Interventional Cardiology & Surgery

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bigger issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bigger issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bigger issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first international survey of parental benefits and policies among cardiovascular training programs shows wide variability among institutions.

Although a majority of cardiology fellows became parents during training, the survey found that family benefits and policies were not uniformly available and that knowledge about the existence of such policies was low across all institutions.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Such variability highlights disparities in real-world experiences, say Estefania Oliveros, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“There are no policies to protect cardiology trainees when they become parents that are uniform across the United States or even internationally, even though, according to our survey, 61.7% become parents during training,” Dr. Oliveros told this news organization.

Dr. Oliveros said she wanted to learn more about the status of institutional practices surrounding pregnant trainees during cardiovascular fellowship, not only in the U.S., but internationally: “I wanted to study this because of my own experience.”

“I was probably the first pregnant trainee at my institution, and there were no specific policies in place, so I had to find out on my own what to do about radiation safety, where I would breastfeed, schedule changes, how that would impact my graduation time, things like that,” Dr. Oliveros said. “It would be nice if you had the resources and your institution could accommodate your needs, instead of every time you have a pregnant person on your staff, you have to reinvent the wheel.”

Dr. Oliveros and colleagues conducted an online survey during August 2020-October 2020 that was distributed via social media. Responses were made anonymous to encourage unbiased feedback.

Among the 417 completed responses, 47 (11.3%) were from training program directors, 146 (35%) from current or former pregnant trainees, and 224 (53.7%) from current or former trainees who were not pregnant during cardiology training. Two-thirds of the respondents (67.1%) were parents.

Most survey respondents said they became pregnant during the third year of general cardiology (29.1%), followed by the first year of general cardiology (26.3%), and the second year of general cardiology (23.5%).

Only 13 of the 47 training program directors (27.7%) received guidance or training on how to accommodate pregnant trainees during fellowship.

Additionally, 26% of the trainees reported their institution had readily available breastfeeding and pumping policies, 39% responded that their institution had no such policies, and 34.9% said they did not know.

Nearly one-half of the programs offered rearrangement of schedules because of radiation concerns, 27.5% did not.

The amount of parental leave varied greatly worldwide. For Europe, Central and South America, Africa, and Australia, the average parental leave was more than 4 months; for Canada, it was more than 3 months; for the United States, it was 1 to 2 months; and for Asia, it was 3 to 4 weeks.

“There is no uniformity, no policies for things like breastfeeding or places where you can pump. None of that is installed, even though by law we’re supposed to have these things,” Dr. Oliveros said.

In all countries, paternity leave was uncommon (2.6% of respondents), even though 48.5% of the programs had paternity leave.

“I would like to see associations, program directors, even trainees helping each other in finding ways to accommodate parents to promote wellness and assure that trainees can have both good training and life balance,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, writes: “Enough has been said about our need for a greater percentage of women cardiologists. There is no need to further debate that fact. However, it is puzzling that despite > 50% of medical students being women, the cardiology specialty is fraught with recent survey reports of hostility in the workplace, concerns of long hours, exposure to radiation, and poor work-life balance that can compel trainees to choose delaying pregnancy or taking unpaid leave, which will, in turn, delay training. Therefore, it is not surprising that only 14.9% of cardiologist specialists and 21.9% of cardiology fellows are women.”

Dr. Piña notes that while the authors understand that it’s difficult to change national policies, they issue a “call to action” for organizations and program directors to demonstrate leadership by developing fair and balanced decisions regarding parental policies.

“Those decisions are so impactful that they can change career trajectories for the better or worse ... the current status is unacceptable and must change for the benefit of all trainees, their families, and the program directors. The problem is too important and pervasive,” she adds.

Dr. Piña concludes: “Perhaps if the women who are the subjects of, and often the unwitting party to, administrative decisions about their lives, choices, and welfare were invited to contribute to the changes, we would finally see an increase in the number of women in cardiology careers. After all, aren’t we about diversity and belonging?”

“We need to normalize pregnancy and parental leave across the globe,” Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University Weiner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

As previously reported, Dr. Mehta recently led a study that surveyed 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant. Her study found that 75% of these women experienced discriminatory maternity leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

“If we want more women to pursue a career in cardiology, then employers and health systems need to adequately support parenthood, including allowing people to spend uninterrupted time with their newborns without the fear of discrimination, retaliation, or financial burden,” Dr. Mehta said.

Limitations of the study are the small sample size, potential for bias associated with social media distribution, and the fact that 75% of respondents were women, Dr. Oliveros and colleagues write.

Dr. Oliveros, Dr. Piña, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.
 

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.
 

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.