Two-year clinical outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation with balloon-expandable versus self-expanding valves: A subanalysis of the GALILEO trial

BACKGROUND

Midterm data comparing clinical outcomes after successful implantation of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THV) are limited. We aimed to compare 2-year outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the Edwards balloon-expandable or the Medtronic self-expanding THV.

METHODS

Two-year outcomes were analyzed according to the implanted THV in the GALILEO trial. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was a composite of all-cause death or thromboembolic events including stroke, myocardial infarction, symptomatic valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism.

RESULTS

Among 1644 patients recruited in 136 centers across 16 countries between 2015 and 2018, 499 received a self-expanding and 757 patients received a balloon-expandable THV. Patients treated with a self-expanding THV were more likely to be female, and had higher surgical risk, lower hemoglobin levels, and more frequent valve-in-valve procedures than those with a balloon-expandable THV. After multivariable adjustment, there were no significant differences in major clinical outcomes between self-expanding versus balloon-expandable THV: MACCE (17.0% vs. 13.4%, adjusted-hazard ratios [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.82-1.69); all-cause death (11.4% vs. 9.3%, adjusted-HR 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78-2.05); cardiovascular death (8.5% vs. 4.0%, adjusted-HR 1.53; 95% CI: 0.82-2.86), any stroke (5.1% vs. 3.7%, adjusted-HR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.73); major or life-threatening bleeding (5.9% vs. 6.8%, adjusted-HR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.53-1.63).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. NCT02556203.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year follow-up data from the GALILEO trial indicate that successful TAVI either with self-expanding or balloon-expandable THVs according to physician discretion did not show difference in rates of MACCE.

Bleeding risk differences after TAVR according to the ARC-HBR criteria: insights from SCOPE 2

BACKGROUND

The Academic Research Consortium - High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) initiative defined conditions associated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related bleeding.

AIMS

We sought to further explore these HBR conditions in the setting of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

Patients from the SCOPE 2 trial were stratified by their bleeding risk status based on the ARC-HBR definitions. Baseline and procedural characteristics, as well as key clinical outcomes including Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 bleeding, were compared in ARC-HBR positive (HBR+) and ARC-HBR negative (HBR-) patients.

RESULTS

Of 787 patients randomised in SCOPE 2 and included in this study, 633 were HBR+ (80.4%). Compared with HBR- patients, those HBR+ were older and more frequently presented with diabetes, a history of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, prior cerebrovascular accident, and a Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of 30-day mortality (STS-PROM) (4.9±2.9% vs 3.3%±2.1%; p<0.0001). In addition, HBR+ patients were more frequently on oral anticoagulation therapy. At 1 year, HBR+ patients had higher rates of all-cause death (12.4% vs 4.3%, respectively, risk difference 8.09%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.76-12.41; p=0.0002); the rates of BARC 3-5 type bleeding were relatively high but not statistically different compared with HBR- patients (7.7% vs 6.1%, risk difference 1.67%; 95% CI: -2.72 to 6.06; p=0.46). Subgroup analyses for bleeding events showed no significant interaction in terms of STS-PROM score, age, or medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The ARC-HBR criteria failed to isolate a subgroup of patients at higher bleeding risk in TAVR patients from a randomised trial. These findings have potential implications, especially for the selection of post-TAVR antithrombotic regimens based on individual bleeding-risk profiles. Specific HBR criteria should be defined for TAVR patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Procedure Compared With Surgery in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Low Risk of Surgical Mortality in France

OBJECTIVES

The clinical and cost-saving benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high or intermediate risk of surgical mortality are supported by a growing evidence base. The PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial) demonstrated clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in selected patients at low risk of surgical mortality. This study uses PARTNER 3 outcomes in combination with a French national hospital claim database to inform a cost-utility model and examine the cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a low-risk population.

METHODS

A 2-stage cost-utility analysis was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI were captured using the PARTNER 3 data set. These data fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes of patients, after TAVI or SAVR intervention.

RESULTS

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 offers meaningful benefits over SAVR in providing both cost saving (€12 742 per patient) and generating greater quality-adjusted life-years (0.89 per patient). These results are robust with TAVI with SAPIEN 3 remaining dominant across several scenarios and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This model demonstrated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 was dominant compared with SAVR in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at low risk of surgical mortality. These findings should help policy makers in developing informed approaches to intervention selection for this patient population.

Mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring procedures: Midterm outcomes in a French nationwide registry

OBJECTIVES

Report contemporary outcomes in patients included in the Mitragister registry and treated with transcatheter mitral valve implantation for failed surgical annuloplasty rings or deteriorated bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND

Midterm survival rates have been reported, but little is known about contemporary morbimortality endpoints.

METHODS

The primary safety outcome was the technical success rate. The primary efficacy composite endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2021, 102 patients (median age: 81 [74;84] years, 61% female, Euroscore II 11.0% [7.8;16.0]) undergoing valve-in-valve (ViV; n = 89) or valve-in-ring (ViR; n = 13) procedures were consecutively included. At baseline, ViR group patients had worse left ventricular ejection fraction (50% vs. 60%; p = 0.004) and more frequently severe regurgitation (46% vs. 15%; p = 0.014). The primary safety outcome was 95%: 77% and 98% in the ViR and ViV populations, respectively, (p = 0.014). At intermediate follow-up (6-12 months) clinical improvement was notable, 88% of the patients were in NYHA class ≤ II (vs. 25% at baseline; p < 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 17.1 ± 11.0 months, the primary efficacy composite reached 27%. By multivariate analysis, paravalvular leak (PVL) was the only independent predictor (hazard ratio: 2.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-5.29; p = 0.031) while ViR was not found statistically associated (p = 0.456).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the safety and efficacy of the mitral ViV procedure. ViR patients appear at higher risk of procedural complications. The presence of PVL could be associated with markedly worse midterm prognosis. Whatever the intervention, procedural strategies to reduce PVL incidence remain to be assessed to prevent latter adverse outcomes.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Early and late ventricular arrhythmias complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Ventricular arrhythmias can be life-threatening complications of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

AIMS

To describe the incidence, predictors and in-hospital impact of early ventricular arrhythmia (EVA, occurring<day 2 after STEMI) and late ventricular arrhythmia (LVA, occurring≥day 2 after STEMI) in patients with STEMI.

METHODS

Data from 13,523 patients enrolled in a prospective registry were analysed. Logistic and Cox regressions were performed to identify predictors of EVA, LVA and in-hospital all-cause mortality. Predictors of LVA were used to build a risk score.

RESULTS

EVA occurred in 678 patients (5%), whereas 120 patients (0.9%) experienced LVA, at a median timing of 3days after STEMI. EVA was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.17-1.76; P=0.001), whereas no association was observed with LVA (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.28; P=0.45). Multivariable predictors of LVA were: age≥65years; serum creatinine≥85μmol/L on admission; pulse pressure≤45mmHg on admission; presence of a Q wave on admission electrocardiogram; Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade<3 after percutaneous coronary intervention; and left ventricular ejection fraction≤45%. The score derived from these variables allowed the classification of patients into four risk categories: low (0-21); low-to-intermediate (22-34); intermediate-to-high (35-44); and high (≥45). Observed LVA rates were 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.9% and 2.5%, across the four risk categories, respectively. The model demonstrated good discrimination (20-fold cross-validated c-statistic of 0.76) and adequate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P=0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

EVA is 5-fold more common than LVA in the setting of STEMI, and portends a higher risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality. LVA is mainly associated with the patient's baseline risk profile and surrogate markers of larger infarct size. We developed and internally validated a risk score identifying patients at high risk of LVA for whom early intensive care unit discharge may not be suitable.

Trends in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a French nationwide study

AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has profoundly changed the management of patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS). Large unbiased nationwide data regarding TAVR implementation, impact on SAVR and their respective outcomes are scarce.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Based on a French administrative hospital-discharge database, we collected data on all consecutive aortic valve replacements (AVRs) performed in France for AS between 2007 and 2019 [106 253 isolated SAVR (49%), 46 514 combined SAVR (21%), and 65 651 TAVR (30%)]. The number of AVR linearly increased between 2007 and 2019 (from 10 892 to 23 109, P for trend < 0.0001) due to a marked increase in TAVR (from 253 to 13 030, P for trend < 0.0001), while SAVR increased up to 2013 and then declined (10 892 in 2007, 12 699 in 2013, and 10 079 in 2019). The Charlson index decreased linearly for TAVR, but in two steps for SAVR (2011 and 2017). In-hospital mortality rates of both SAVR and TAVR declined (both P for trend < 0.0001) and were similar or lower for TAVR than for isolated SAVR in patients 75 years or above in the last 3 years (2017-19). Complication rates of TAVR also declined but permanent pacemaker rates remained high and length of stay substantial (16.7% and median 6 days, respectively, in 2017-19).

CONCLUSION

The number of AVR has doubled in a decade and TAVR has become the dominant form of AVR in 2018. The improvement in patient profiles seems to have anticipated the demonstrated benefit of TAVR in intermediate and low-risk patients. In patients 75 years or older, TAVR should be considered as the first option. We also highlight two important areas for improvement, the high permanent pacemaker rates, and the long length of stay even in the contemporary era. Our results may have major implications for clinical practice and policymakers.

Risk-Benefit of 1-Year DAPT After DES Implantation in Patients Stratified by Bleeding and Ischemic Risk

BACKGROUND

Although a 1-year duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is used in many patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, the evidence supporting this duration is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated the risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs ≤6-month DAPT after DES using 2 novel scores to risk stratify bleeding and ischemic events.

METHODS

Ischemic and bleeding risk scores were generated from ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents), a multicenter, international, "all-comers" registry that enrolled 8,665 patients treated with DES. The risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs ≤6-month DAPT was then investigated across risk strata from an individual patient data pooled dataset of 7 randomized trials that enrolled 15,083 patients treated with DES.

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort, the ischemic score and the bleeding score had c-indexes of 0.76 and 0.66, respectively, and both were well calibrated. In the pooled dataset, no significant difference was apparent in any ischemic endpoint between 1-year and ≤6-month DAPT, regardless of the risk strata. In the overall dataset, there was no significant difference in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding between 1-year and ≤6-month DAPT; however, among 2,508 patients at increased risk of bleeding, 1-year compared with ≤6-month DAPT was associated with greater bleeding (HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.12-7.13) without a reduced risk of ischemic events in any risk strata, including those with acute coronary syndromes. These results were consistent in a network meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present large-scale study, compared with ≤6-month DAPT, a 1-year duration of DAPT was not associated with reduced adverse ischemic events in any risk strata (including acute coronary syndromes) but was associated with greater bleeding in patients at increased risk of bleeding.