Search

Background Myocardial injury is associated with higher mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and might be increased by prior balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). We aimed to evaluate the impact of prior BAV versus direct prosthesis implantation on myocardial injury occurring after (TAVR) with balloon‐expandable prostheses. Methods and Results The DIRECTAVI (Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial, an open‐label randomized study, demonstrated noninferiority of TAVR without BAV (direct TAVR group) compared with systematic BAV (BAV group) with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve. High‐sensitivity troponin was assessed before and the day after the procedure. Incidence of myocardial injury after the procedure (high‐sensitivity troponin elevation >15× the upper reference limit [14 ng/L]) was the main end point. Impact of myocardial injury on 1‐month adverse events (all‐cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, major vascular complications, transfusion, acute kidney injury, heart failure, pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation) was evaluated. Preprocedure and postprocedure high‐sensitivity troponin levels were available in 211 patients. The mean age of patients was 83 years (78–87 years), with 129 men (61.1%). Mean postprocedure high‐sensitivity troponin was 124.9±81.4 ng/L in the direct TAVR group versus 170.4±127.7 ng/L in the BAV group ( P =0.007). Myocardial injury occurred in 42 patients (19.9%), including 13 patients (12.2%) in the direct TAVR group and 29 (27.9%) in the BAV group ( P =0.004). BAV increased by 2.8‐fold (95% CI, 1.4–5.8) myocardial injury probability. Myocardial injury was associated with 1‐month adverse events ( P =0.03). Conclusions BAV increased the incidence and magnitude of myocardial injury after TAVR with new‐generation balloon‐expandable valves. Myocardial injury was associated with 1‐month adverse events. These results argue in favor of direct SAPIEN 3 valve implantation. Registration URL: https://www.Clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02729519.

Background: In the ARCTIC trial (Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting), treatment adjustment following platelet function testing failed to improve clinical outcomes. However, high-on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) is considered as a predictor of poor ischemic outcome. This prespecified substudy evaluated clinical outcomes according to the residual platelet reactivity status after antiplatelet therapy adjustment. Methods: We analyzed the 1213 patients assigned to the monitoring arm of the ARCTIC trial in whom platelet reactivity was evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y 12 test before percutaneous coronary intervention and during the maintenance phase (at 14 days). HPR was defined as platelet reaction unit≥235U. The primary ischemic end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization and the safety end point of major bleeding were assessed according to the platelet reactivity status. Results: Before percutaneous coronary intervention, 35.7% of patients displayed HPR (n=419). During the acute phase, between percutaneous coronary intervention and the 14-day platelet function testing, ischemic (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.74–1.18]; P =0.58) and safety outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.22–7.59]; P =0.78) were similar in HPR and non-HPR patients. During the maintenance phase, the proportion of HPR patients (n=186, 17.4%) decreased by 56%. At 1-year, there was no difference for the ischemic end point (5.9% versus 6.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.40–1.58]; P =0.51) and a nonsignificant higher rate of major bleedings (2.7% versus 1.0%, hazard ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 0.96–8.41]; P =0.06) in HPR versus non-HPR patients. Conclusions: The proportion of HPR was halved after platelet function testing and treatment adjustment but without significant ischemic benefit at 1 year. HPR seems more as a modifiable risk marker than a risk factor of ischemic outcome. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00827411.