Search

The appropriate duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients at high risk for bleeding after the implantation of a drug-eluting coronary stent remains unclear.One month after they had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, we randomly assigned patients at high bleeding risk to discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy). The three ranked primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; cumulative incidences were assessed at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.Among the 4434 patients in the per-protocol population, net adverse clinical events occurred in 165 patients (7.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 172 (7.7%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to 1.33; P0.001 for noninferiority). A total of 133 patients (6.1%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and 132 patients (5.9%) in the standard-therapy group had a major adverse cardiac or cerebral event (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.29 to 1.51; P = 0.001 for noninferiority). Among the 4579 patients in the intention-to-treat population, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 148 patients (6.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 211 (9.4%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.40 to -1.24; P0.001 for superiority).One month of dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to the continuation of therapy for at least 2 additional months with regard to the occurrence of net adverse clinical events and major adverse cardiac or cerebral events; abbreviated therapy also resulted in a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. (Funded by Terumo; MASTER DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03023020.).

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the safety and performance of a newly introduced transfemoral self-expanding supra-annular transcatheter heart valve. Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become an established procedure, and newer transcatheter heart valves aim to supplement the current armamentarium. Methods BIOVALVE-I is a prospective, single-center feasibility study enrolling 13 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, and BIOVALVE-II is a multicenter pilot study enrolling a further 55 patients under the same protocol. Results Patients’ mean age was 82.4 ± 5.3 years, 57.4% had concomitant coronary artery disease, 50.0% had renal insufficiency stage ≥3, 32.4% had diabetes mellitus, 29.4% had current anemia, 19.1% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19.1% were frail, and 17.6% had prior cerebrovascular events. The primary endpoint, early safety according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 guidelines, was observed in 13 patients (19.1%). One patient (1.5%) died through 30 days of a noncardiac cause, and 4 patients (7.8%) died through 180 days. Disabling stroke occurred at 30 days in 1 patient (1.5%) and at 180 days in 2 patients (3.2%). New permanent pacemakers up to 30 days were implanted in 9 patients (13.4%). Two patients (3.8%) had moderate or severe paravalvular leakage at 30 days and 4 (9.1%) at 6 months, mean effective orifice area was 2.0 ± 0.4 cm2 and 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2, and mean gradient was 6.4 mm Hg at 30 days and 6 months. Conclusions Clinical outcomes with the Biovalve self-expanding transcatheter heart valve were similar to those seen in other first-in-human studies with first-generation devices for severe aortic stenosis.

Current prognostic risk scores for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) do not benefit yet from modern machine learning techniques, which can improve risk stratification of one-year mortality of patients before TAVI. Despite the advancement of machine learning in healthcare, data sharing regulations are very strict and typically prevent exchanging patient data, without the involvement of ethical committees. A very robust validation approach, including 1300 and 631 patients per center, was performed to validate a machine learning model of one center at the other external center with their data, in a mutual fashion. This was achieved without any data exchange but solely by exchanging the models and the data processing pipelines. A dedicated exchange protocol was designed to evaluate and quantify the model’s robustness on the data of the external center. Models developed with the larger dataset offered similar or higher prediction accuracy on the external validation. Logistic regression, random forest and CatBoost lead to areas under curve of the ROC of 0.65, 0.67 and 0.65 for the internal validation and of 0.62, 0.66, 0.68 for the external validation, respectively. We propose a scalable exchange protocol which can be further extended on other TAVI centers, but more generally to any other clinical scenario, that could benefit from this validation approach.

Current prognostic risk scores in cardiac surgery do not benefit yet from machine learning (ML). This research aims to create a machine learning model to predict one-year mortality of a patient after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We adopt a modern gradient boosting on decision trees classifier (GBDTs), specifically designed for categorical features. In combination with a recent technique for model interpretations, we developed a feature analysis and selection stage, enabling the identification of the most important features for the prediction. We base our prediction model on the most relevant features, after interpreting and discussing the feature analysis results with clinical experts. We validated our model on 270 consecutive TAVI cases, reaching a C-statistic of 0.83 with CI [0.82, 0.84]. The model has achieved a positive predictive value ranging from 57% to 64%, suggesting that the patient selection made by the heart team of professionals can be further improved by taking into consideration the clinical data we identified as important and by exploiting ML approaches in the development of clinical risk scores. Our approach has shown promising predictive potential also with respect to widespread prognostic risk scores, such as logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE II) and the society of thoracic surgeons (STS) risk score, which are broadly adopted by cardiologists worldwide.

Background: Machine learning models have been developed for numerous medical prognostic purposes. These models are commonly developed using data from single centers or regional registries. Including data from multiple centers improves robustness and accuracy of prognostic models. However, data sharing between multiple centers is complex, mainly because of regulations and patient privacy issues.Objective: We aim to overcome data sharing impediments by using distributed ML and local learning followed by model integration. We applied these techniques to develop 1-year TAVI mortality estimation models with data from two centers without sharing any data.Methods: A distributed ML technique and local learning followed by model integration was used to develop models to predict 1-year mortality after TAVI. We included two populations with 1,160 (Center A) and 631 (Center B) patients. Five traditional ML algorithms were implemented. The results were compared to models created individually on each center.Results: The combined learning techniques outperformed the mono-center models. For center A, the combined local XGBoost achieved an AUC of 0.67 (compared to a mono-center AUC of 0.65) and, for center B, a distributed neural network achieved an AUC of 0.68 (compared to a mono-center AUC of 0.64).Conclusion: This study shows that distributed ML and combined local models techniques, can overcome data sharing limitations and result in more accurate models for TAVI mortality estimation. We have shown improved prognostic accuracy for both centers and can also be used as an alternative to overcome the problem of limited amounts of data when creating prognostic models.

Background: Among patients with documented stable coronary artery disease and in whom no revascularization was performed, we compared the respective values of angiographic diameter stenosis (DS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in predicting natural history. Methods: The present analysis included the 607 patients from the FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2) in whom no revascularization was performed. FFR varied from 0.20 to 1.00 (average 0.74±0.16), and DS (by quantitative coronary analysis) varied from 8% to 98% (average 53±15). The primary end point, defined as vessel-oriented clinical end point (VOCE) at 2 years, was a composite of prospectively adjudicated cardiac death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, vessel-related urgent, and not urgent revascularization. The stenoses were divided into 4 groups according to FFR and %DS values: positive concordance (FFR≤0.80; DS≥50%), negative concordance (FFR>0.80; DS0.80; DS≥50%). Results: The rate of VOCE was highest in the positive concordance group (log rank: X 2 =80.96; P =0.001) and lowest in the negative concordance group. The rate of VOCE was higher in the positive mismatch group than in the negative mismatch group (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.67; P =0.001). There was no significant difference in VOCE between the positive concordance and positive mismatch groups (FFR≤0.80; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.09; P =0.149) and no significant difference in rate of VOCE between the negative mismatch and negative concordance groups (FFR>0.80; hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–3.74; P =0.067). Conclusions: In patients with stable coronary disease, physiology (FFR) is a more important determinant of the natural history of coronary stenoses than anatomy (DS). Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01132495.

Objectives This study sought to compare fractional flow reserve (FFR) with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in patients with coronary artery disease and also to determine whether the iFR is independent of hyperemia. Background FFR is a validated index of coronary stenosis severity. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical outcomes compared to angiographic guidance alone. iFR has been proposed as a new index of stenosis severity that can be measured without adenosine. Methods We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international study of 206 consecutive patients referred for PCI and a retrospective analysis of 500 archived pressure recordings. Aortic and distal coronary pressures were measured in duplicate in patients under resting conditions and during intravenous adenosine infusion at 140 μg/kg/min. Results Compared to the FFR cut-off value of ≤0.80, the diagnostic accuracy of the iFR value of ≤0.80 was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53% to 67%) for all vessels studied and 51% (95% CI: 43% to 59%) for those patients with FFR in the range of 0.60 to 0.90. iFR was significantly influenced by the induction of hyperemia: mean ± SD iFR at rest was 0.82 ± 0.16 versus 0.64 ± 0.18 with hyperemia (p Conclusions iFR correlates weakly with FFR and is not independent of hyperemia. iFR cannot be recommended for clinical decision making in patients with coronary artery disease. (Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instant Wave-Free Ratio for Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity in Routine Practice; NCT01559493)

Introduction Studies on the blood pressure lowering effect of renal denervation (RDN) in resistant hypertensive patients have produced conflicting results. Change in medication usage during the studies may be responsible for this inconsistency. To eliminate the effect of medication usage on blood pressure we focused on unmedicated hypertensive patients who underwent RDN. Methods and results Our study reports on a cohort of patients, who were not on blood pressure lowering drugs at baseline and during follow-up, from eight tertiary centers. Data of patients were used when they were treated with RDN and had a baseline office systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and/or 24-h ambulatory SBP ≥130 mmHg. Our primary outcome was defined as change in office and 24-h SBP at 12 months after RDN, compared to baseline. Fifty-three patients were included. There were three different reasons for not using blood pressure lowering drugs: (1) documented intolerance or allergic reaction (57 %); (2) temporary cessation of medication for study purposes (28 %); and (3) reluctance to take antihypertensive drugs (15 %). Mean change in 24-h SBP was −5.7 mmHg [95 % confidence interval (CI) −11.0 to −0.4; p = 0.04]. Mean change in office SBP was −13.1 mmHg (95 % CI −20.4 to −5.7; p = 0.001). No changes were observed in other variables, such as eGFR, body–mass-index and urinary sodium excretion. Conclusion This explorative study in hypertensive patients, who are not on blood pressure lowering drugs, suggests that at least in some patients RDN lowers blood pressure. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00392-016-0984-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A b s t r ac t Background The preferred initial treatment for patients with stable coronary artery disease is the best available medical therapy. We hypothesized that in patients with functionally significant stenoses, as determined by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus the best available medical therapy would be superior to the best available medical therapy alone. Methods In patients with stable coronary artery disease for whom PCI was being considered, we assessed all stenoses by measuring FFR. Patients in whom at least one stenosis was functionally significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy (PCI group) or the best available medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 were entered into a registry and received the best available medical therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization. Results Recruitment was halted prematurely after enrollment of 1220 patients (888 who underwent randomization and 332 enrolled in the registry) because of a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients who had a primary endpoint event: 4.3% in the PCI group and 12.7% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio with PCI, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.53; P

Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly improves outcomes compared with angio-guided PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, there is a theoretical concern that patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF

Purpose: We sought to investigate the relationship between global ischemia and clinical outcome in patients with stable coronary disease. Methods: This FAME 2 sub-analysis was conducted in 607 patients (pts) with at least one diseased major coronary artery, and receiving medical therapy (MT) alone (441 pts in the randomized trial and 166 pts with follow-up in the registry). We analyzed the rate of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (MACE) in relation to a FAME 2 global ischemic risk score, defined as the sum of the individual risks of MACE for each target lesion and calculated as following: ∑1.3(1-FFRlesion)/0.05. Results: At least one MACE occurred in 95 pts (15.7%) at a median follow-up of 172 (80-284) days. Mean FAME 2 score was significantly higher in pts with MACE than in pts w/o MACE (16.2±18.7 vs. 9.4±12.1, p