Transradial Access: where we are

Posted on by Kurt Jensen

A popular hashtag among cardiologists on Twitter, #RadialFirst hopes to promote the adoption of transradial access for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cath labs across the world thanks to a deepening evidence base of positive outcomes.

The evidence shows that transradial access is associated with reductions in bleeding, vascular complications, and time to ambulation compared with a femoral approach. However, while the adoption of the transradial approach is increasing in the United States, the approach is not as widely used as it is in Europe, Canada and Asia—perhaps due to the challenges in the approach's learning curve.

So, what is the current state of the transradial approach in the United States? That is the question a new comprehensive literature review from the Duke Clinical Research Institute, published in Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications, set out to answer.

Continue reading Transradial Access: where we are

TAVR Volume Requirements Spark Continued Debate

Posted on by Kurt Jensen
CMS considers changing TAVR volume requirements

CMS Considers Changing TAVR Volume Requirements

Debate over transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures continues as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) considers changing the status quo. Are TAVR volume requirements limiting rural and minority access to this life-saving procedure, or are they still necessary for patient safety?

In June 2018, cardiology news sources widely reported that CMS opened public comment on established volume requirements for hospitals and heart teams to perform TAVR. The Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) then met on July 25 to discuss the issue. A report in Cardiovascular Business suggested that the committee appeared split on the subject—especially in weighing the potential harms of limiting TAVR to only high volume hospitals.

Cases for and against TAVR volume requirements

The Case for TAVR Volume Requirements

For those on the side of maintaining TAVR volume requirements, the benefits are obvious—volume is associated with positive outcomes and lower rates of complications. In fact, a 2018 expert consensus document from four major cardiology societies actually supported increasing volume requirements to maintain a TAVR program, to ensure adequate data collection for statistically reliable quality metrics and quality assurance.

Continue reading TAVR Volume Requirements Spark Continued Debate

Stents not effective? Study sparks debate pt. 1

Posted on by Kurt Jensen

U.K. PCI study sparks U.S. debate

On Wednesday, November 1, results from the Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) study were published in The Lancet.

The next day, this article was published in the New York Times:

"A procedure used to relieve chest pain in hundreds of thousands of heart patients each year is useless for many of them," it began... "The new study, published in the Lancet, stunned leading cardiologists by countering decades of clinical experience. The findings raise questions about whether stents should be used so often—or at all—to treat chest pain."

Without further knowledge, the debate may start right here—the New York Times article had little in the way of medical detail to satisfy invasive cardiovascular professionals and may have further generalized results in a misleading manner.

But let's hold off on reacting, look at the debate surrounding this particular study and also place the findings in a wider context (part two). Note: this isn't the first time it has been suggested that stents are overused.

Continue reading Stents not effective? Study sparks debate pt. 1

SICP to Join ACVP

Posted on by Kurt Jensen

Uniting the Cardiovascular Profession—For Your Benefit

The Society of Invasive Cardiovascular Professionals will soon strengthen the ranks of the Alliance of Cardiovascular Professionals.

Seeing an opportunity to unite the profession and improve the benefits of current members of both organizations, ACVP and SICP leadership agreed to join together.

SICP & ACVP joining means more resources, better benefits for members.

This opportunity to consolidate resources and benefits will result in more resources, better benefits, and fewer "upkeep" costs for members of the combined organization.

Continue reading SICP to Join ACVP