Browsing by Subject "Cardiac catheterization"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Femoral Artery Closure Devices vs Manual Compression During Cardiac Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    (Elsevier, 2022-06-29) Kreutz, Rolf P.; Phookan, Sujoy; Bahrami, Hamid; Sinha, Anjan K.; Breall, Jeffrey A.; Revtyak, George E.; Ephrem, Georges; Zenisek, Joseph R.; Frick, Kyle A.; Jaradat, Ziad A.; Abu Romeh, Ibrahim S.; O’Leary, Brian A.; Ansari, Hamza Z.; Ferguson, Andrew D.; Zawacki, Kevin E.; Hoque, Mohammad Z.; Iqtidar, Ali F.; Lambert, Nathan D.; von der Lohe, Elisabeth; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Femoral arterial access remains widely used despite recent increase in radial access for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Various femoral artery closure devices have been developed and are commonly used to shorten vascular closure times, with variable rates of vascular complications observed in clinical trials. We sought to examine the rates of contemporary outcomes during diagnostic catheterization and PCI with the most common femoral artery closure devices. Methods: We identified patients who had undergone either diagnostic catheterization alone (n = 14,401) or PCI (n = 11,712) through femoral artery access in the Indiana University Health Multicenter Cardiac Cath registry. We compared outcomes according to closure type: manual compression, Angio-Seal, Perclose, or Mynx. Access complications and bleeding outcomes were measured according to National Cardiovascular Data ​Registry standard definitions. Results: The use of any vascular closure device as compared to manual femoral arterial access hold was associated with a significant reduction in vascular access complications and bleeding events in patients who underwent PCI. No significant difference in access-site complications was observed for diagnostic catheterization alone. Among closure devices, Perclose and Angio-Seal had a lower rate of hematoma than Mynx. Conclusions: The use of femoral artery access closure devices is associated with a reduction in vascular access complication rates as compared to manual femoral artery compression in patients who undergo PCI.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of Sex on Outcomes With Femoral Artery Closure Devices Versus Manual Compression in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    (Wiley, 2024-12-19) Anderson, Wesley L.; Torabi, Asad J.; O'leary, Brian A.; Breall, Jeffrey A.; Sinha, Anjan K.; Jaradat, Ziad A.; Morris, Michelle C.; Frick, Kyle A.; Romeh, Ibrahim A.; Iqtidar, Ali F.; von der Lohe, Elisabeth; Kreutz, Rolf P.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and aims: Femoral artery access is widely used despite recent increase in radial access for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Femoral artery closure devices are used to shorten vascular closure time and reduce bleeding. We sought to examine sex-based outcomes of femoral artery vascular closure devices (VCD) in patients undergoing PCI. Methods: We identified patients who had undergone PCI (n = 11,415) in the Indiana University Health Multicenter Cardiac Cath registry using femoral artery access. Clinical outcomes were compared between VCD and manual compression and analyzed according to sex. Patients with cardiogenic shock and left ventricular support devices were excluded. Results: The use of any vascular closure device as compared to femoral artery manual compression was associated with a reduction in 72-h bleeding events (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.87). With manual compression, women had higher rates of 72-h bleeding as compared to men (4.5% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001). Women demonstrated greater absolute risk reduction in 72-h bleeding events with use of VCD as compared to men (2.8% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). For women, VCD were associated with lower risk of access site bleeding (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.24-0.8), hematoma (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.2-0.63), and vascular complications (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.09-0.72). Use of VCD was associated with lower risk of in-hospital death (adjusted OR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.28-0.58; p < 0.001) in multivariable regression analysis. Conclusion: Women derive more benefit from use of femoral artery VCD during PCI than men with greater reduction in bleeding rates, access site hematoma, and vascular complications.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prediction of Revascularization by Coronary CT Angiography using a Machine Learning Ischemia Risk Score
    (Springer, 2021) Kwan, Alan C.; McElhinney, Priscilla A.; Tamarappoo, Balaji K.; Cadet, Sebastien; Hurtado, Cecilia; Miller, Robert J. H.; Han, Donghee; Otaki, Yuka; Eisenberg, Evann; Ebinger, Joseph E.; Slomka, Piotr J.; Cheng, Victor Y.; Berman, Daniel S.; Dey, Damini; Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine
    Objectives: The machine learning ischemia risk score (ML-IRS) is a machine learning-based algorithm designed to identify hemodynamically significant coronary disease using quantitative coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). The purpose of this study was to examine whether the ML-IRS can predict revascularization in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) after CCTA. Methods: This study was a post hoc analysis of a prospective dual-center registry of sequential patients undergoing CCTA followed by ICA within 3 months, referred from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department settings (n = 352, age 63 ± 10 years, 68% male). The primary outcome was revascularization by either percutaneous coronary revascularization or coronary artery bypass grafting. Blinded readers performed semi-automated quantitative coronary plaque analysis. The ML-IRS was automatically computed. Relationships between clinical risk factors, coronary plaque features, and ML-IRS with revascularization were examined. Results: The study cohort consisted of 352 subjects with 1056 analyzable vessels. The ML-IRS ranged between 0 and 81% with a median of 18.7% (6.4-34.8). Revascularization was performed in 26% of vessels. Vessels receiving revascularization had higher ML-IRS (33.6% (21.1-55.0) versus 13.0% (4.5-29.1), p < 0.0001), as well as higher contrast density difference, and total, non-calcified, calcified, and low-density plaque burden. ML-IRS, when added to a traditional risk model based on clinical data and stenosis to predict revascularization, resulted in increased area under the curve from 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65-0.72) to 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.81) (p < 0.0001), with an overall continuous net reclassification improvement of 0.636 (95% CI: 0.503-0.769; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: ML-IRS from quantitative coronary CT angiography improved the prediction of future revascularization and can potentially identify patients likely to receive revascularization if referred to cardiac catheterization. Key points: • Machine learning ischemia risk from quantitative coronary CT angiography was significantly higher in patients who received revascularization versus those who did not receive revascularization. • The machine learning ischemia risk score was significantly higher in patients with invasive fractional flow ≤ 0.8 versus those with > 0.8. • The machine learning ischemia risk score improved the prediction of future revascularization significantly when added to a standard prediction model including stenosis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The impact of COVID‐19 on clinical outcomes among acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing early invasive treatment strategy
    (Wiley, 2022) Sharma, Prerna; Shah, Kajal; Loomba, Johanna; Patel, Arti; Mallawaarachchi, Indika; Blazek, Olivia; Ratcliffe, Sarah; Breathett, Khadijah; Johnson, Amber E.; Taylor, Angela M.; Salerno, Michael; Ragosta, Michael; Sodhi, Nishtha; Addison, Daniel; Mohammed, Selma; Bilchick, Kenneth C.; Mazimba, Sula; Graduate Medical Education, School of Medicine
    Background: The implications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection on outcomes after invasive therapeutic strategies among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not well studied. Hypothesis: To assess the outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting with AMI undergoing an early invasive treatment strategy. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative database including all patients presenting with a recorded diagnosis of AMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and non-ST elevation MI). COVID-19 positive patients with AMI were stratified into one of four groups: (1a) patients who had a coronary angiogram with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 3 days of their AMI; (1b) PCI within 3 days of AMI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) within 30 days; (2a) coronary angiogram without PCI and without CABG within 30 days; and (2b) coronary angiogram with CABG within 30 days. The main outcomes were respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock, prolonged length of stay, rehospitalization, and death. Results: There were 10 506 COVID-19 positive patients with a diagnosis of AMI. COVID-19 positive patients with PCI had 8.2 times higher odds of respiratory failure than COVID-19 negative patients (p = .001). The odds of prolonged length of stay were 1.7 times higher in COVID-19 patients who underwent PCI (p = .024) and 1.9 times higher in patients who underwent coronary angiogram followed by CABG (p = .001). Conclusion: These data demonstrate that COVID-19 positive patients with AMI undergoing early invasive coronary angiography had worse outcomes than COVID-19 negative patients.