Antithrombotic Therapy and Outcomes After ICD Implantation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease: An Analysis From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)®

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112259/1/jah3831.pd

Patient and Physician Predictors of FFR/iFR Utilization in ACS and SIHD

Background Despite guidelines supporting FFR/iFR to guide PCI, these modalities remain underutilized. We sought to characterize factors associated with FFR/iFR use in patients undergoing index PCI for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Methods ICD-9/10 codes were used to identify patients undergoing PCI and receiving FFR/iFR for an ACS (n=1,042,896) or SIHD (n=255,213) in a Medicare claims database from Jan. 1, 2013-June 30, 2018. Patients with functional/anatomical testing were excluded (5d prior in ACS; 60d prior in SIHD). Individuals with FFR/iFR performed 1-60 days prior to PCI were also excluded to limit analysis to non-staged procedures. Results FFR/iFR was performed the same day as PCI in 5.9% and 11.5% of patients with an ACS and SIHD, respectively. FFR/iFR was less likely to be utilized in patients that were \u3e65 years, male, and in those with diabetes, chronic kidney disease or peripheral arterial disease. Of note, a substantial proportion of physicians were non-utilizers of FFR/iFR in ACS (23.9%) and SIHD (18.6%). Use of FFR/iFR was inversely correlated with years since medical school graduation, with the lowest rate observed in physicians \u3e=31 years since graduation (Table). Conclusion This analysis highlights the underutilization of FFR/iFR. Identification of patient- and physician-factors associated with lower rates of FFR/iFR can be helpful to target areas for improvement to increase implementation of this guideline-recommended intervention

Hospital Variability in Use of Anticoagulant Strategies During Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With an Early Invasive Strategy

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139118/1/jah31000.pd

Use of mechanical circulatory support devices among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Importance: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit. Objective: To examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020. Exposures: Therapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use. Results: Among the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P \u3c .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P \u3c .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use