Tariq Enezate

Endovascular versus surgical treatment for acute limb ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND A number of small studies have suggested that outcomes following endovascular (ENDO) therapy are comparable to those following surgical (SURG) revascularization for patients presenting with acute limb ischemia (ALI). We sought to compare mortality, limb amputation and recurrent ischemia across both revascularization strategies. METHODS A comprehensive database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases from January 1990 through January 2016 was performed to identify studies of ENDO versus SURG for ALI. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted the data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results across studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effect among trials was assessed using the I2 statistics. The primary endpoints were mortality and limb amputation at 1 month, 6 and 12 months. Secondary endpoint was recurrent ischemia at one year. RESULTS A total of 1,773 patients were included from six studies (five randomized prospective and one observational retrospective) comparing ENDO and SURG in the setting of ALI. The mean age was 67 years and 65% of patients were male. There were no differences in mortality between the two groups at 1 month [risk ratio (RR) for ENDO vs. SURG is 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33 to 1.50], 6 months (RR 1.12; CI, 0.78 to 1.61) or 12 months (RR 0.74; CI, 0.29 to 1.85). Similarly, there was no significant difference in amputation rates between ENDO and SURG at 1 month (RR 0.75; CI, 0.40 to 1.42), 6 months (RR 0.87; CI, 0.52 to 1.48) or 12 months (RR 0.81; CI, 0.55 to 1.18). When looking into secondary outcomes, recurrent ischemia was not different between the two groups (RR 1.12; CI, 0.75 to 1.67). CONCLUSIONS In patients presenting with ALI (<2 weeks of duration), ENDO and SURG approaches have similar rates of short-term and 12 month mortality, limb amputation and recurrent ischemia.

Comparison of Outcomes of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated by Percutaneous Coronary Intervention During Off-Hours Versus On-Hours

Previous studies have reported worse outcomes and longer door-to-balloon times (DBTs) in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) after normal working hours, during weekends, and on holidays (off-hours) compared with normal business hours (on-hours). Recent studies, however, have reported similar outcomes regardless of presentation time. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried from January 1990 through December 2016. Only studies comparing STEMI outcomes during off-hours versus on-hours with percutaneous coronary intervention were included. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool outcomes across the studies. Clinical end points included short- (<30 days of presentation), intermediate- (at 1 to 2 years), and long-term (at 3 to 4 years) stent thrombosis, mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). A total of 86,776 patients (62 years and 74.5% male) were identified from 39 studies. There was no significant difference between both groups with regard to mean DBT (odds ratio [OR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.73 to 4.22, p = 0.67) or median DBT (p = 0.19). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups for short-term end points including mortality (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25, p = 0.08), MI (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.74, p = 0.18), MACE (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.20, p = 0.40), or stent thrombosis (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.82, p = 0.31). Similarly, intermediate-term end points were not statistically different for mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05, p = 0.46), MI (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02, p = 0.08), or MACE (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08, p = 0.98). Long-term end points did not differ statistically between groups for mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09, p = 0.46), MI (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.84, p = 0.44), or MACE (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08, p = 0.67). In conclusion, patients presenting with STEMI during off-hours and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention had similar short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes compared with patients presenting during on-hours. DBT was not affected by the time of presentation.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated systematic review

To compare outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to angiography (ANGIO) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Clinical outcomes of PCSK9Is: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background Previous studies of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9Is) were not designed to detect clinical benefit and were underpowered for this outcome. However, recently published trials reported improvement in clinical outcomes. The aim of this meta-analysis to assess the impact of PCSK9Is on clinical outcomes. Methods Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were queried from January 2000 through March 2017. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinical outcomes in patients treated with PCSK9I versus control group were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted data in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes across studies. Study endpoints included: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular (CV) mortality and all-cause mortality. Results A total of 62,776 patients (mean age 61 years, 73% were males) were included from six randomized clinical trials. In comparison to control group, PCSK9I use was associated with lower MACE (RR =0.81, 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, P=0.003), MI (RR =0.78, 95% CI, 0.63-0.97, P=0.03), stroke (RR =0.74, 95% CI, 0.64-0.87, P=0.0002) and coronary revascularization (RR =0.79, 95% CI, 0.73-0.86, P<0.00001). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of all-cause mortality (RR =1.01, 95% CI, 0.86-1.20, P=0.86) or CV mortality (RR =0.98, 95% CI, 0.78-1.22, P=0.83). Conclusions PCSK9Is should be strongly considered to improve clinical outcomes in patients at high risk for atherosclerotic CVD.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with non-high surgical risk severe aortic stenosis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE Transcatether aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an acceptable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with high-risk surgical profile. In this analysis, we compare both approaches in non-high surgical risk severe aortic stenosis. METHODS Only studies comparing SAVR and TAVR and enrolling patients with low-intermediate risk were included from January 2000 through May 2016. Primary endpoints were assessed at 1 and 12months including: mortality, cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary endpoints at 1month included: bleeding, acute kidney injury, new permanent pacemaker implantation and vascular access site complications. RESULTS A total of 5223 patients from 8 studies were included (4 prospective and 4 retrospective). There were no significant differences between TAVR and SAVR at one month in terms of mortality (risk ratio RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20), or CVA (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21). However, MI was lower in the TAVR group (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99). At 12months, there was no significant difference between strategies in terms of mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.13), CVA (RR1.07, 95% CI 0.85-1.33) or MI (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53-1.15). With regard to secondary outcomes, TAVR was associated with lower rates of bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.88) and acute kidney injury (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.93) but higher need for new permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 2.99, 95% CI 1.51-5.94) and high rate of vascular access site complications (RR 9.08, 95% CI 2.03-40.66). CONCLUSION In severe AS patients with non-high surgical risk, TAVR has lower risk of MI at one month, but both TAVR and SAVR yielded similar outcomes at one month in terms of mortality and CVA and at 12months in terms of mortality, CVA and MI. In regard to secondary outcomes at one month, TAVR has lower rates of bleeding and acute kidney injury, and higher rates of need for new permanent pacemakers and high rate of vascular access site complications.

Thoracic endovascular repair versus medical management for acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection

Current treatment options and outcomes for acute uncomplicated thoracic Type‐B aortic dissection (TBAD) remain unclear between medical management (MED) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). In this study we aim to compare both strategies in terms of all‐cause mortality, aortic dilation, and aortic rupture.

Percutaneous versus surgical pulmonic valve implantation for right ventricular outflow tract dysfunction

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE Percutaneous pulmonic valve implantation (PPVI) is an alternative treatment strategy to surgical pulmonic valve implantation (SPVI) for right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) dysfunction. This study sought to compare outcomes of both treatment strategies. METHODS The study population was extracted from the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for PPVI and SPVI. Study outcomes included all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of index hospital stay (LOS), post-procedural bleeding, mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis, vascular complications (VC), infective endocarditis (IE), total hospitalization charges, and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS A total of 975 patient discharges (176 in PPVI and 799 in SPVI group) were identified (average age 25.7 years; 57.5% male). PPVI was associated with significantly shorter median LOS (1 versus 5 days, p < 0.01), lower risk of bleeding (4.6% versus 26.4%, p < 0.01), and lower total hospitalization charges (

Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in peripheral vascular interventions

169,551.7 versus

Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Heart Transplant Recipients

210,681.8, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference between both groups in terms of all-cause in-hospital mortality (0% versus 1.4%, p = 0.12), mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis (1.7% versus 2.0%, p = 0.78), VC (2.3% versus 2.0%, p = 0.82), IE (1.7% versus 3.1%, p = 0.31), or 30-day readmission rates (4.4% versus 7.6%, p = 0.16). CONCLUSION Compared with SPVI, PPVI was associated with shorter LOS, lower bleeding, and lower total charges. There was no significant difference between the two strategies in terms of all-cause in-hospital mortality, mechanical complications of heart valve prosthesis, VC, IE, or 30-day readmission rates.

Non-surgical extraction of right atrial mass by AngioVac aspiration device under fluoroscopic and transesophageal echocardiographic guidance

BACKGROUND A number of studies suggest that bivalirudin (BIV) is associated with similar efficacy but reduced bleeding when compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted with the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL. These were queried to identify studies comparing BIV with UFH in PVI. Study endpoints included total bleeding events, major and minor bleeding events and procedural success. Random-effects meta-analysis method was used to pool endpoint odds ratios (OR) for both UFH and BIV with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS A total of 12,335 patients (70.6 years; 59.7% male) were included from seven observational cohort studies (two prospective and five retrospective) comparing outcomes between BIV and UFH during PVI between January 2000 and May 2017. Compared with BIV, UFH was associated with significantly higher total bleeding, (OR 1.52 with 95% CI 1.11 to 2.09, p = 0.009), major bleeding (OR 1.38 with 95% CI 1.13 to 1.68, p = 0.002), and minor bleeding (OR 1.51 with 95% CI 1.09 to 2.08, p = 0.01). Procedural success rates were not different between the two groups (BIV vs HEP: OR 0.90 with 95% CI 0.49 to 1.64, p = 0.72) CONCLUSION: Compared with BIV, UFH was associated with more bleeding when used during PVI. There was no significant difference in procedural success between the two anticoagulation strategies.