Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery

BACKGROUND

Many patients with severe aortic stenosis and coexisting conditions are not candidates for surgical replacement of the aortic valve. Recently, transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) has been suggested as a less invasive treatment for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis, whom surgeons considered not to be suitable candidates for surgery, to standard therapy (including balloon aortic valvuloplasty) or transfemoral transcatheter implantation of a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve. The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause.

RESULTS

A total of 358 patients with aortic stenosis who were not considered to be suitable candidates for surgery underwent randomization at 21 centers (17 in the United States). At 1 year, the rate of death from any cause (Kaplan–Meier analysis) was 30.7% with TAVI, as compared with 50.7% with standard therapy (hazard ratio with TAVI, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.74; P<0.001). The rate of the composite end point of death from any cause or repeat hospitalization was 42.5% with TAVI as compared with 71.6% with standard therapy (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.59; P<0.001). Among survivors at 1 year, the rate of cardiac symptoms (New York Heart Association class III or IV) was lower among patients who had undergone TAVI than among those who had received standard therapy (25.2% vs. 58.0%, P<0.001). At 30 days, TAVI, as compared with standard therapy, was associated with a higher incidence of major strokes (5.0% vs. 1.1%, P=0.06) and major vascular complications (16.2% vs. 1.1%, P<0.001). In the year after TAVI, there was no deterioration in the functioning of the bioprosthetic valve, as assessed by evidence of stenosis or regurgitation on an echocardiogram.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVI, as compared with standard therapy, significantly reduced the rates of death from any cause, the composite end point of death from any cause or repeat hospitalization, and cardiac symptoms, despite the higher incidence of major strokes and major vascular events. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

The use of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement has been shown to reduce mortality among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical replacement. However, the two procedures have not been compared in a randomized trial involving high-risk patients who are still candidates for surgical replacement.

METHODS

At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial valve (either a transfemoral or a transapical approach) or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that transcatheter replacement is not inferior to surgical replacement.

RESULTS

The rates of death from any cause were 3.4% in the transcatheter group and 6.5% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.07) and 24.2% and 26.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.44), a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the transcatheter group (upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 3.0 percentage points; predefined margin, 7.5 percentage points; P=0.001 for noninferiority). The rates of major stroke were 3.8% in the transcatheter group and 2.1% in the surgical group at 30 days (P=0.20) and 5.1% and 2.4%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.07). At 30 days, major vascular complications were significantly more frequent with transcatheter replacement (11.0% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001); adverse events that were more frequent after surgical replacement included major bleeding (9.3% vs. 19.5%, P<0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs. 16.0%, P=0.006). More patients undergoing transcatheter replacement had an improvement in symptoms at 30 days, but by 1 year, there was not a significant between-group difference.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter and surgical procedures for aortic-valve replacement were associated with similar rates of survival at 1 year, although there were important differences in periprocedural risks. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort.

RESULTS

The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoral-access cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

Among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate or high risk for death with surgery, major outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparison of the two procedures in patients who are at low risk.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year. Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6 percentage points) and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population.

RESULTS

At 71 centers, 1000 patients underwent randomization. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.9% (with scores ranging from 0 to 100% and higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.001 for superiority). At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P = 0.02) and in lower rates of death or stroke (P = 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization than surgery (P<0.001) and in a lower risk of a poor treatment outcome (death or a low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 30 days (P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major vascular complications, new permanent pacemaker insertions, or moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with TAVR than with surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery

BACKGROUND

Preliminary reports of studies involving simple coronary lesions indicate that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary revascularization.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent in 1058 patients at 53 centers in the United States who had a newly diagnosed lesion in a native coronary artery. The coronary disease in these patients was complex because of the frequent presence of diabetes (in 26 percent of patients), the high percentage of patients with longer lesions (mean, 14.4 mm), and small vessels (mean, 2.80 mm). The primary end point was failure of the target vessel (a composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization of the target vessel) within 270 days.

RESULTS

The rate of failure of the target vessel was reduced from 21.0 percent with a standard stent to 8.6 percent with a sirolimus-eluting stent (P<0.001)--a reduction that was driven largely by a decrease in the frequency of the need for revascularization of the target lesion (16.6 percent in the standard-stent group vs. 4.1 percent in the sirolimus-stent group, P<0.001). The frequency of neointimal hyperplasia within the stent was also decreased in the group that received sirolimus-eluting stents, as assessed by both angiography and intravascular ultrasonography. Subgroup analyses revealed a reduction in the rates of angiographic restenosis and target-lesion revascularization in all subgroups examined.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized clinical trial involving patients with complex coronary lesions, the use of a sirolimus-eluting stent had a consistent treatment effect, reducing the rates of restenosis and associated clinical events in all subgroups analyzed.

A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators

BACKGROUND

Coronary-stent placement is a new technique in which a balloon-expandable, stainless-steel, slotted tube is implanted at the site of a coronary stenosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of stent placement and standard balloon angioplasty on angiographically detected restenosis and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 410 patients with symptomatic coronary disease to elective placement of a Palmaz-Schatz stent or to standard balloon angioplasty. Coronary angiography was performed at base line, immediately after the procedure, and six months later.

RESULTS

The patients who underwent stenting had a higher rate of procedural success than those who underwent standard balloon angioplasty (96.1 percent vs. 89.6 percent, P = 0.011), a larger immediate increase in the diameter of the lumen (1.72 +/- 0.46 vs. 1.23 +/- 0.48 mm, P < 0.001), and a larger luminal diameter immediately after the procedure (2.49 +/- 0.43 vs. 1.99 +/- 0.47 mm, P < 0.001). At six months, the patients with stented lesions continued to have a larger luminal diameter (1.74 +/- 0.60 vs. 1.56 +/- 0.65 mm, P = 0.007) and a lower rate of restenosis (31.6 percent vs. 42.1 percent, P = 0.046) than those treated with balloon angioplasty. There were no coronary events (death; myocardial infarction; coronary-artery bypass surgery; vessel closure, including stent thrombosis; or repeated angioplasty) in 80.5 percent of the patients in the stent group and 76.2 percent of those in the angioplasty group (P = 0.16). Revascularization of the original target lesion because of recurrent myocardial ischemia was performed less frequently in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (10.2 percent vs. 15.4 percent, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, placement of an intracoronary stent, as compared with balloon angioplasty, results in an improved rate of procedural success, a lower rate of angiographically detected restenosis, a similar rate of clinical events after six months, and a less frequent need for revascularization of the original coronary lesion.

Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description

BACKGROUND

The design of a percutaneous implantable prosthetic heart valve has become an important area for investigation. A percutaneously implanted heart valve (PHV) composed of 3 bovine pericardial leaflets mounted within a balloon-expandable stent was developed. After ex vivo testing and animal implantation studies, the first human implantation was performed in a 57-year-old man with calcific aortic stenosis, cardiogenic shock, subacute leg ischemia, and other associated noncardiac diseases. Valve replacement had been declined for this patient, and balloon valvuloplasty had been performed with nonsustained results.

METHODS AND RESULTS

With the use of an antegrade transseptal approach, the PHV was successfully implanted within the diseased native aortic valve, with accurate and stable PHV positioning, no impairment of the coronary artery blood flow or of the mitral valve function, and a mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation. Immediately and at 48 hours after implantation, valve function was excellent, resulting in marked hemodynamic improvement. Over a follow-up period of 4 months, the valvular function remained satisfactory as assessed by sequential transesophageal echocardiography, and there was no recurrence of heart failure. However, severe noncardiac complications occurred, including a progressive worsening of the leg ischemia, leading to leg amputation with lack of healing, infection, and death 17 weeks after PHV implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsurgical implantation of a prosthetic heart valve can be successfully achieved with immediate and midterm hemodynamic and clinical improvement. After further device modifications, additional durability tests, and confirmatory clinical implantations, PHV might become an important therapeutic alternative for the treatment of selected patients with nonsurgical aortic stenosis.

Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19

Although COVID-19 is most well known for causing substantial respiratory pathology, it can also result in several extrapulmonary manifestations. These conditions include thrombotic complications, myocardial dysfunction and arrhythmia, acute coronary syndromes, acute kidney injury, gastrointestinal symptoms, hepatocellular injury, hyperglycemia and ketosis, neurologic illnesses, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic complications. Given that ACE2, the entry receptor for the causative coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, is expressed in multiple extrapulmonary tissues, direct viral tissue damage is a plausible mechanism of injury. In addition, endothelial damage and thromboinflammation, dysregulation of immune responses, and maladaptation of ACE2-related pathways might all contribute to these extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. Here we review the extrapulmonary organ-specific pathophysiology, presentations and management considerations for patients with COVID-19 to aid clinicians and scientists in recognizing and monitoring the spectrum of manifestations, and in developing research priorities and therapeutic strategies for all organ systems involved.

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits.

METHODS

At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation.

RESULTS

The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Prior unblinded studies have suggested that catheter-based renal-artery denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension.

METHODS

We designed a prospective, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Patients with severe resistant hypertension were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo renal denervation or a sham procedure. Before randomization, patients were receiving a stable antihypertensive regimen involving maximally tolerated doses of at least three drugs, including a diuretic. The primary efficacy end point was the change in office systolic blood pressure at 6 months; a secondary efficacy end point was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, end-stage renal disease, embolic events resulting in end-organ damage, renovascular complications, or hypertensive crisis at 1 month or new renal-artery stenosis of more than 70% at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 535 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) change in systolic blood pressure at 6 months was -14.13±23.93 mm Hg in the denervation group as compared with -11.74±25.94 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group (P<0.001 for both comparisons of the change from baseline), for a difference of -2.39 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.89 to 2.12; P=0.26 for superiority with a margin of 5 mm Hg). The change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was -6.75±15.11 mm Hg in the denervation group and -4.79±17.25 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group, for a difference of -1.96 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.97 to 1.06; P=0.98 for superiority with a margin of 2 mm Hg). There were no significant differences in safety between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This blinded trial did not show a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension 6 months after renal-artery denervation as compared with a sham control. (Funded by Medtronic; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01418261.).

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

BACKGROUND

A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiography recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies: a report from the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography Standardization and Validation

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this document is to make the output of the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography (IWG-IVOCT) Standardization and Validation available to medical and scientific communities, through a peer-reviewed publication, in the interest of improving the diagnosis and treatment of patients with atherosclerosis, including coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

Intravascular optical coherence tomography (IVOCT) is a catheter-based modality that acquires images at a resolution of ~10 μm, enabling visualization of blood vessel wall microstructure in vivo at an unprecedented level of detail. IVOCT devices are now commercially available worldwide, there is an active user base, and the interest in using this technology is growing. Incorporation of IVOCT in research and daily clinical practice can be facilitated by the development of uniform terminology and consensus-based standards on use of the technology, interpretation of the images, and reporting of IVOCT results.

METHODS

The IWG-IVOCT, comprising more than 260 academic and industry members from Asia, Europe, and the United States, formed in 2008 and convened on the topic of IVOCT standardization through a series of 9 national and international meetings.

RESULTS

Knowledge and recommendations from this group on key areas within the IVOCT field were assembled to generate this consensus document, authored by the Writing Committee, composed of academicians who have participated in meetings and/or writing of the text.

CONCLUSIONS

This document may be broadly used as a standard reference regarding the current state of the IVOCT imaging modality, intended for researchers and clinicians who use IVOCT and analyze IVOCT data.

5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that mortality at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years is much the same with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. We report here the 5-year outcomes.

METHODS

We did this randomised controlled trial at 25 hospitals, in Canada (two), Germany (one), and the USA (23). We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly assign high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to either SAVR or TAVR with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial tissue valve by either a transfemoral or transapical approach. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat population at 1 year, we present here predefined outcomes at 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894.

FINDINGS

We screened 3105 patients, of whom 699 were enrolled (348 assigned to TAVR, 351 assigned to SAVR). Overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 11·7%. At 5 years, risk of death was 67·8% in the TAVR group compared with 62·4% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·86-1·24; p=0·76). We recorded no structural valve deterioration requiring surgical valve replacement in either group. Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in 40 (14%) of 280 patients in the TAVR group and two (1%) of 228 in the SAVR group (p<0·0001), and was associated with increased 5-year risk of mortality in the TAVR group (72·4% for moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 56·6% for those with mild aortic regurgitation or less; p=0·003).

INTERPRETATION

Our findings show that TAVR as an alternative to surgery for patients with high surgical risk results in similar clinical outcomes.

FUNDING

Edwards Lifesciences.

A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting. Stent Anticoagulation Restenosis Study Investigators

BACKGROUND

Antithrombotic drugs are used after coronary-artery stenting to prevent stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of three antithrombotic-drug regimens - aspirin alone, aspirin and warfarin, and aspirin and ticlopidine - after coronary stenting.

METHODS

Of 1965 patients who underwent coronary stenting at 50 centers, 1653 (84.1 percent) met angiographic criteria for successful placement of the stent and were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: aspirin alone (557 patients), aspirin and warfarin (550 patients), or aspirin and ticlopidine (546 patients). All clinical events reflecting stent thrombosis were included in the prespecified primary end point: death, revascularization of the target lesion, angiographically evident thrombosis, or myocardial infarction within 30 days.

RESULTS

The primary end point was observed in 38 patients: 20 (3.6 percent) assigned to receive aspirin alone, 15 (2.7 percent) assigned to receive aspirin and warfarin, and 3 (0.5 percent) assigned to receive aspirin and ticlopidine (P=0.001 for the comparison of all three groups). Hemorrhagic complications occurred in 10 patients (1.8 percent) who received aspirin alone, 34 (6.2 percent) who received aspirin and warfarin, and 30 (5.5 percent) who received aspirin and ticlopidine (P<0.001 for the comparison of all three groups); the incidence of vascular surgical complications was 0.4 percent (2 patients), 2.0 percent (11 patients), and 2.0 percent (11 patients), respectively (P=0.01). There were no significant differences in the incidence of neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (overall incidence, 0.3 percent) among the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with aspirin alone and a combination of aspirin and warfarin, treatment with aspirin and ticlopidine resulted in a lower rate of stent thrombosis, although there were more hemorrhagic complications than with aspirin alone. After coronary stenting, aspirin and ticlopidine should be considered for the prevention of the serious complication of stent thrombosis.

Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents

BACKGROUND

The safety of drug-eluting stents has been called into question by recent reports of increased stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death. Such studies have been inconclusive because of their insufficient size, the use of historical controls, a limited duration of follow-up, and a lack of access to original source data.

METHODS

We performed a pooled analysis of data from four double-blind trials in which 1748 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and five double-blind trials in which 3513 patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents; we then analyzed the major clinical end points of the trials.

RESULTS

The 4-year rates of stent thrombosis were 1.2% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20) and 1.3% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.9% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.30). However, after 1 year, there were five episodes of stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents versus none in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.025) and nine episodes in patients with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus two in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.028). The 4-year rates of target-lesion revascularization were markedly reduced in both the sirolimus-stent group and the paclitaxel-stent group, as compared with the bare-metal-stent groups. The rates of death or myocardial infarction did not differ significantly between the groups with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents.

CONCLUSIONS

Stent thrombosis after 1 year was more common with both sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents. Both drug-eluting stents were associated with a marked reduction in target-lesion revascularization. There were no significant differences in the cumulative rates of death or myocardial infarction at 4 years.

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents.

METHODS

We searched relevant sources from inception to March, 2007, and contacted investigators and manufacturers to identify randomised controlled trials in patients with coronary artery disease that compared drug-eluting with bare-metal stents, or that compared sirolimus-eluting stents head-to-head with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Safety outcomes included mortality, myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis; the effectiveness outcome was target lesion revascularisation. We included 38 trials (18,023 patients) with a follow-up of up to 4 years. Trialists and manufacturers provided additional data on clinical outcomes for 29 trials. We did a network meta-analysis with a mixed-treatment comparison method to combine direct within-trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.

FINDINGS

Mortality was similar in the three groups: hazard ratios (HR) were 1.00 (95% credibility interval 0.82-1.25) for sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents, 1.03 (0.84-1.22) for paclitaxel-eluting versus bare-metal stents, and 0.96 (0.83-1.24) for sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents. Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with the lowest risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.81, 95% credibility interval 0.66-0.97, p=0.030 vs bare-metal stents; 0.83, 0.71-1.00, p=0.045 vs paclitaxel-eluting stents). There were no significant differences in the risk of definite stent thrombosis (0 days to 4 years). However, the risk of late definite stent thrombosis (>30 days) was increased with paclitaxel-eluting stents (HR 2.11, 95% credibility interval 1.19-4.23, p=0.017 vs bare-metal stents; 1.85, 1.02-3.85, p=0.041 vs sirolimus-eluting stents). The reduction in target lesion revascularisation seen with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents was more pronounced with sirolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.70, 0.56-0.84; p=0.0021).

INTERPRETATION

The risks of mortality associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents are similar. Sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than bare-metal and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is the recommended therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable candidates for surgery. The outcomes beyond 1 year in such patients are not known.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients to transfemoral TAVR or to standard therapy (which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty). Data on 2-year outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 358 patients underwent randomization at 21 centers. The rates of death at 2 years were 43.3% in the TAVR group and 68.0% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001), and the corresponding rates of cardiac death were 31.0% and 62.4% (P<0.001). The survival advantage associated with TAVR that was seen at 1 year remained significant among patients who survived beyond the first year (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.92; P=0.02 with the use of the log-rank test). The rate of stroke was higher after TAVR than with standard therapy (13.8% vs. 5.5%, P=0.01), owing, in the first 30 days, to the occurrence of more ischemic events in the TAVR group (6.7% vs. 1.7%, P=0.02) and, beyond 30 days, to the occurrence of more hemorrhagic strokes in the TAVR group (2.2% vs. 0.6%, P=0.16). At 2 years, the rate of rehospitalization was 35.0% in the TAVR group and 72.5% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001). TAVR, as compared with standard therapy, was also associated with improved functional status (P<0.001). The data suggest that the mortality benefit after TAVR may be limited to patients who do not have extensive coexisting conditions. Echocardiographic analysis showed a sustained increase in aortic-valve area and a decrease in aortic-valve gradient, with no worsening of paravalvular aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Among appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVR reduced the rates of death and hospitalization, with a decrease in symptoms and an improvement in valve hemodynamics that were sustained at 2 years of follow-up. The presence of extensive coexisting conditions may attenuate the survival benefit of TAVR. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

The angiographic presentation of in-stent restenosis (ISR) may convey prognostic information on subsequent target vessel revascularizations (TLR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed an angiographic classification of ISR according to the geographic distribution of intimal hyperplasia in reference to the implanted stent. Pattern I includes focal (< or =10 mm in length) lesions, pattern II is ISR>10 mm within the stent, pattern III includes ISR>10 mm extending outside the stent, and pattern IV is totally occluded ISR. We classified a total of 288 ISR lesions in 245 patients and verified the angiographic accuracy of the classification by intravascular ultrasound. Pattern I was found in 42% of patients, pattern II in 21%, pattern III in 30%, and pattern IV in 7%. Previously recurrent ISR was more frequent with increasing grades of classification (9%, 20%, 34%, and 50% for classes I to IV, respectively; P=0.0001), as was diabetes (28%, 32%, 39%, and 48% in classes I to IV, respectively; P<0.01). Angioplasty and stenting were used predominantly in classes I and II, whereas classes III and IV were treated with atheroablation. Final diameter stenosis ranged between 21% and 28% (P=NS among ISR patterns). TLR increased with increasing ISR class; it was 19%, 35%, 50%, and 83% in classes I to IV, respectively (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that diabetes (odds ratio, 2.8), previously recurrent ISR (odds ratio, 2. 7), and ISR class (odds ratio, 1.7) were independent predictors of TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduced angiographic classification is prognostically important, and it may be used for appropriate and early patient triage for clinical and investigational purposes.

Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography

CONTEXT

Coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography is a noninvasive anatomic test for diagnosis of coronary stenosis that does not determine whether a stenosis causes ischemia. In contrast, fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a physiologic measure of coronary stenosis expressing the amount of coronary flow still attainable despite the presence of a stenosis, but it requires an invasive procedure. Noninvasive FFR computed from CT (FFR(CT)) is a novel method for determining the physiologic significance of coronary artery disease (CAD), but its ability to identify ischemia has not been adequately examined to date.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic performance of FFR(CT) plus CT for diagnosis of hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Multicenter diagnostic performance study involving 252 stable patients with suspected or known CAD from 17 centers in 5 countries who underwent CT, invasive coronary angiography (ICA), FFR, and FFR(CT) between October 2010 and October 2011. Computed tomography, ICA, FFR, and FFR(CT) were interpreted in blinded fashion by independent core laboratories. Accuracy of FFR(CT) plus CT for diagnosis of ischemia was compared with an invasive FFR reference standard. Ischemia was defined by an FFR or FFR(CT) of 0.80 or less, while anatomically obstructive CAD was defined by a stenosis of 50% or larger on CT and ICA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary study outcome assessed whether FFR(CT) plus CT could improve the per-patient diagnostic accuracy such that the lower boundary of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval of this estimate exceeded 70%.

RESULTS

Among study participants, 137 (54.4%) had an abnormal FFR determined by ICA. On a per-patient basis, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FFR(CT) plus CT were 73% (95% CI, 67%-78%), 90% (95% CI, 84%-95%), 54% (95% CI, 46%-83%), 67% (95% CI, 60%-74%), and 84% (95% CI, 74%-90%), respectively. Compared with obstructive CAD diagnosed by CT alone (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.62-0.74), FFR(CT) was associated with improved discrimination (AUC, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Although the study did not achieve its prespecified primary outcome goal for the level of per-patient diagnostic accuracy, use of noninvasive FFR(CT) plus CT among stable patients with suspected or known CAD was associated with improved diagnostic accuracy and discrimination vs CT alone for the diagnosis of hemodynamically significant CAD when FFR determined at the time of ICA was the reference standard.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

BACKGROUND

A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavours of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Patterns and mechanisms of in-stent restenosis. A serial intravascular ultrasound study

BACKGROUND

Studies have suggested that restenosis within Palmaz-Schatz stents results from neointimal hyperplasia or chronic stent recoil and occurs more frequently at the articulation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was performed after intervention and at follow-up in 142 stents in 115 lesions. IVUS measurements (external elastic membrane [EEM], stent, and lumen cross-sectional areas [CSAs] and diameters) were performed, and plaque CSA (EEM lumen in reference segments and stent lumen in stented segments), late lumen loss (delta lumen), remodeling (delta EEM in reference segments and delta stent in stented segments), and tissue growth (delta plaque) were calculated. After intervention, the lumen tended to be smallest at the articulation because of tissue prolapse. At follow-up, tissue growth was uniformly distributed throughout the stent; the tendency for greater neointimal tissue accumulation at the central articulation reached statistical significance only when normalized for the smaller postintervention lumen CSA. In stented segments, late lumen area loss correlated strongly with tissue growth but only weakly with remodeling. Stents affected adjacent vessel segments; remodeling progressively increased and tissue growth progressively decreased at distances from the edge of the stent. These findings were similar in native arteries and saphenous vein grafts and in lesions treated with one or two stents. There was no difference in the postintervention or follow-up lumen (at the junction of the two stents) when overlapped were compared with nonoverlapped stents.

CONCLUSIONS

Late lumen loss and in-stent restenosis were the result of neointimal tissue proliferation, which tended to be uniformly distributed over the length of the stent.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonstrates good 30 day clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at intermediate risk of surgical mortality. Here we report longer-term data in intermediate-risk patients given SAPIEN 3 TAVR and compare outcomes to those of intermediate-risk patients given surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

In the SAPIEN 3 observational study, 1077 intermediate-risk patients at 51 sites in the USA and Canada were assigned to receive TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve [952 [88%] via transfemoral access) between Feb 17, 2014, and Sept 3, 2014. In this population we assessed all-cause mortality and incidence of strokes, re-intervention, and aortic valve regurgitation at 1 year after implantation. Then we compared 1 year outcomes in this population with those for intermediate-risk patients treated with surgical valve replacement in the PARTNER 2A trial between Dec 23, 2011, and Nov 6, 2013, using a prespecified propensity score analysis to account for between-trial differences in baseline characteristics. The clinical events committee and echocardiographic core laboratory methods were the same for both studies. The primary endpoint was the composite of death from any cause, all strokes, and incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. We did non-inferiority (margin 7·5%) and superiority analyses in propensity score quintiles to calculate pooled weighted proportion differences for outcomes.

FINDINGS

At 1 year follow-up of the SAPIEN 3 observational study, 79 of 1077 patients who initiated the TAVR procedure had died (all-cause mortality 7·4%; 6·5% in the transfemoral access subgroup), and disabling strokes had occurred in 24 (2%), aortic valve re-intervention in six (1%), and moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation in 13 (2%). In the propensity-score analysis we included 963 patients treated with SAPIEN 3 TAVR and 747 with surgical valve replacement. For the primary composite endpoint of mortality, strokes, and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, TAVR was both non-inferior (pooled weighted proportion difference of -9·2%; 90% CI -12·4 to -6; p<0·0001) and superior (-9·2%, 95% CI -13·0 to -5·4; p<0·0001) to surgical valve replacement.

INTERPRETATION

TAVR with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis is associated with low mortality, strokes, and regurgitation at 1 year. The propensity score analysis indicates a significant superiority for our composite outcome with TAVR compared with surgery, suggesting that TAVR might be the preferred treatment alternative in intermediate-risk patients.

FUNDING

None.

Possible Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

BACKGROUND

A finding of reduced aortic-valve leaflet motion was noted on computed tomography (CT) in a patient who had a stroke after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) during an ongoing clinical trial. This finding raised a concern about possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis and prompted further investigation.

METHODS

We analyzed data obtained from 55 patients in a clinical trial of TAVR and from two single-center registries that included 132 patients who were undergoing either TAVR or surgical aortic-valve bioprosthesis implantation. We obtained four-dimensional, volume-rendered CT scans along with data on anticoagulation and clinical outcomes (including strokes and transient ischemic attacks [TIAs]).

RESULTS

Reduced leaflet motion was noted on CT in 22 of 55 patients (40%) in the clinical trial and in 17 of 132 patients (13%) in the two registries. Reduced leaflet motion was detected among patients with multiple bioprosthesis types, including transcatheter and surgical bioprostheses. Therapeutic anticoagulation with warfarin, as compared with dual antiplatelet therapy, was associated with a decreased incidence of reduced leaflet motion (0% and 55%, respectively, P=0.01 in the clinical trial; and 0% and 29%, respectively, P=0.04 in the pooled registries). In patients who were reevaluated with follow-up CT, restoration of leaflet motion was noted in all 11 patients who were receiving anticoagulation and in 1 of 10 patients who were not receiving anticoagulation (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke or TIA between patients with reduced leaflet motion and those with normal leaflet motion in the clinical trial (2 of 22 patients and 0 of 33 patients, respectively; P=0.16), although in the pooled registries, a significant difference was detected (3 of 17 patients and 1 of 115 patients, respectively; P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced aortic-valve leaflet motion was shown in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves. The condition resolved with therapeutic anticoagulation. The effect of this finding on clinical outcomes including stroke needs further investigation. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute; Portico-IDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02000115; SAVORY registry, NCT02426307; and RESOLVE registry, NCT02318342.).

Catheter-based radiotherapy to inhibit restenosis after coronary stenting

BACKGROUND

In animal models of coronary restenosis, intracoronary radiotherapy has been shown to reduce the intimal hyperplasia that is a part of restenosis. We studied the safety and efficacy of catheter-based intracoronary gamma radiation plus stenting to reduce coronary restenosis in patients with previous restenosis.

METHODS

Patients with restenosis underwent coronary stenting, as required, and balloon dilation and were then randomly assigned to receive catheter-based irradiation with iridium-192 or placebo. Clinical follow-up was performed, with quantitative coronary angiographic and intravascular ultrasonographic measurements at six months.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were enrolled; 26 were assigned to the iridium-192 group and 29 to the placebo group. Angiographic studies were performed in 53 patients (96 percent) at a mean (+/-SD) of 6.7+/-2.2 months. The mean minimal luminal diameter at follow-up was larger in the iridium-192 group than in the placebo group (2.43+/-0.78 mm vs. 1.85+/-0.89 mm, P=0.02). Late luminal loss was significantly lower in the iridium-192 group than in the placebo group (0.38+/-1.06 mm vs. 1.03+/-0.97 mm, P=0.03). Angiographically identified restenosis (stenosis of 50 percent or more of the luminal diameter at follow-up) occurred in 17 percent of the patients in the iridium-192 group, as compared with 54 percent of those in the placebo group (P= 0.01). There were no apparent complications of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary, short-term study of patients with previous coronary restenosis, coronary stenting followed by catheter-based intracoronary radiotherapy substantially reduced the rate of subsequent restenosis.

Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative safety of drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents, especially with respect to stent thrombosis, continues to be debated. In view of the overall low frequency of stent thrombosis, large sample sizes are needed to accurately estimate treatment differences between stents. We compared the risk of thrombosis between bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

For this network meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials comparing different drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting with bare-metal stents currently approved in the USA were identified through Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings. Information about study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted.

FINDINGS

49 trials including 50,844 patients randomly assigned to treatment groups were analysed. 1-year definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents (CoCr-EES) than with bare-metal stents (odds ratio [OR] 0·23, 95% CI 0·13-0·41). The significant difference in stent thrombosis between CoCr-EES and bare-metal stents was evident as early as 30 days (OR 0·21, 95% CI 0·11-0·42) and was also significant between 31 days and 1 year (OR 0·27, 95% CI 0·08-0·74). CoCr-EES were also associated with significantly lower rates of 1-year definite stent thrombosis compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (OR 0·28, 95% CI 0·16-0·48), permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·24-0·70), phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·21, 95% CI 0·10-0·44), and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·14, 95% CI 0·03-0·47). At 2-year follow-up, CoCr-EES were still associated with significantly lower rates of definite stent thrombosis than were bare-metal (OR 0·35, 95% CI 0·17-0·69) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (OR 0·34, 95% CI 0·19-0·62). No other drug-eluting stent had lower definite thrombosis rates compared with bare-metal stents at 2-year follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

In randomised studies completed to date, CoCr-EES has the lowest rate of stent thrombosis within 2 years of implantation. The finding that CoCr-EES also reduced stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents, if confirmed in future randomised trials, represents a paradigm shift.

FUNDING

The Cardiovascular Research Foundation.