Search

Background: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Methods: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days.Results: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P=0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P=0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P=0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P=0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P=0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group.Conclusions: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03192813. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Relative benefits of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are expected to accrue after complete bioresorption. Methods and Results--We built a decision analytic Markov model comparing BVS and EES for a contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention population. Procedure-related morbidity and outcome data from the available literature were used to derive model probabilities. The net benefit of BVS and EES was estimated in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy. Under the assumption of no risk for device thrombosis and target lesion revascularization with BVS beyond 3 years, the equipoise in quality-adjusted life expectancy (12.86) between BVS and EES was achieved 19 years after implantation. The maximum tolerable excess risk of 3-year BVS thrombosis equalizing the model-predicted quality-adjusted life expectancy of BVS and EES at 10 years was 1.40, corresponding to an absolute tolerable rate of 1.45%. Conclusions--At the currently observed relative increase in device thrombosis and under the extreme hypothesis of no scaffold thrombosis and target lesion revascularization beyond 3 years, the incremental benefit of BVS over EES becomes apparent only after 19 years. This simulation suggests that there is a small degree of benefit that clinicians and decision-makers may expect from the first-generation BVS at the current risk of device thrombosis. Manufacturers should target scaffold thrombosis rates <1.45% at 3 years to make their technologies attractive during a 10-year horizon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--The effectiveness of currently available effective preventive strategies for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI) is a matter of debate. Methods and Results--We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of 124 trials (28 240 patients) comparing a total of 10 strategies: saline, statin, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), NAC+NaHCO3, ascorbic acid, xanthine, dopaminergic agent, peripheral ischemic preconditioning, and natriuretic peptide. Compared with saline, the risk of CIAKI was reduced by using statin (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.26-0.67), xanthine (OR, 0.32; 95% CrI, 0.17-0.57), ischemic preconditioning (OR, 0.48; 95% CrI, 0.26-0.87), NAC+NaHCO3 (OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.33-0.76), NAC (OR, 0.68; 95% CrI, 0.55-0.84), and NaHCO3 (OR, 0.66; 95% CrI, 0.47-0.90). The benefit of statin therapy was consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses, whereas the efficacy of all the other strategies was questioned by restricting the analysis to high-quality trials. Overall, high heterogeneity was observed for comparisons involving xanthine and ischemic preconditioning, although the impact of NAC and xanthine was probably influenced by publication bias/small-study effect. Hydration alone was the least effective preventive strategy for CIAKI. Meta-regressions did not reveal significant associations with baseline creatinine and contrast volume. In patients with diabetes mellitus, no strategy was found to reduce the incidence of CIAKI. Conclusions--In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures, statin administration is associated with a marked and consistent reduction in the risk of CIAKI compared with saline. Although xanthine, NAC, NaHCO3, NAC+NaHCO3, ischemic preconditioning, and natriuretic peptide may have nephroprotective effects, these results were not consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background—There is little evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) for the percutaneous treatment of chronic total occlusions. Methods and Results—We performed a multicenter registry of consecutive chronic total occlusion patients treated with BRS (Absorb; Abbott Vascular) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 5 institutions. Long-term target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was the primary end point. Inverse probability of treatment weight–adjusted Cox regression was used to account for pretreatment differences between the 2 groups. A total of 537 patients (n=153 BRS; n=384 DES) were included. BRS patients were younger and had lower prevalence of comorbidities. Overall mean Japan-Chronic Total Occlusion (J-CTO) score was 1.43±1.16, with no differences between groups. Procedural success was achieved in 99.3% and 96.6% of BRS- and DES-treated patients, respectively (P=0.07). At a median follow-up of 703 days, there were no differences in target-vessel failure between BRS and DES (4.6% versus 7.7%; P=0.21). By adjusted Cox regression analysis, there were still no significant differences between BRS and DES (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–3.72; P=0.34). However, secondary analyses suggested a signal toward higher ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS. Conclusions—Implantation of BRS versus second-generation DES in chronic total occlusion was associated with similar risk of target-vessel failure at long-term follow-up. However, a signal toward increased ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS was observed. Large randomized studies should confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Head-to-head comparisons of devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are mostly limited to 2-arm studies so far. The aim of this study was to compare simultaneously outcomes of the most used, second- and third-generation transcatheter aortic valves in a real-world population. Methods: A total of 2728 patients undergoing TAVI with different second- and third-generation devices, and enrolled in the multicenter, prospective OBSERVANT II study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of TAVI With New Generation Devices for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) from December 2016 to September 2018 were compared according to the transcatheter aortic valve received. Outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases, and adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, stroke and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1-year. Rates were reported consecutively for Evolut R, Evolut PRO, SAPIEN 3, ACURATE neo, and Portico groups. Results: The primary end point did not differ among groups (23.9% versus 24.7% versus 21.5% versus 23.7% versus 27.4%, respectively, P =0.56). Permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly lower for patients receiving SAPIEN 3 (19.9% versus 19.3% versus 12.5% versus 14.7% versus 22.1%, respectively, P <0.01) at 1 year. The SAPIEN 3 had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation (moderate-to-severe grade 10.1% versus 5.0% versus 2.1% versus 13.1% versus 10.8%, respectively, P <0.01) but higher transprosthetic gradients (median mean gradients 7.0 versus 6.0 versus 10.0 versus 7.0 versus 8.0 mm Hg, respectively, P <0.01) after TAVI. Conclusions: Data from real-world practice showed low and comparable rates of complications after TAVI considering all the available devices. Patients receiving SAPIEN 3 valve had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation, but higher transprosthetic gradients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Severe pulmonary hypertension (PH) is considered to negatively affect the outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, a clear understanding of the pattern, evolution, and clinical impact of different grades of PH in this setting is lacking. Methods and Results--A total of 990 consecutive patients were enrolled in 6 high-volume centers and analyzed as follows: group 1, systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) <40 mm Hg (346 patients; 35%); group 2, sPAP 40 to 60 mm Hg (426 patients; 43%); and group 3, sPAP >60 mm Hg (218 patients; 22%). At 1 month, mortality rate did not differ across the groups. When compared with groups 1 and 2, patients in group 3 had a higher-rate of New York Heart Association 3 to 4 (26% versus 12% and 10%), and a higher-rate of hospitalization for heart failure (7% versus 3% and 3%). At 1 year, when compared with patients in group 1, patients in group 2 and 3 had both a higher overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5 [1.3-3.2]; P=0.01 and HR, 2.3 [1.8-2.8]; P=0.001) and a higher cardiac mortality (HR, 1.3 [1.1-2.1]; P=0.01 and HR, 1.7 [1.3-2.5]; P=0.002). After 1 month, the sPAP decreased ≥15 mm Hg in 32% and 35% of the patients in groups 2 and 3. Baseline sPAP >60 mm Hg (HR, 1.6 [1.1-2.3]; P=0.03) and, in a larger extent, a persistent severe PH after 1 month (HR, 2.4 [1.5-2.8]; P=0.004), independently predicted 1-year mortality, whereas the 1-month reduction of the sPAP did not. Conclusions--The persistence of severe PH after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a stronger predictor of 1-year mortality than baseline severe PH. The early reduction of sPAP is not associated with a reduced mortality. The benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in terms of quality of life is substantial in patients with and without a reduction of sPAP at early follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--The proven efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in high-risk patients is leading to the expansion of its indications toward lower-risk patients. However, this shift is not supported by meaningful evidence of its benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This analysis aims to describe outcomes of TAVI versus SAVR in low-risk patients. Methods and Results--We compared the outcome after TAVI and SAVR of low-risk patients (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II [EuroSCORE II] <4%) included in the Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR- TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) study. The primary outcome was 3-year survival. Secondary outcomes were early events and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 3 years. Propensity score matching resulted in 355 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Thirty-day survival was 97.1% after SAVR and 97.4% after TAVI (P=0.82). Cardiac tamponade, permanent pacemaker implantation, major vascular damage, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation were significantly more frequent after TAVI compared with SAVR. Stroke rates were equal in the study groups. SAVR was associated with higher risk of cardiogenic shock, severe bleeding, and acute kidney injury. At 3 years, survival was 83.4% after SAVR and 72.0% after TAVI (P=0.0015), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 80.9% after SAVR and 67.3% after TAVI (P<0.001). Conclusions--In patients with low operative risk, significantly better 3-year survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were observed after SAVR compared with TAVI. Further studies on new-generation valve prostheses are necessary before expanding indications of TAVI toward lower-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the relative benefits of using different stent types for diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with coronary bifurcation lesions submitted to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients who underwent PCI for coronary bifurcations of a major epicardial vessel stenosis between March 2002 and December 2005 were enrolled. It suggests that the use of DES in DM patients was associated with improved outcomes in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death and repeat revascularization at long-term follow up.

The article focuses on a study which examined the usefulness of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) for predicting clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. The relation between the SXscore and the incidence of cardiac mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) of study participants were evaluated using regression analyses. The study proved the usefulness of SXscore in predicting cardiac mortality and MACE in patients undergoing revascularization of the left main coronary artery.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Large data comparing the performance of new-generation self-expandable versus balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in bicuspid aortic stenosis are lacking. We aim to compare the safety and performance of balloon-expandable and self-expandable transcatheter heart valves in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis. Methods: The BEAT (balloon versus self-expandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis) registry included 353 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation using new-generation Evolut R/PRO or Sapien 3 valves in bicuspid aortic valve. Results: A total of 353 patients (n=242 [68.6%] treated with Sapien 3 and n=111 [68.6%] treated with Evolut R (n=70)/PRO [n=41]) were included. Mean age was 77.8±8.3 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 4.4±3.3%. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 device success was similar between Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO (85.6% versus 87.2%; P =0.68). In the Sapien 3 group, 4 patients experienced annular rupture whereas this complication did not occur in the Evolut R/PRO group. After propensity score matching, Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 device success was similar between both groups (Sapien 3=85.7% versus Evolut R/Pro=84.4%; P =0.821). Both in the overall and in the matched population, no differences in the rate of permanent pacemaker implant were observed. At 1-year follow-up, the rate of overall death and cardiovascular death were similar between the 2 groups. In the unmatched population, the 1-year echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated similar rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (Evolut R/PRO 10.5% versus Sapien 3 4.2%, P =0.077); however, after propensity matching, the rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak became significantly higher among patients treated with self-expandable valves (9.3% versus 0%; P =0.043). Conclusions: Our study confirms the feasibility of both Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO implantation in bicuspid aortic valve anatomy; a higher rate of moderate-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation was observed in the Evolut R/PRO group at 1-year follow-up in the matched cohort, although patients treated with balloon-expandable valve had a higher rate of annular rupture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]