Samir V. Patel

Hemodynamic Support With a Microaxial Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device (Impella) Protects Against Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary InterventionNovelty and Significance

Rationale: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly in those with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. The impact of partial hemodynamic support with a microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) on renal function after high-risk PCI remains unknown. Objective: We tested the hypothesis that partial hemodynamic support with the Impella 2.5 microaxial pLVAD during high-risk PCI protected against AKI. Methods and Results: In this retrospective, single-center study, we analyzed data from 230 patients (115 consecutive pLVAD-supported and 115 unsupported matched-controls) undergoing high-risk PCI with ejection fraction ⩽35%. The primary outcome was incidence of in-hospital AKI according to AKI network criteria. Logistic regression analysis determined the predictors of AKI. Overall, 5.2% (6) of pLVAD-supported patients versus 27.8% (32) of unsupported control patients developed AKI (P<0.001). Similarly, 0.9% (1) versus 6.1% (7) required postprocedural hemodialysis (P<0.05). Microaxial pLVAD support during high-risk PCI was independently associated with a significant reduction in AKI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence intervals, 0.09–0.31; P<0.001). Despite preexisting CKD or a lower ejection fraction, pLVAD support protection against AKI persisted (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence intervals, 0.25–0.83; P=0.04 and adjusted odds ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence intervals, 0.12–0.28; P<0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Impella 2.5 (pLVAD) support protected against AKI during high-risk PCI. This renal protective effect persisted despite the presence of underlying CKD and decreasing ejection fraction.

Contemporary utilization and safety outcomes of catheter ablation of atrial flutter in the United States: Analysis of 89,638 procedures

BACKGROUNDnAtrial flutter (AFL) ablation has been increasingly offered as first-line therapy and safely performed over the last decades. However, limited data exist regarding current utilization and trends in adverse outcomes arising from this procedure.nnnOBJECTIVEnThe aim of our study was to examine the frequency of adverse events attributable to AFL ablation and influence of hospital volume on safety outcomes.nnnMETHODSnData were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the largest all-payer inpatient dataset in the United States. Patients with AFL who underwent catheter ablation from 2000 to 2011 were identified using ICD-9 codes. In-hospital death and common complications were identified, including cardiac perforation and tamponade, pneumothorax, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and vascular access complications.nnnRESULTSnA total of 89,638 AFL patients were treated with catheter ablation during our study period. Total number of ablations performed increased by 154% from 2000 to 2011. The in-hospital mortality rate was 0.17% and the overall complication rate was 3.17%. Cardiac complications (1.44%) were the most frequent, followed by respiratory (0.88%), vascular (0.78%), and neurological complications (0.05%). Low hospital volume (<50 procedures/year) was significantly associated with increased adverse outcomes. Overall frequency of complications per 100 ablation procedures increased from 2.86 in 2000 to 5.39 in 2011 (P < .001).nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe overall complication rate was 3.17% in patients undergoing AFL ablation. There was a significant association between low hospital volume and increased adverse outcomes. This suggests a need for future research into identifying the safety measures in AFL ablations and instituting appropriate interventions to improve overall AFL ablation outcomes.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (from the National Inpatient Sample)

High-risk surgical patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) represent an emerging population, which may benefit from short-term use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. The aim of this study was to determine the practice and inhospital outcomes of MCS utilization in patients undergoing TAVI. We analyzed data from Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2011 and 2012) using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. A total of 1,794 TAVI procedures (375 hospitals in the United States) were identified of which 190 (10.6%) used an MCS device (MCS group) and 1,604 (89.4%) did not (non-MCS group). The use of MCS devices with TAVI was associated with significant increase in the inhospital mortality (14.9% vs 3.5%, p <0.01). The mean length (11.8 ± 0.8 vs 8.1 ± 0.2 days, p <0.01) and cost (

Impact of Hospital Volume on Outcomes of Lower Extremity Endovascular Interventions (Insights from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample [2006 to 2011]).

68,997 ± 3,656 vs

In-Hospital Outcomes of Atherectomy During Endovascular Lower Extremity Revascularization

55,878 ± 653, p = 0.03) of hospitalization were also significantly greater in the MCS group. Ventricular fibrillation arrest, transapical access for TAVI, and cardiogenic shock were the most significant predictors of MCS use during TAVI. In the multivariate model, use of any MCS device was found to be an independent predictor of increased mortality (odds ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 2.6 to 4.6, p <0.0001) and complications (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 3.9, p <0.0001). The propensity score-matched analysis also showed a similar result. In conclusion, the unacceptably high rates of mortality and complications coupled with a significant increase in the length and cost of hospitalization should raise concerns about utility of MCS devices during TAVI in this prohibitive surgical risk population.

Coronary Atherectomy in the United States (from a Nationwide Inpatient Sample).

Our primary objective was to study postprocedural outcomes and hospitalization costs after peripheral endovascular interventions and the multivariate predictors affecting the outcomes with emphasis on hospital volume. The study cohort was derived from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2006 to 2011). Peripheral endovascular interventions were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnostic and procedural codes. Annual institutional volumes were calculated using unique identification numbers and then divided into quartiles. Two-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The primary outcome was inhospital mortality; secondary outcome was a composite of inhospital mortality and postprocedural complications. Amputation rates and hospitalization costs were also assessed. Multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, p value) revealed age (1.46, 1.37 to 1.55, p <0.001), female gender (1.28, 1.12 to 1.46, p <0.001), baseline co-morbidity status as depicted by a greater Charlson co-morbidity index score (≥2: 4.32, 3.45 to 5.40, p <0.001), emergent or urgent admissions(2.48, 2.14 to 2.88, p <0.001), and weekend admissions (1.53, 1.26 to 1.86, p <0.001) to be significant predictors of primary outcome. An increasing hospital volume quartile was independently predictive of improved primary (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, p <0.001 for the fourth quartile) and secondary (0.85, 0.73 to 0.97, 0.02 for the fourth quartile) outcomes and lower amputation rates (0.52, 0.45 to 0.61, p <0.001). A significant reduction hospitalization costs (

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Hemodynamic Support in the USA: A 5 Year Experience.

-3,889,xa0-5,318 toxa0-2,459, p <0.001) was also seen in high volume centers. In conclusion, a greater hospital procedural volume is associated with superior outcomes after peripheral endovascular interventions in terms of inhospital mortality, complications, and hospitalization costs.

Comparison of Inhospital Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Hospitals With and Without Availability of a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Program (from a Nationally Representative Database).

Contemporary data on clinical outcomes after utilization of atherectomy in lower extremity endovascular revascularization are sparse. The study cohort was derived from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project nationwide inpatient sample database from the year 2012. Peripheral endovascular interventions including atherectomy were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic and procedural codes. The subjects were divided and compared in 2 groups: atherectomy versus no atherectomy. Two-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The coprimary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and amputation; secondary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality and periprocedural complications. Hospitalization costs were also assessed. Atherectomy utilization (odds ratio, 95% CI, p value) was independently predictive of lower in-hospital mortality (0.46, 0.28 to 0.75, 0.002) and lower amputation rates (0.83, 0.71 to 0.97, 0.020). Atherectomy use was also predictive of significantly lower secondary composite outcome of in-hospital mortality and complications (0.79, 0.69 to 0.90, 0.001). In the propensity-matched cohort, atherectomy utilization was again associated with a lower rate of amputation (11.18% vs 12.92%, p = 0.029), in-hospital mortality (0.71% vs 1.53%, p 0.001), and any complication (13.24% vs 16.09%, p 0.001). However, atherectomy use was also associated with higher costs (

A Review of Hypertension Management in Atrial Fibrillation

24,790 ± 397 vs

Influence of hospital volume and outcomes of adult structural heart procedures

22635 ± 251, p <0.001). Atherectomy use in conjunction with angioplasty (with or without stenting) was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes in terms of lower amputation rates, mortality, and postprocedural complications.