Search

Background: Noninvasive stress testing might guide the use of aspirin and statins for primary prevention of coronary heart disease, but it is unclear if such a strategy would be cost effective.Methods and Results: We compared the status quo, in which the current national use of aspirin and statins was simulated, with 3 other strategies: (1) full implementation of Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, (2) a treat-all strategy in which all intermediate-risk persons received statins (men and women) and aspirin (men only), and (3) a test-and-treat strategy in which all persons with an intermediate risk of coronary heart disease underwent stress testing and those with a positive test were treated with high-intensity statins (men and women) and aspirin (men only). Healthcare costs, coronary heart disease events, and quality-adjusted life years from 2011 to 2040 were projected. Under a variety of assumptions, the treat-all strategy was the most effective and least expensive strategy. Stress electrocardiography was more effective and less expensive than other test-and-treat strategies, but it was less expensive than treat all only if statin cost exceeded $3.16/pill or if testing increased adherence from <22% to >75%. However, stress electrocardiography could be cost effective in persons initially nonadherent to the treat-all strategy if it raised their adherence to 5% and cost saving if it raised their adherence to 13%.Conclusions: When generic high-potency statins are available, noninvasive cardiac stress testing to target preventive medications is not cost effective unless it substantially improves adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) just two decades ago has transformed the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TAVR has not only extended the option of aortic valve replacement to patients deemed ineligible for surgery, it has also demonstrated similar or better short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at all levels of surgical risk. These benefits have been achieved with similar or lower costs compared with SAVR, at least in the first 1-2 years for intermediate- and low-risk patients. Longer-term data will further inform clinical and shared decision-making. SUMMARY FOR ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS: In just over two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a frontline approach for appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. A growing body of evidence documents similar or better clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness for transcatheter compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. Whether the mode is transcatheter or surgical, aortic valve replacement remains underutilized in patients with clear indications for intervention., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Sameer Amin has nothing to disclose. Dr. Suzanne J. Baron serves on the advisory boards of Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Zoll Medical; receives speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Zoll Medical; and receives research grant support from Abiomed, Acarix. and Boston Scientific. Dr. Benjamin Z. Galper receives research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Next-day discharge (NDD) outcomes following uncomplicated self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement have not been studied. Here, we compare readmission rates and clinical outcomes in NDD versus non-NDD transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Evolut., Methods and Results: Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry patients (n=29 597) undergoing elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expanding supra-annular valves (Evolut R, PRO, and PRO+) from July 2019 to June 2021 were stratified by postprocedure length of stay: ≤1 day (NDD) versus >1 day (non-NDD). Propensity score matching was used to compare risk adjusted 30-day readmission rates and 1-year outcomes in NDD versus non-NDD, and multivariable regression to determine predictors of NDD and readmission. Between the first and last calendar quarter, the rate of NDD increased from 45.4% to 62.1% and median length of stay decreased from 2 days to 1. Propensity score matching produced relatively well-matched NDD and non-NDD cohorts (n=10 549 each). After matching, NDD was associated with lower 30-day readmission rates (6.3% versus 8.4%; P <0.001) and 1-year adverse outcomes (death, 7.0% versus 9.3%; life threatening/major bleeding, 1.6% versus 3.4%; new permanent pacemaker implantation/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 3.6 versus 11.0%; [all P <0.001]). Predictors of NDD included non-Hispanic ethnicity, preexisting permanent pacemaker implantation/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and previous surgical aortic valve replacement., Conclusions: Most patients undergoing uncomplicated self-expanding Evolut transcatheter aortic valve replacement are discharged the next day. This study found that NDD can be predicted from baseline patient characteristics and was associated with favorable 30-day and 1-year outcomes, including low rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and readmission.

Background: Data on the epidemiology of aortic stenosis (AS) are primarily derived from single center experiences and administrative claims data that do not delineate by degree of disease severity., Methods: An observational cohort study of adults with echocardiographic AS was conducted January 1st, 2013-December 31st, 2019 at an integrated health system. The presence/grade of AS was based on physician interpretation of echocardiograms., Results: A total of 66,992 echocardiogram reports for 37,228 individuals were identified. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 77.5 ± 10.5, 50.5% (N = 18,816) were women, and 67.2% (N = 25,016) were non-Hispanic whites. The age-standardized AS prevalence increased from 589 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 580-598) to 754 (95% CI 744-764) cases per 100,000 during the study period. The age-standardized AS prevalences were similar in magnitude among non-Hispanic whites (820, 95% CI 806-834), non-Hispanic blacks (728, 95% CI 687-769), and Hispanics (789, 95% CI 759-819) and substantially lower for Asian/Pacific Islanders (511, 95% CI 489-533). Finally, the distribution of AS by degree of severity remained relatively unchanged over time., Conclusions and Relevance: The population prevalence of AS has grown considerably over a short timeframe although the distribution of AS severity has remained stable., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest APA is supported by a Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award (K23HL150159) through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and has received relevant research support through grants to his institution from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Lexicon, and Novartis. ASG has received relevant research support through grants to his institution from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institute on Aging; Amarin Pharma, Inc.; Novartis; Janssen Research & Development; and CSL Behring. All other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain., Methods: Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained., Results: Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR., Conclusions: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Lu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Thourani has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences, consulting fees from Atricure, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Artivion, Shockwave, and Edwards Lifesciences, and holds equity in Dasi Simulations. Dr Kodali reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; consulting fees from Abbott, Admedus, and Meril Lifesciences; and equity options from Biotrace Medical and Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc. Dr Makkar reports grant support/research contract from Edwards Lifesciences, St. Jude Medical, and consultant fee/honoraria/speaker’s bureau from Abbott Vascular, Cordis Corporation, Medtronic. Dr Herrmann reports institutional research funding from Abbott Vascular, Ancora, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic; and equity in Microinterventional Devices. Dr Williams has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Mack served as coprimary investigator for the PARTNER Trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) for Edwards Lifesciences and COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] and COAPT CAS [COAPT]) for Abbott; served as study chair for the APOLLO trial (Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement With the Medtronic Intrepid TMVR System in Patients With Severe Symptomatic Mitral Regurgitation) for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee, Edwards Lifesciences (nonpaid), and reports institutional research grants and being a nonpaid advisor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Sinomed; and holds equity in Medinol. Dr Cohen reports research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Social media allows interventional cardiologists to disseminate and discuss research and clinical cases in real-time, to demonstrate and learn innovative techniques, to build professional networks, and to reach out to patients and the general public. Social media provides a democratic platform for all participants to influence the conversation and demonstrate their expertise. This review addresses the use of social media for these purposes in interventional cardiology, as well as respect for patient privacy, how to get started on social media, the creation of high-impact social media content, and the role of traditional journals in the age of social media. In the future, we hope that interventional cardiology fellowship programs will incorporate social media training into their curricula. In addition, professional societies may adapt to the rapid dissemination of data on social media by developing processes to update guidelines more rapidly and more frequently., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The cost-effectiveness of newer drug-eluting stents (DES) such as biodegradable-polymer or polymer-free stents with shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatment with newer DES that may allow for shorter DAPT duration., Patients and Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with newer DES platforms followed by 1 or 3 months of DAPT compared with standard second-generation DES followed by 6 or 12 months of DAPT in patients with stable coronary disease. A Markov model simulated distinct health states over a lifetime. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. A high-risk bleeding scenario was also evaluated., Results: Among patients with typical bleeding risk, second-generation DES and 6 months of DAPT was less expensive and resulted in marginally higher quality-adjusted life years compared with other strategies. A newer DES platform and 3 months of DAPT was preferred when the risk of fatal bleeding was two times greater than baseline, or when bleeding increased long-term mortality by a factor of 1.5. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, second-generation DES and 6 months of DAPT was preferred in 58% of iterations, whereas in a high-risk bleeding patient scenario, a newer DES and 3 months of DAPT was preferred in 52% of iterations., Conclusion: A DES that allows 3 months of DAPT without increasing stent-related events is likely to be cost-effective among patients at elevated risk of bleeding, but not in patients with average bleeding risk.

Background: Although outcomes data on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and transcatheter mitral valve repair (Mitraclip) are available via the Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) registry, dissemination of TVT data is often delayed. The Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) system collects postmarket outcomes data in public medical device reports. We used natural language processing to compare the event rates for TAVR and Mitraclip in the TVT registry and from MAUDE data., Methods: We identified all medical device reports related to TAVR and Mitraclip from December 2011 through December 2014. Our primary objective was to demonstrate that event rates in TVT and MAUDE were not significantly different. We also compared TVT event rates for TAVRs performed in 2014 to MAUDE-derived event rates for the Sapien XT and CoreValve devices, both Food and Drug Administration-approved in 2014., Results: Regression analysis demonstrated close correlation between TVT and MAUDE rates for both TAVR and Mitraclip, with R 2 values of 0.86 and 0.77, respectively. The rates for all events except bleeding were not statistically significantly different. We demonstrated similar increased rates of permanent pacemaker implantation in the 2014 TVT and MAUDE data sets consistent with approval of the CoreValve., Conclusions: We demonstrated that natural language processing technology sorted through raw MAUDE data, allowing identification of the most common events associated with TAVR and Mitraclip procedures, and that MAUDE-derived event rates were not statistically significantly different from TVT event rates. This technology has important public health implications because it improves postmarket surveillance of implantable devices and permits rapid and early dissemination of vital information., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Calcific aortic valve disease affects up to 25% of all adults over 65 years of age, with most only having focal valve thickening called aortic sclerosis. However, up to 5% of older adults have significant aortic stenosis (AS) with some degree of obstruction to left ventricular outflow. 1,3,4,5 Once even mild valve obstruction is present, hemodynamic progression is common, leading to severe symptomatic or asymptomatic AS that eventually requires aortic valve replacement in some fashion. 6,7 With our aging population, an increasing number of patients with AS will be presenting for evaluation and care.

Background: Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system., Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk., Methods: We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S., Results: Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained., Conclusions: In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S., Standards: With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The association between obesity and prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remains uncertain. We undertook a meta-analysis for the effects of body mass index (BMI) on mortality and cardiovascular events in these patients., Methods: We identified studies that provided risk estimates for mortality or cardiovascular events on the basis of BMI in patients with CAD. Summary estimates of relative risks were obtained for five BMI groups: underweight, normal-weight, overweight, obese and grade II/III obese. Mortality was analysed separately as short-term (<6 months) and long-term (≥6 months)., Results: Data from 89 studies with 1 300 794 patients were included. Mean follow-up of long-term estimates was 3.2 years. Using normal-weight as the reference, underweight was associated with higher risk of short-term mortality (2.24 (1.85 to 2.72)) and long-term mortality (1.70 (1.56 to 1.86)), overweight and obesity were both associated with lower risk of short-term mortality (0.69 (0.64 to 0.75); 0.68 (0.61 to 0.75)) and long-term mortality (0.78 (0.74 to 0.82); 0.79 (0.73 to 0.85)), but the long-term benefit of obesity disappeared after 5 years of follow-up (0.99 (0.91 to 1.08)). Grade II/III obesity was associated with lower risk of mortality in the short term (0.76 (0.62 to 0.91)) but higher risk after 5 years of follow-up (1.25 (1.14 to 1.38)). The similar J-shaped pattern was also seen for cardiovascular mortality and across different treatment strategies. Meta-regression found an attenuation of the inverse association between BMI and risk of mortality over longer follow-up., Conclusions: Our data support a J-shaped relationship between mortality and BMI in patients with CAD. The limitation of current literature warrants better design of future studies., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Several approaches have been proposed for risk-stratification and primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD), but their comparative and cost-effectiveness is unknown., Methods: We constructed a state-transition microsimulation model to compare multiple approaches to the primary prevention of CHD in a simulated cohort of men aged 45-75 and women 55-75. Risk-stratification strategies included the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines on the treatment of blood cholesterol, the Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines, and approaches based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring and C-reactive protein (CRP). Additionally we assessed a treat-all strategy in which all individuals were prescribed either moderate-dose or high-dose statins and all males received low-dose aspirin. Outcome measures included CHD events, costs, medication-related side effects, radiation-attributable cancers, and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) over a 30-year timeframe., Results: Treat-all with high-dose statins dominated all other strategies for both men and women, gaining 15.7 million QALYs, preventing 7.3 million myocardial infarctions, and saving over $238 billion, compared to the status quo, far outweighing its associated adverse events including bleeding, hepatitis, myopathy, and new-onset diabetes. ACC/AHA guidelines were more cost-effective than ATP III guidelines for both men and women despite placing 8.7 million more people on statins. For women at low CHD risk, treat-all with high-dose statins was more likely to cause a statin-related adverse event than to prevent a CHD event., Conclusions: Despite leading to a greater proportion of the population placed on statin therapy, the ACC/AHA guidelines are more cost-effective than ATP III. Even so, at generic prices, treating all men and women with statins and all men with low-dose aspirin appears to be more cost-effective than all risk-stratification approaches for the primary prevention of CHD. Especially for low-CHD risk women, decisions on the appropriate primary prevention strategy should be based on shared decision making between patients and healthcare providers.

Background: Treatment with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is commonly used in patients with cardiovascular disorders. The overall effect of such treatment on all-cause mortality is unknown. In the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) Study, continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 12 months after coronary stenting was associated with an unexpected increase in non-cardiovascular death. In view of the potential public health importance of these findings, we aimed to assess the effect of extended duration dual antiplatelet therapy on mortality by doing a meta-analysis of all randomised, controlled trials of treatment duration in various cardiovascular disorders., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of extended duration versus no or short duration dual antiplatelet therapy, published before Oct 1, 2014. We did a meta-analysis to pool results with a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model. The primary outcomes were hazard ratios comparing rates of all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular death., Findings: Including the DAPT Study, we identified 14 eligible trials that randomly assigned 69,644 participants to different durations of dual antiplatelet therapy. Compared with aspirin alone or short duration dual antiplatelet therapy (≤6 months), continued treatment was not associated with a difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1·05, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0·96-1·19; p=0·33). Similarly, cardiovascular (1·01, 0·93-1·12; p=0·81) and non-cardiovascular mortality (1·04, 0·90-1·26; p=0·66) were no different with extended duration versus short duration dual antiplatelet therapy or aspirin alone., Interpretation: Extended duration dual antiplatelet therapy was not associated with a difference in the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, or non-cardiovascular death compared with aspirin alone or short duration dual antiplatelet therapy., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: After coronary stent placement, whether dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration should be extended to prevent late stent thrombosis (ST) or adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain., Methods: To define the reduction in ischemic events required to outweigh increased bleeding with longer-duration DAPT, we developed a decision-analytic Markov model comparing DAPT durations of 6, 12, and 30 months after DES. Separate models were developed for patients presenting with and without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We used sensitivity analyses to identify the incremental benefit of longer-duration DAPT on either ST or the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke (major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [MACCEs]) required to outweigh the increased risk of bleeding associated with longer DAPT. The outcome from each strategy was quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life years., Results: In the non-ACS population, in order for 30 months of DAPT to be preferred over 12 months of therapy, DAPT would have to result in a 78% reduction in the risk of ST (relative risk [RR] 0.22, 3.1 fewer events per 1000) and only a 5% reduction in MACCE (RR 0.95, 2.2 fewer events per 1000) as compared with aspirin alone. For the ACS population, DAPT would have to result in a 44% reduction in the risk of ST (RR 0.56, 3.4 fewer events per 1000) but only a 2% reduction in MACCE (RR 0.98, 2.3 fewer events per 1000) as compared with aspirin alone, for 30 months of DAPT to be preferred for 12 months., Conclusions: Small absolute differences in the risk of ischemic events with longer DAPT would be sufficient to outweigh the known bleeding risks., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Both supervised exercise (SE) and stenting (ST) improve functional status, symptoms, and quality of life compared with optimal medical care (OMC) in patients with claudication. The relative cost-effectiveness of these strategies is not well defined., Methods and Results: The Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) study randomized patients with claudication due to aortoiliac stenosis to a 6-month SE program, to ST, or to OMC. Participants who completed 6-month follow-up (n=98) were included in a health economic analysis through 18 months. Costs were assessed using resource-based methods and hospital billing data. Quality-adjusted life-years were estimated using the EQ-5D. Markov modeling based on the in-trial results was used to explore the impact of assumptions about the longer term durability of observed differences in quality of life. Through 18 months, mean healthcare costs were $5178, $9804, and $14 590 per patient for OMC, SE, and ST, respectively. Measured quality-adjusted life-years through 18 months were 1.04, 1.16, and 1.20. In our base case analysis, which assumed that observed differences in quality of life would dissipate after 5 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $24 070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for SE versus OMC, $41 376 for ST versus OMC, and $122 600 for ST versus SE. If the treatment effect of ST was assumed to be more durable than that of SE, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ST versus SE became more favorable., Conclusions: Both SE and ST are economically attractive by US standards relative to OMC for the treatment of claudication in patients with aortoiliac disease. ST is more expensive than SE, with uncertain incremental benefit., Clinical Trial Registration Url: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT00132743., (© 2014 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Opinion Statement: While dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has demonstrated benefit for two important cardiovascular indications, 1) prevention of future myocardial infarction and death following acute coronary syndromes and 2) prevention of stent thrombosis, the optimal duration of treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stent placement is not known. While current guidelines have recommended treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy for between 1 month after receiving a bare metal stent (BMS) and 6 to 12 months after PCI with a drug eluting stent (DES), there are conflicting data to guide practice. Stent thrombosis is rare, and is declining over time following improvements in procedural technique and stent design, yet definitive data regarding the timing of safe discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy are not yet available. Furthermore, extended duration of antiplatelet therapy beyond 6-12 months may aid in the prevention of spontaneous MI and cardiac mortality, particularly in higher risk anatomic or clinical subgroups. Moderately sized randomized trials have recently demonstrated bleeding risk associated with longer durations of therapy, but these studies have been relatively limited in their power to exclude differences in rates of stent thrombosis, or clinically significant impact on the occurrence of myocardial infarction and death in this patient population. Large randomized trials powered to examine stent thrombosis, bleeding, and mortality and myocardial infarction, are underway that are expected to guide practice in the near future. Until that time it is most prudent to continue antiplatelet therapy for at least 6-12 months after coronary stent placement in suitable patients.

In 2008, we published our chest pain protocol for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and acute myocardial infarction. Our algorithm was specifically designed for our institution, which includes primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) for all ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs) and a preferred invasive approach for non-STEMIs. Since 2008, there have been changes in the adjunctive pharmacotherapeutic armamentarium for PCI in both the STEMI and non-STEMI ACS context. In particular, recent data on the novel antiplatelet agent prasugrel, dosing of clopidogrel after PCI, and interactions with clopidogrel and other medicines and substrates, which can lead to decreased platelet response to clopidogrel, have led us to update our ACS clinical pathway. We present our updated chest pain algorithm with a brief review of the rapidly evolving changes in adjunctive pharmacotherapy for PCI, and provide rationale for the changes that we have made to our institutional protocol. Clinical pathways need to be regularly updated and revised by incorporating new evidence from clinical trials to ensure optimal clinical care.

Objective: To determine types, sources, and predictors of conflicts among patients with prolonged stay in the ICU., Design and Setting: We prospectively identified conflicts by interviewing treating physicians and nurses at two stages during the patients' stays. We then classified conflicts by type and source and used a case-control design to identify predictors of team-family conflicts., Design and Setting: Seven medical and surgical ICUs at four teaching hospitals in Boston, USA., Patients: All patients admitted to the participating ICUs over an 11-month period whose stay exceeded the 85th percentile length of stay for their respective unit ( n=656)., Measurements and Results: Clinicians identified 248 conflicts involving 209 patients; hence, nearly one-third of patients had conflict associated with their care: 142 conflicts (57%) were team-family disputes, 76 (31%) were intrateam disputes, and 30 (12%) occurred among family members. Disagreements over life-sustaining treatment led to 63 team-family conflicts (44%). Other leading sources were poor communication (44%), the unavailability of family decision makers (15%), and the surrogates' (perceived) inability to make decisions (16%). Nurses detected all types of conflict more frequently than physicians, especially intrateam conflicts. The presence of a spouse reduced the probability of team-family conflict generally (odds ratio 0.64) and team-family disputes over life-sustaining treatment specifically (odds ratio 0.49)., Conclusions: Conflict is common in the care of patients with prolonged stays in the ICU. However, efforts to improve the quality of care for critically ill patients that focus on team-family disagreements over life-sustaining treatment miss significant discord in a variety of other areas.