Design and Rationale of Routine ltrasoud Gudance for ascular Accss fo Cardiac Procedure: Randomized Tria (UNIVERSAL)

Background

A significant limitation of femoral artery access for cardiac interventions is the increased risk of vascular complications and bleeding compared to radial access. Ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access may reduce major vascular complications and bleeding. We aim to determine whether routinely using US guidance for femoral arterial access for coronary angiography or intervention will reduce Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or major vascular complications.

Methods

The Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: A Randomized Trial (UNIVERSAL) is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized trial with blinded outcomes assessment. Patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without intervention via a femoral approach with fluoroscopic guidance will be randomized 1:1 to US-guided femoral access, compared to no US. The primary outcome is the composite of major bleeding based on the BARC 2, 3, or 5 criteria or major vascular complications within 30 days. The trial is designed to have 80% power and a 2-sided alpha level of 5% to detect a 50% relative risk reduction for the primary outcome based on a control event rate of 14%.

Results

We completed enrollment on April 29, 2022, with 621 randomized patients. The patients had a mean age of 71 years (25.4% female), with a high rate of comorbidities, as follows: 45% had a prior percutaneous coronary intervention; 57% had previous coronary artery bypass surgery; and 18% had peripheral vascular disease.

Conclusions

The UNIVERSAL trial will be one of the largest randomized trials of US-guided femoral access and has the potential to change guidelines and increase US uptake for coronary procedures worldwide.

A Computed Tomography Protocol to Evaluate Coronary Artery Disease Before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) computed tomographic angiography (CTA) images can be used to evaluate coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of consecutive TAVR patients from November 2019 to February 2021 to evaluate TAVR CTA assessment of CAD on the rate of pre-TAVR invasive angiography. Patients had CTA first or invasive angiography first at the discretion of their treating physicians. TAVR CTA scans were categorised as normal/mild CAD, single-vessel disease, high risk (multivessel or left main disease), or nondiagnostic in patients without previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and as low risk or high risk in patients with previous CABG. Invasive angiography was recommended before TAVR for high-risk or nondiagnostic CTA findings.

RESULTS

TAVR was performed on 354 patients; CTA first was performed in 273 and invasive angiography first in 81. Among 231 patients without previous CABG who had CTA first, 22.1% (51/231) had pre-TAVR invasive angiography and 1.3% (3/231) had pre-TAVR revascularisation. Normal/mild CAD or single-vessel disease was found on CTA in 174 patients, of whom 0.5% (1/174) had high-risk disease on invasive angiography. Among 42 patients with previous CABG who had CTA first, 14.3% (6/42) had pre-TAVR invasive angiography and 2.4% (1/42) had pre-TAVR revascularisation.

CONCLUSION

TAVR CTA CAD evaluation can avoid pre-TAVR invasive angiography in more than 70% of patients while rarely missing high risk findings. A CTA-first strategy to assess CAD should be considered, especially among patients where conservative management of CAD is preferred.

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

IMPORTANCE

Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist.

RESULTS

Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Left main thrombus as a complication of thrombectomy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Small randomized trials in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction have shown that aspiration thrombectomy improves angiographic outcomes and may improve clinical outcomes. However, there remains a lack of reports on device-related complications. We report a case of a device complication involving the left main coronary artery where a large burden of thrombus was brought back into the left main coronary artery from the circumflex during aspiration thrombectomy.

Computed tomographic coronary angiographic assessment of high-risk coronary anatomy in patients with suspected coronary artery disease and intermediate pretest probability

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTA), an evolving technique for the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD), can identify patients with high-risk coronary anatomy.

METHODS

Among patients referred for invasive angiography at Hamilton Health Sciences (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada), those with an intermediate pretest probability (25%-60% likelihood of a significant stenosis) were prospectively identified using a multivariate risk score and were studied on a 64-detector Toshiba Aquilion scanner (Toshiba Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) before invasive angiography. Patients with high-risk anatomy (left main, 3-vessel CAD, or 2-vessel CAD involving the proximal left anterior descending artery) or at least 1 significant stenosis were identified on CTA and invasive angiography, and the results of these modalities were compared on a per patient basis.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were enrolled in the study (mean age 56 +/- 9 years, male-female ratio 43:37). Nondiagnostic scan results were obtained in 5 patients (6%). By CTA, 13 patients had high-risk anatomy and 31 patients had at least 1 significant stenosis. For the per patient detection of high-risk anatomy, CTA had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 69%-100%), 95% specificity (95% CI 86%-95%), a positive likelihood ratio of 18.0 (95% CI 6.4-50.3), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.05 (95% CI 0-0.072). Revascularization was performed in 100% of patients with high-risk anatomy on CTA, 83% with at least 1 significant stenosis on CTA, and 0% without a significant stenosis on CTA.

CONCLUSION

In appropriately selected patients, CTA is a highly sensitive and specific technique for the detection of high-risk anatomy and maybe a valuable method for noninvasive risk stratification.