the components are (CAS vs CEA): any stroke (2.7% vs 1.5%; P = .07), myocardial infarction (0.6% vs 1.7%; P = .01), death (0.1% vs 0.2%; P = .62), and any stroke or death (2.7% vs 1.6%; P = .07). After this period, the rates of ipsilateral stroke were similar (2.3% vs 2.2%; P = .97)., Conclusions: In a pooled analysis of two large randomized trials of CAS and CEA in asymptomatic, nonoctogenarian patients, CAS achieves comparable short- and long-term results to CEA., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)