Intravascular imaging-guided coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: an updated network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses have shown reduced risks of composite adverse events with intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with angiography guidance alone. However, these studies have been insufficiently powered to show whether all-cause death or all myocardial infarction are reduced with intravascular imaging guidance, and most previous intravascular imaging studies were done with intravascular ultrasound rather than optical coherence tomography (OCT), a newer imaging modality. We aimed to assess the comparative performance of intravascular imaging-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI with drug-eluting stents. METHODS: For this systematic review and updated meta-analysis, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to Aug 30, 2023, for studies that randomly assigned patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents either to intravascular ultrasound or OCT, or both, or to angiography alone to guide the intervention. The searches were done and study-level data were extracted independently by two investigators. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularisation, assessed in patients randomly assigned to intravascular imaging guidance (intravascular ultrasound or OCT) versus angiography guidance. We did a standard frequentist meta-analysis to generate direct data, and a network meta-analysis to generate indirect data and overall treatment effects. Outcomes were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs at the longest reported follow-up duration. This study was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, number CRD42023455662). FINDINGS: 22 trials were identified in which 15 964 patients were randomised and followed for a weighted mean duration of 24·7 months (longest duration of follow-up in each study ranging from 6 to 60 months). Compared with angiography-guided PCI, intravascular imaging-guided PCI resulted in a decreased risk of target lesion failure (RR 0·71 [95% CI 0·63-0·80]; p<0·0001), driven by reductions in the risks of cardiac death (RR 0·55 [95% CI 0·41-0·75]; p=0·0001), TV-MI (RR 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-0·98]; p=0·030), and target lesion revascularisation (RR 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·86]; p=0·0002). Intravascular imaging guidance also reduced the risks of stent thrombosis (RR 0·52 [95% CI 0·34-0·81]; p=0·0036), all myocardial infarction (RR 0·83 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·033), and all-cause death (RR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0091). Outcomes were similar for OCT-guided and intravascular ultrasound-guided PCI. INTERPRETATION: Compared with angiography guidance, intravascular imaging guidance of coronary stent implantation with OCT or intravascular ultrasound enhances both the safety and effectiveness of PCI, reducing the risks of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stent thrombosis. FUNDING: Abbott.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in lower-risk and higher-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: Additional randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is available, including longer term follow-up. A meta-analysis comparing TAVI to SAVR was performed. A pragmatic risk classification was applied, partitioning lower-risk and higher-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The main endpoints were death, strokes, and the composite of death or disabling stroke, occurring at 1 year (early) or after 1 year (later). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs with 8698 patients were included. In lower-risk patients, at 1 year, the risk of death was lower after TAVI compared with SAVR [relative risk (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.96, P = 0.031], as was death or disabling stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92, P = 0.014). There were no differences in strokes. After 1 year, in lower-risk patients, there were no significant differences in all main outcomes. In higher-risk patients, there were no significant differences in main outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury occurred less after TAVI; new pacemakers, vascular complications, and paravalvular leak occurred more after TAVI. CONCLUSION: In lower-risk patients, there was an early mortality reduction with TAVI, but no differences after later follow-up. There was also an early reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke, with no difference at later follow-up. There were no significant differences for higher-risk patients. Informed therapy decisions may be more dependent on the temporality of events or secondary endpoints than the long-term occurrence of main clinical outcomes.

Catheter ablation improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The effect of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients with AF and heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in trials with at least 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were performed for trials with any follow-up and trials deemed at low risk of bias. Eight trials (1390 patients) were included. Seven hundred and seven patients were randomized to catheter ablation and 683 to medical therapy. In the primary analysis (three trials, n = 977), catheter ablation reduced mortality compared with medical therapy [relative risk (RR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44 to 0.84, P = 0.003]. Catheter ablation also reduced heart failure hospitalizations compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.74, P < 0.001). The effect on stroke was not statistically significant (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28-1.37, P = 0.237). There was low heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure, catheter ablation reduces mortality and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations.

Coronary flow reserve and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: This meta-analysis aims to quantify the association of reduced coronary flow with all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across a broad range of patient groups and pathologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all studies between 1 January 2000 and 1 August 2020, where coronary flow was measured and clinical outcomes were reported. The endpoints were all-cause mortality and MACE. Estimates of effect were calculated from published hazard ratios (HRs) using a random-effects model. Seventy-nine studies with a total of 59 740 subjects were included. Abnormal coronary flow reserve (CFR) was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality [HR: 3.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.39-5.97] and a higher incidence of MACE (HR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.92-3.99). Each 0.1 unit reduction in CFR was associated with a proportional increase in mortality (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.29) and MACE (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). In patients with isolated coronary microvascular dysfunction, an abnormal CFR was associated with a higher incidence of mortality (HR: 5.44, 95% CI: 3.78-7.83) and MACE (HR: 3.56, 95% CI: 2.14-5.90). Abnormal CFR was also associated with a higher incidence of MACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes (HR: 3.76, 95% CI: 2.35-6.00), heart failure (HR: 6.38, 95% CI: 1.95-20.90), heart transplant (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.34-4.71), and diabetes mellitus (HR: 7.47, 95% CI: 3.37-16.55). CONCLUSION: Reduced coronary flow is strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and MACE across a wide range of pathological processes. This finding supports recent recommendations that coronary flow should be measured more routinely in clinical practice, to target aggressive vascular risk modification for individuals at higher risk.

Performance of quantitative flow ratio in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) pre transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD). Post-TAVI fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) was used as reference. BACKGROUND: CAD is prevalent in patients with AS, but the hemodynamics of AS confounds evaluation using pressure wire-based assessments. QFR might be less sensitive to the presence of AS thereby allowing for CAD evaluation before aortic valve replacement. Further, QFR does not require the use of pressure wire and therefore has the potential for reducing costs and complications related to insertion of a coronary pressure wire. METHODS: The diagnostic performance of QFR in coronary angiograms from 28 patients undergoing TAVI was evaluated. In all patients, both FFR and iFR were measured pre- and immediately post-TAVI while QFR was measured pre-TAVI. RESULTS: Using post-TAVI FFR and iFR as reference the diagnostic accuracy of pre-TAVI QFR were 83% (95%CI; 68-97) and 52% (95%CI; 30-74) p = .008, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-TAVI QFR showed a good diagnostic performance using post-TAVI FFR as reference. QFR could become a wire-free, safe, and quick way of evaluating CAD in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI.

Impella percutaneous left ventricular assist device as mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: A retrospective analysis from a tertiary academic medical center.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hemodynamic efficacy and clinical outcomes of Impella percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous LVADs are increasingly used in CS management. However, device-related outcomes and optimal utilization remain active areas of investigation. METHODS: All CS patients receiving pLVAD as mechanical circulatory support (MCS) between 2011 and 2017 were identified. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. A multivariable logistic regression model was created to predict MCS escalation despite pLVAD. Outcomes were compared between early and late implantation. RESULTS: A total of 115 CS patients (mean age 63.6 ± 13.8 years; 69.6% male) receiving pLVAD as MCS were identified, the majority with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction (AMI; 67.0%). Patients experienced significant cardiac output improvement (median 3.39 L/min to 3.90 L/min, p = .002) and pharmacological support reduction (median vasoactive-inotropic score [VIS] 25.4 to 16.4, p = .049). Placement of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) occurred in 48 (41.7%) of patients. Higher pre-pLVAD VIS was associated with subsequent MCS escalation in the entire cohort and AMI subgroup (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.02-1.58], p = .034 and OR 1.72 [95% CI 1.04-2.86], p = .035, respectively). Complications were predominantly access site related (bleeding [9.6%], vascular injury [5.2%], and limb ischemia [2.6%]). In-hospital mortality was 57.4%, numerically greater survival was noted with earlier device implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pLVAD for CS improved hemodynamic status but did not uniformly obviate MCS escalation. Mortality in CS remains high, though earlier device placement for appropriately selected patients may be beneficial.

Long-term follow-up after ultrathin vs. conventional 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: Contemporary 2nd-generation thin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered standard of care for revascularization of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A previous meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 11 658 patients demonstrated a 16% reduction in the 1-year risk of target lesion failure (TLF) with ultrathin-strut DES compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. Whether this benefit is sustained longer term is not known, and newer trial data may inform these relative outcomes. We therefore sought to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing clinical outcomes with ultrathin-strut DES (≤70 µm strut thickness) with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of all RCTs comparing ultrathin-strut DES to conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. The pre-specified primary endpoint was long-term TLF, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Secondary endpoints included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. There were 16 eligible trials in which 20 701 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 2.5 years. Ultrathin-strut DES were associated with a 15% reduction in long-term TLF compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES [relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.96, P = 0.008] driven by a 25% reduction in CD-TLR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92, P = 0.005). There were no significant differences between stent types in the risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, ultrathin-strut DES reduced the risk of TLF, driven by less CD-TLR compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES, with similar risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.

Outcomes of retrograde chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: A report from the OPEN-CTO registry.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess in-hospital and long-term outcomes of retrograde compared with antegrade-only percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion (CTO PCI). BACKGROUND: Procedural and clinical outcomes following retrograde compared with antegrade-only CTO PCI remain unknown. METHODS: Using the core-lab adjudicated OPEN-CTO registry, we compared the outcomes of retrograde to antegrade-only CTO PCI. Primary endpoints included were in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction [MI], emergency cardiac surgery, or clinically significant perforation) and MACCE at 1-year (all-cause death, MI, stroke, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel reocclusion). RESULTS: Among 885 single CTO procedures from the OPEN-CTO registry, 454 were retrograde and 431 were antegrade-only. Lesion complexity was higher (J-CTO score: 2.7 vs. 1.9; p < .001) and technical success lower (82.4 vs. 94.2%; p < .001) in retrograde compared with antegrade-only procedures. All-cause death was higher in the retrograde group in-hospital (2 vs. 0%; p = .003), but not at 1-year (4.9 vs. 3.3%; p = .29). Compared with antegrade-only procedures, in-hospital MACCE rates (composite of all-cause death, stroke, MI, emergency cardiac surgery, and clinically significant perforation) were higher in the retrograde group (10.8 vs. 3.3%; p < .001) and at 1-year (19.5 vs. 13.9%; p = .03). In sensitivity analyses landmarked at discharge, there was no difference in MACCE rates at 1 year following retrograde versus antegrade-only CTO PCI. Improvements in Seattle Angina Questionnaire Quality of Life scores at 1-year were similar between the retrograde and antegrade-only groups (29.9 vs 30.4; p = .58). CONCLUSIONS: In the OPEN-CTO registry, retrograde CTO procedures were associated with higher rates of in-hospital MACCE compared with antegrade-only; however, post-discharge outcomes, including quality of life improvements, were similar between technical modalities.

Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The optimal method of revascularization for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been considered the gold standard therapy, and recent randomized trials comparing CABG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) have reported conflicting outcomes. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis comparing CABG to PCI with DES for the treatment of LMCAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing PCI with DES vs. CABG in patients with LMCAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization. All analyses were by intention-to-treat. There were five eligible trials in which 4612 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the risk of all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.32; P = 0.779] or cardiac death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79-1.34; P = 0.817). There were also no significant differences in the risk of stroke (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.35-1.50; P = 0.400) or MI (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.96-1.56; P = 0.110). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased risk of unplanned revascularization (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.49-2.02; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The totality of randomized clinical trial evidence demonstrated similar long-term mortality after PCI with DES compared with CABG in patients with LMCAD. Nor were there significant differences in cardiac death, stroke, or MI between PCI and CABG. Unplanned revascularization procedures were less common after CABG compared with PCI. These findings may inform clinical decision-making between cardiologists, surgeons, and patients with LMCAD.

Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography Ischemia as a Predictor of the Placebo-Controlled Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: The Stress Echocardiography-Stratified Analysis of ORBITA.

BACKGROUND: Dobutamine stress echocardiography is widely used to test for ischemia in patients with stable coronary artery disease. In this analysis, we studied the ability of the prerandomization stress echocardiography score to predict the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within the ORBITA trial (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina). METHODS: One hundred eighty-three patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography before randomization. The stress echocardiography score is broadly the number of segments abnormal at peak stress, with akinetic segments counting double and dyskinetic segments counting triple. The ability of prerandomization stress echocardiography to predict the placebo-controlled effect of PCI on response variables was tested by using regression modeling. RESULTS: At prerandomization, the stress echocardiography score was 1.56±1.77 in the PCI arm (n=98) and 1.61±1.73 in the placebo arm (n=85). There was a detectable interaction between prerandomization stress echocardiography score and the effect of PCI on angina frequency score with a larger placebo-controlled effect in patients with the highest stress echocardiography score (Pinteraction=0.031). With our sample size, we were unable to detect an interaction between stress echocardiography score and any other patient-reported response variables: freedom from angina (Pinteraction=0.116), physical limitation (Pinteraction=0.461), quality of life (Pinteraction=0.689), EuroQOL 5 quality-of-life score (Pinteraction=0.789), or between stress echocardiography score and physician-assessed Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class (Pinteraction=0.693), and treadmill exercise time (Pinteraction=0.426). CONCLUSIONS: The degree of ischemia assessed by dobutamine stress echocardiography predicts the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on patient-reported angina frequency. The greater the downstream stress echocardiography abnormality caused by a stenosis, the greater the reduction in symptoms from PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02062593.

Per-Vessel Level Analysis of Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance　- Insights From the AJIP Registry.

BACKGROUND: The per-vessel level impact of physiological pattern of disease on the discordance between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has not been clarified.Methods and Results:Using the AJIP registry, vessels with FFR/iFR discordance (133/671 [19.8%]) were analyzed. In the left anterior descending artery (LAD), physiologically diffuse disease, as assessed by pressure-wire pullback, was associated with FFR-/iFR+ (83.3% [40/48]), while physiologically focal disease was associated with FFR+/iFR- (57.4% [31/54]), significantly (P<0.0001). These differences were not significant in non-LAD (P=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of physiological pattern of disease on FFR/iFR discordance is more pronounced in the LAD.

Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio as Predictors of the Placebo-Controlled Response to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Single-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: There are no data on how fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are associated with the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable single-vessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: We report the association between prerandomization invasive physiology within ORBITA (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina), a placebo-controlled trial of patients who have stable angina with angiographically severe single-vessel coronary disease clinically eligible for PCI. Patients underwent prerandomization research FFR and iFR assessment. The operator was blinded to these values. Assessment of response variables, treadmill exercise time, stress echocardiography score, symptom frequency, and angina severity were performed at prerandomization and blinded follow-up. Effects were calculated by analysis of covariance. The ability of FFR and iFR to predict placebo-controlled changes in response variables was tested by using regression modeling. RESULTS: Invasive physiology data were available in 196 patients (103 PCI and 93 placebo). At prerandomization, the majority had Canadian Cardiovascular Society class II or III symptoms (150/196, 76.5%). Mean FFR and iFR were 0.69±0.16 and 0.76±0.22, respectively; 97% had ≥1 positive ischemia tests. The estimated effect of PCI on between-arm prerandomization-adjusted total exercise time was 20.7 s (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.0 to 45.5; P=0.100) with no interaction of FFR ( Pinteraction=0.318) or iFR ( Pinteraction=0.523). PCI improved stress echocardiography score more than placebo (1.07 segment units; 95% CI, 0.70-1.44; P<0.00001). The placebo-controlled effect of PCI on stress echocardiography score increased progressively with decreasing FFR ( Pinteraction<0.00001) and decreasing iFR ( Pinteraction<0.00001). PCI did not improve angina frequency score significantly more than placebo (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.96-2.80; P=0.072) with no detectable evidence of interaction with FFR ( Pinteraction=0.849) or iFR ( Pinteraction=0.783). However, PCI resulted in more patient-reported freedom from angina than placebo (49.5% versus 31.5%; odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.30-4.72; P=0.006) but neither FFR ( Pinteraction=0.693) nor iFR ( Pinteraction=0.761) modified this effect. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable angina and severe single-vessel disease, the blinded effect of PCI was more clearly seen by stress echocardiography score and freedom from angina than change in treadmill exercise time. Moreover, the lower the FFR or iFR, the greater the magnitude of stress echocardiographic improvement caused by PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02062593.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic relief is the primary goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable angina and is commonly observed clinically. However, there is no evidence from blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trials to show its efficacy. METHODS: ORBITA is a blinded, multicentre randomised trial of PCI versus a placebo procedure for angina relief that was done at five study sites in the UK. We enrolled patients with severe (≥70%) single-vessel stenoses. After enrolment, patients received 6 weeks of medication optimisation. Patients then had pre-randomisation assessments with cardiopulmonary exercise testing, symptom questionnaires, and dobutamine stress echocardiography. Patients were randomised 1:1 to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure by use of an automated online randomisation tool. After 6 weeks of follow-up, the assessments done before randomisation were repeated at the final assessment. The primary endpoint was difference in exercise time increment between groups. All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle and the study population contained all participants who underwent randomisation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02062593. FINDINGS: ORBITA enrolled 230 patients with ischaemic symptoms. After the medication optimisation phase and between Jan 6, 2014, and Aug 11, 2017, 200 patients underwent randomisation, with 105 patients assigned PCI and 95 assigned the placebo procedure. Lesions had mean area stenosis of 84·4% (SD 10·2), fractional flow reserve of 0·69 (0·16), and instantaneous wave-free ratio of 0·76 (0·22). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of exercise time increment between groups (PCI minus placebo 16·6 s, 95% CI -8·9 to 42·0, p=0·200). There were no deaths. Serious adverse events included four pressure-wire related complications in the placebo group, which required PCI, and five major bleeding events, including two in the PCI group and three in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with medically treated angina and severe coronary stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by more than the effect of a placebo procedure. The efficacy of invasive procedures can be assessed with a placebo control, as is standard for pharmacotherapy. FUNDING: NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Foundation for Circulatory Health, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, Philips Volcano, NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre.

Patent foramen ovale closure vs. medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Aims: The efficacy of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure for cryptogenic stroke has been controversial. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing device closure with medical therapy to prevent recurrent stroke for patients with PFO. Methods and results: We systematically identified all RCTs comparing device closure to medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke in patients with PFO. The primary efficacy endpoint was recurrent stroke, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary safety endpoint was new onset atrial fibrillation (AF). Five studies (3440 patients) were included. In all, 1829 patients were randomized to device closure and 1611 to medical therapy. Across all patients, PFO closure was superior to medical therapy for prevention of stroke [hazard ratio (HR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.13-0.82; P = 0.018, I2 = 73.4%]. The risk of AF was significantly increased with device closure [risk ratio (RR) 4.68, 95% CI 2.19-10.00, P<0.001, heterogeneity I2 = 27.5%)]. In patients with large shunts, PFO closure was associated with a significant reduction in stroke (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.72; P = 0.005), whilst there was no significant reduction in stroke in patients with a small shunt (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.50-1.60; P = 0.712). There was no effect from the presence or absence of an atrial septal aneurysm on outcomes (P = 0.994). Conclusion: In selected patients with cryptogenic stroke, PFO closure is superior to medical therapy for the prevention of further stroke: this is particularly true for patients with moderate-to-large shunts. Guidelines should be updated to reflect this.

Aortic Stenosis in Dialysis Patients.

Aortic valve stenosis occurs 10-20 years earlier in patients on dialysis compared with the general population. This is likely related to the exposure of the valve to a milieu that predisposes to calcification as well as increased shear stress across the valve. Objective assessment of stenosis severity is largely made using echocardiography though accurate interpretation requires an understanding of the potential pitfalls of the technique and the influence of cardiac output upon the gradient measured across the valve. Timing of valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis is predominantly guided by exercise-induced symptoms (breathlessness, chest pain and [pre] syncope), which are often difficult to assess in the dialysis population who may have limited exercise capacity and symptoms due to renal failure and other comorbidities. Finally, treatment of aortic stenosis remains a constantly evolving area with advances in both conventional surgery and percutaneous techniques.

Insight Into the Optimal Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Patients being considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are frequently diagnosed with coronary artery disease. In patients requiring revascularization, there is a paucity of data informing when to perform percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI). We evaluated the impact of PCI timing on clinical outcomes and readmissions after TAVR. From the National Readmissions Database 2016 to 2019, we stratified the duration between PCI and TAVR into 3 groups: same-day PCI and TAVR, TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and TAVR >30 days after PCI. We then compared primary and secondary outcomes among them. A total of 5207 patients were included, 1413 (27.1%) of whom underwent PCI and TAVR on the same day, while 2161 (41.5%) underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI, and 1632 (31.3%) underwent TAVR >30 days after PCI. There was no significant difference for in-hospital mortality among the groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-1.48, p = 0.203 for same-day versus ≤30 days; aOR 2.07, 95% CI 0.68-6.30, p = 0.199 for same-day versus >30 days). Patients who underwent TAVR ≤30 days after PCI had higher odds of acute kidney injury (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05-2.10, p = 0.024), nonhome discharge (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.20-1.96, p = 0.001), and 90-day readmission (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.76, p = 0.026) compared with those who underwent same-day PCI and TAVR. Concomitant PCI and TAVR was associated with lower rates of 90-day readmissions and acute kidney injury compared with TAVR shortly after PCI (<30 days) and should be considered in select patients.