A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns. RESULTS: After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P = 0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = 0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53). CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.).

Crystalline sirolimus-coated balloon (cSCB) angioplasty in an all-comers, patient population with stable and unstable coronary artery disease including chronic total occlusions: rationale, methodology and design of the SCORE trial.

BACKGROUND: A decade ago, the iopromide-paclitaxel coated balloon (iPCB) was added to the cardiologist's toolbox to initially treat in-stent restenosis followed by the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. In the meantime, DES technologies have been substantially improved to address in-stent restenosis and thrombosis, and shortened anti-platelet therapy. Recently, sirolimus-coated balloon catheters (SCB) have emerged to provide an alternative drug to combat restenosis. METHODS: The objective of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of a novel crystalline sirolimus-coated balloon (cSCB) technology in an unselective, international, large-scale patient population. Percutaneous coronary interventions of native stenosis, in-stent stenosis, and chronic total occlusions with the SCB in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome were included. The primary outcome variable is the target lesion failure (TLF) rate at 12 months, defined as the composite rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), cardiac death or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary outcome variables include TLF at 24 months, ischemia driven TLR at 12 and 24 months and all-cause death, cardiac death at 12 and 24 months. DISCUSSION: Since there is a wealth of patient-based all-comers data for iPCB available for this study, a propensity-score matched analysis is planned to compare cSCB and iPCB for the treatment of de novo and different types of ISR. In addition, pre-specified analyses in challenging lesion subsets such as chronic total occlusions will provide evidence whether the two balloon coating technologies differ in their clinical benefit for the patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04470934.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

Two-year clinical outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation with balloon-expandable versus self-expanding valves: A subanalysis of the GALILEO trial.

BACKGROUND: Midterm data comparing clinical outcomes after successful implantation of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THV) are limited. We aimed to compare 2-year outcomes after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the Edwards balloon-expandable or the Medtronic self-expanding THV. METHODS: Two-year outcomes were analyzed according to the implanted THV in the GALILEO trial. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was a composite of all-cause death or thromboembolic events including stroke, myocardial infarction, symptomatic valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Among 1644 patients recruited in 136 centers across 16 countries between 2015 and 2018, 499 received a self-expanding and 757 patients received a balloon-expandable THV. Patients treated with a self-expanding THV were more likely to be female, and had higher surgical risk, lower hemoglobin levels, and more frequent valve-in-valve procedures than those with a balloon-expandable THV. After multivariable adjustment, there were no significant differences in major clinical outcomes between self-expanding versus balloon-expandable THV: MACCE (17.0% vs. 13.4%, adjusted-hazard ratios [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.82-1.69); all-cause death (11.4% vs. 9.3%, adjusted-HR 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78-2.05); cardiovascular death (8.5% vs. 4.0%, adjusted-HR 1.53; 95% CI: 0.82-2.86), any stroke (5.1% vs. 3.7%, adjusted-HR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.43-1.73); major or life-threatening bleeding (5.9% vs. 6.8%, adjusted-HR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.53-1.63). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. NCT02556203. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year follow-up data from the GALILEO trial indicate that successful TAVI either with self-expanding or balloon-expandable THVs according to physician discretion did not show difference in rates of MACCE.

Quality of life of patients with coronary heart disease treated with the bioresorbable vascular scaffold (ABSORB™): 2-year results from the GABI-R-registry.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have reported clinical endpoints following coronary revascularization using bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS), while information about the impact on health-related quality of life is sparse. In this analysis of the German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy, the 2 year results concerning quality of life development in a large cohort of patients treated with BVS were reported. METHODS: Data were collected at baseline as well as 30 days, 6 and 24 months after coronary revascularization using BVS. The EQ-5D score, EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) were determined for each time point. Patients were categorized according to the indication for coronary revascularization [acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stable angina pectoris (SAP), silent myocardial ischemia (SMI), or other]. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors that predict above-average scores two years after implantation. RESULTS: Data from 1317 patients in 88 centres were included. Reasons for revascularization were: ACS (n = 643), SAP (n = 443), SMI (n = 52), and other (n = 179). Mean EQ-5D was significantly increased after six months, while a value comparable to baseline was found two years after implantation. EQ VAS and four of five dimensions of SAQ were significantly improved over baseline at all follow-up surveys. Particularly strong improvements were seen in SAQ scores angina frequency and quality of life. Binary regressions showed different statistically significant predictors in the respective models. CONCLUSIONS: Following coronary revascularization with BVS strong decrease in self-reported angina frequency and increase of self-reported quality of life were observed with continuous improvements over two years of follow-up. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02066623.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P=0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P=0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P=0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P=0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P=0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): 3-year follow-up of a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are non-inferior to drug-eluting stents (DESs) regarding clinical outcome up to 12 months, but data beyond 1 year is sparse. We aimed to test the long-term efficacy and safety of DCBs regarding clinical endpoints in an all-comer population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In this prespecified long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients from 14 clinical sites in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria with de-novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned 1:1 to DCB or second-generation DES and followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events (ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation [TVR]), all-cause death, probable or definite stent thrombosis, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding type 3-5). Analyses were performed on the full analysis set according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for 1 month after DCB and 6 months after DES with stable symptoms, but 12 months with acute coronary syndromes. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01574534 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2012, and Feb 1, 2017, of 883 patients assessed, 758 (86%) patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group (n=382) or the DES group (n=376). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 15% in both the DCB and DES groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·68-1·45; p=0·95). The two groups were also very similar concerning the single components of adverse cardiac events: cardiac death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 5% vs 4%, HR 1·29, 95% CI 0·63-2·66; p=0·49), non-fatal myocardial infarction (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 6%, HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·45-1·51; p=0·52), and TVR (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 9%, HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·58-1·56; p=0·83). Rates of all-cause death were very similar in DCB versus DES patients (both Kaplan-Meier estimate 8%, HR 1·05, 95% CI 0·62-1·77; p=0·87). Rates of probable or definite stent thrombosis (Kaplan-Meier estimate 1% vs 2%; HR 0·33, 95% CI 0·07-1·64; p=0·18) and major bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2% vs 4%, HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·17-1·13; p=0·088) were numerically lower in DCB versus DES, however without reaching significance. INTERPRETATION: There is maintained efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease up to 3 years. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical.

Everolimus eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Two-year results from the German-Austrian ABSORB registry.

OBJECTIVES: To identify potential differences in 2-year outcome between patients who underwent coronary revascularization using bioresorbable vascular scafffolds (BVS) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Data from randomized trials suggest a significantly higher event rate following coronary revascularization using everolimus-eluting BVS as compared to new generation drug eluting stents. Whether particular patient subgroups are at increased risk for scaffold thrombosis and target lesion failure (TLF) has not clearly been demonstrated. METHODS: German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy is a prospective all-comer multi-center observational study of consecutive patients who were considered for coronary revascularization with BVS. We compared 1499 patients with stable CAD to 1594 patients with ACS. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), TLF, and scaffold thrombosis. RESULTS: While single vessel disease was more prevalent in ACS (46% vs. 37%, p < 0.0001), lesion complexity (B2/C stenosis 37% vs. 36%, bifurcation 2.4% vs. 3.4%, p < 0.05), number of implanted scaffolds/patient (1.34 vs. 1.43), scaffold length (18 vs. 18 mm) or the rate of high pressure postdilatation (68% vs. 70%) did not differ between ACS and stable CAD. Two-year MACE rates were 11.6% in ACS and 11.4% in stable CAD, TLF occurred in 7.0% versus 7.4% and target vessel revascularization in 8.8 versus 10.2% (n.s. for all). Definite scaffold thrombosis rates were not significantly different (ACS 1.9% vs. stable CAD 2.1%). CONCLUSION: Real-world 2-year event rates after coronary revascularization with BVS are not significantly different between individuals with ACS as compared to stable CAD.

Predictors of scaffold failure and impact of optimized scaffold implantation technique on outcome: Results from the German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy.

AIMS: We aimed to investigate predictors of scaffold failure and the potential impact of an optimized scaffold implantation technique by means of a learning curve on long-term clinical outcome after bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) implantation and to evaluate predictors of scaffold failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 3326 patients were included in this prospective, observational, multi-center study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02066623) of consecutive patients undergoing BRS implantation between November 2013 and January 2016. The 3144 patients completed follow-up after 24 months, 3265 patients were eligible for time-to-event-analysis. Clinical endpoints were major adverse cardiac events-a composite endpoint of death, target vessel revascularization and myocardial infarction, and scaffold thrombosis (ScT). Patients were grouped according to treatment before or since 2015. During follow-up MACE rate improved from 2.52% after 30 days, 5.45% after 6 months and 12.67% after 24 months to 1.52%, 3.44%, and 10.52%, respectively. A total of 75 ScT occurred. In multiple regression analysis, treatment of bifurcations, long lesions, and procedures performed earlier than 2014 were identified as predictors for the occurrence of ScT. CONCLUSION: Treatment of bifurcation lesions is the strongest predictor of ScT following BRS implantation. A significantly lower incidence of ScT and 24-month target lesion revascularization in patients recruited after 2014 into our observational registry suggests the influence of a learning curve.

Age- and Weight-Adapted Dose of Prasugrel Versus Standard Dose of Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a reduced dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly patients or those with a low body weight presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of an age- and weight-adapted dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in patients with ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01944800). DESIGN: Prespecified analysis of the multicenter, randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. SETTING: 23 centers in Germany and Italy. PATIENTS: 3997 patients with ACS planned for invasive management. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a standard dose of ticagrelor or prasugrel (reduced dose in the elderly or low-weight group and standard dose in the neither elderly nor low-weight group). MEASUREMENTS: The efficacy end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety end point was bleeding, both at 12 months. RESULTS: In the elderly or low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 12.7% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 14.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.14]); in the neither elderly nor low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 4.8% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 7.3% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.88]; P for interaction > 0.2). In the elderly or low-weight group, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 8.1% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 10.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.72 [0.46 to 1.12]), and in 3.7% and 3.8%, respectively, of patients in the neither elderly nor low-weight group (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P for interaction > 0.2). LIMITATION: The study is a subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: In elderly or low-weight patients with ACS, a reduced dose of prasugrel compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk for bleeding. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München.

Predictors of left ventricular reverse remodeling after percutaneous therapy for mitral regurgitation with the MitraClip system.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the predictors and clinical impact of left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) after MitraClip (MC) therapy for degenerative (DMR) and functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). BACKGROUND: MC therapy induces LVRR in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) at high-risk for surgery. However, specific data on predictors of LVRR therapy are limited. METHODS: This study included 164 patients treated by MC implantation with complete clinical and echocardiographic evaluation at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. LVRR was defined as a decrease of ≥10% of the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter after 12 months and was found in 49% of the patients. RESULTS: LVRR was associated with significantly reduced event rate 2 years after MC procedure. In the total cohort, multivariate regression analysis determined severe recurrent/residual MR after 12 months (p = .010, odds ratio [OR] = 0.26), male gender (p = .050, OR = 0.49) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <20% (p = .046, OR = 0.24) as predictors of absence of LVRR. In the subgroup analysis according to etiology of MR, multivariate regression analysis revealed severe recurrent/residual MR after 12 months (p = .04, OR = 0.184) to inversely predict LVRR only in the DMR subgroup. In FMR, residual severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) inversely predicts LVRR (p = .032, OR = 0.361). CONCLUSIONS: LVRR occurs in half of the patients after MC and is associated with reduced MACCE rates at follow-up. Combined information on residual/recurrent MR, baseline LVEF and gender predict LVRR after MC procedure. While residual/recurrent MR is the independent predictor for the absence of LVRR in DMR, in FMR only severe residual TR independently predict LVRR.

Insights on Embolic Protection, Repositioning, and Stroke: A Subanalysis of the RESPOND Study.

RESPOND is a prospective, single-arm study enrolling 1014 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients. The objective of this analysis is to assess the impact of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices and prosthetic valve repositioning on the risk of neurologic complications in patients treated with the fully repositionable Lotus Valve in the RESPOND postmarket study. Valve repositioning and CEP use were at the operators' discretion. Stroke events were adjudicated by an independent medical reviewer. This analysis assessed the baseline differences among patients according to CEP use and valve repositioning and evaluated the neurological complications at 72 hours after TAVR, hospital discharge, and 30-day follow-up. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify the potential predictors of stroke. Of the 996 patients implanted with the Lotus Valve (mean age: 80.8 years, 50.8% female, STS score 6.0 ± 6.9), 92 cases (9.2%) used CEP. The overall rate of acute stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) was 3.0% at 72 hours after TAVR. The 72-hour stroke/TIA rate was 1.1% in patients who had CEP and 3.2% in those who did not. Use of CEP was associated with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the risk of acute neurological events (relative risk reduction: 65.6%), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.51). Repositioning of the Lotus Valve occurred in 313/996 procedures (31.4%). The 72-hour rate of stroke/TIA was similar in patients who had valve repositioning (2.9%) compared with those who did not (3.1%; p=0.86). The selective use of a CEP device in the RESPOND study was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk for stroke within 72 hours. The use of the repositioning feature of the Lotus Valve did not increase the stroke risk.

Risk factors for permanent pacemaker implantation in patients receiving a balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis.

Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is a widely recognized complication associated with TAVI (incidence up to 20%). Smaller registries have identified several variables associated with PPI. The objective was to validate patient- and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)-related procedural variables associated with PPI. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients from six European centers undergoing TAVI with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 prosthesis. Baseline variables and pre-procedural ECG characteristics and CT-scans were taken into account. Data for 1745 patients were collected; 191 (10.9%) required PPI after TAVI. The baseline variables pulmonary hypertension (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.01-2.59), QRS duration > 117 ms (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.73-3.84), right bundle branch block (RBBB; OR 5.14; 95% CI 3.39-7.72), left anterior hemi block (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.19-3.02) and first-degree atrioventricular block (AVB, OR 1.63; 95%CI 1.05-2.46) were significantly associated with PPI. RBBB (OR 8.11; 95% CI 3.19-21.86) and first-degree AVB (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.18-4.66) remained significantly associated in a multivariate analysis. Procedure-related variables included access site (TF; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.07-4.05), implanted valve size (29 mm; OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.35-2.59), mean TAVI valve implantation depth below the annulus > 30% (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.01-6.98). Patients receiving PPI had longer ICU stays and later discharges. Acute kidney injury stage 2/3 was more common in patients with PPI until discharge (15.2 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.007), but was not statistically significant thereafter. Further differences in outcomes at 30 days did not reach significance. The data will aid pre- and post-procedural patient management and prevent adverse long-term outcomes.Clinical Trial: NCT03497611.

Rate of peri-procedural stroke observed with cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a patient-level propensity-matched analysis.

AIMS: The role of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains controversial. Randomized trials have not been powered to demonstrate a reduction in stroke rates. The aim of this patient level pooled analysis was to validate the impact of the dual-filter CEP device (Claret Medical Inc., CA, USA) on peri-procedural stroke in a large number of TAVR patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from the SENTINEL US IDE trial were combined with the CLEAN-TAVI and SENTINEL-Ulm study in a patient level pooled analysis (N = 1306). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for possible confounders. The primary endpoint was procedural stroke within 72 h post-TAVR according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. The secondary endpoint was the combination of all-cause mortality or all-stroke within 72 h after TAVR. In the propensity-matched population, 533 patients underwent TAVR without CEP and 533 patients underwent TAVR with CEP. TAVR patients without vs. with CEP were similar with respect to baseline characteristics, procedural approach, or valve type. In patients undergoing TAVR with dual-filter CEP, procedural all-stroke was significantly lower compared with unprotected procedures [1.88% vs. 5.44%, odds ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.72, relative risk reduction 65%, P = 0.0028]. In addition, all-cause mortality and all-stroke were significantly lower (2.06% vs. 6.00%, odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.68, relative risk reduction 66%, P = 0.0013). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that TAVR with the dual-filter CEP device is associated with a significant lower rate of peri-procedural stroke compared with unprotected procedures. However, randomized trials are still needed to clarify this issue.

Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are a novel therapeutic strategy for small native coronary artery disease. However, their safety and efficacy is poorly defined in comparison with drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: BASKET-SMALL 2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial. 758 patients with de-novo lesions (<3 mm in diameter) in coronary vessels and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive angioplasty with DCB versus implantation of a second-generation DES after successful predilatation via an interactive internet-based response system. Dual antiplatelet therapy was given according to current guidelines. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of DCB versus DES regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation) after 12 months. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 4% in MACE. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01574534. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2012, and February 1, 2017, 382 patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group and 376 to DES group. Non-inferiority of DCB versus DES was shown because the 95% CI of the absolute difference in MACE in the per-protocol population was below the predefined margin (-3·83 to 3·93%, p=0·0217). After 12 months, the proportions of MACE were similar in both groups of the full-analysis population (MACE was 7·5% for the DCB group vs 7·3% for the DES group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·58-1·64], p=0·9180). There were five (1·3%) cardiac-related deaths in the DES group and 12 (3·1%) in the DCB group (full analysis population). Probable or definite stent thrombosis (three [0·8%] in the DCB group vs four [1·1%] in the DES group; HR 0·73 [0·16-3·26]) and major bleeding (four [1·1%] in the DCB group vs nine [2·4%] in the DES group; HR 0·45 [0·14-1·46]) were the most common adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In small native coronary artery disease, DCB was non-inferior to DES regarding MACE up to 12 months, with similar event rates for both treatment groups. FUNDING: Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical AG.

A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279. FINDINGS: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).

Long-term clinical outcome of persistent left bundle branch block after transfemoral aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of persistent left bundle-branch block (pLBBB) on long-term clinical outcome remains to be determined. BACKGROUND: New-onset of pLBBB occurs frequently after transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Seven hundred and seven consecutive patients who underwent TAVI were analyzed for baseline and procedural characteristics and clinical outcome in an up to 2-year follow-up. Patients were divided into either a group with pLBBB until hospital discharge or a group without LBBB. We performed propensity-score matching and analyzed baseline characteristics, procedural data and clinical outcome of both groups. Patients received balloon-expandable valves in 56.4%, mechanically expandable valves in 37.5%, and self-expandable valves in 6.3%. RESULTS: A new-onset, pLBBB was observed in 47.5% of patients after TAVI. The implantation of a mechanically expandable valve was associated with higher rate of pLBBB (54.2% vs. 20.8%, P < 0.001), whereas implantation of a balloon-expandable valve was associated with lower incidence of pLBBB (39.8% vs. 73.1%, P < 0.001). Deeper ventricular implantation at left-coronary side led to higher rates of pLBBB (7.5 ± 2.5 vs. 6.7 ± 2.6 mm, P < 0.001). The occurrence of pLBBB was associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (40.9% vs. 15.9%, P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, implantation of a mechanically expandable valve (Boston Scientific Lotus valve) was identified as independent predictor of occurrence of pLBBB (odds ratio 4.7, confidence interval 3.2-7.0, P < 0.001). In the 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between "pLBBB" and "no LBBB"-groups regarding mortality and rehospitalization due to heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of pLBBB is associated with the choice of valve type and implantation depth and requires significantly higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantations. Importantly, there are no differences in the 2-year follow-up regarding mortality and rehospitalization due to heart failure.

Clinical outcomes of the Lotus Valve in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: An analysis from the RESPOND study.

AIMS: Patients with bicuspid valves represent a challenging anatomical subgroup for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This analysis evaluated the clinical outcomes of the fully repositionable and retrievable Lotus Valve System in patients with bicuspid aortic valves enrolled in the RESPOND post-market registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The prospective, open-label RESPOND study enrolled 1,014 patients at 41 centers in Europe, New Zealand, and Latin America, 31 (3.1%) of whom had bicuspid aortic valves. The mean age in the bicuspid patient cohort was 76.4 years, 64.5% were male, and the baseline STS score was 6.0 ± 10.2. Procedural success was 100%, with no cases of malpositioning, valve migration, embolization, or valve-in-valve. Repositioning was attempted in 10 cases (32.3%). There was one death (3.2%) and one stroke (3.2%) at 30-day follow-up. Mean AV gradient was reduced from 48.7 ± 17.0 mmHg at baseline to 11.8 ± 5.1 mmHg at hospital discharge (P < 0.001); mean effective orifice area (EOA) was increased from 0.6 ± 0.2 cm2 to 1.7 ± 0.4 cm2 (P < 0.001). There were no cases of moderate or severe paravalvular leak (PVL) adjudicated by the core laboratory; four subjects (13.8%) had mild PVL, 5 (17.2%) had trace PVL. The rate of pacemaker (PM) implantation for PM-naïve patients was 22.2% (6/27). CONCLUSIONS: Data from the RESPOND registry demonstrate good clinical and echocardiographic outcomes up to 1 year postimplantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valves using the repositionable Lotus Valve.

Clinical results of bioresorbable drug-eluting scaffolds in short and long coronary artery lesions using the PSP technique.

BACKGROUND: Data on bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for the treatment of long lesions are limited. We studied the use of BVS-Absorb in routine clinical practice and compared the outcome of long lesions with short lesions. Implantation of drug-eluting scaffolds without PSP-technique (predilation, proper sizing and postdilation) is associated with an increased thrombotic risk. We compared the long-term outcome up to 36 months of patients with short (< 20 mm) and long (≥20 mm) coronary artery lesions after implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) via PSP-technique. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-six patients with 424 lesions were enrolled in this prospective study and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with the Absorb BVS. Clinical follow-up was scheduled after 12, 24 and 36 months. In all lesions the PSP-technique was used. The device oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) was defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) not clearly related to a non-target vessel and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier estimates for DOCE after 12 months were 2.63% for short lesions and 8.09% for long lesions (p = 0.0131), 5.51% vs. 11.35% (p = 0.0503) after 24 months and 8.00% vs. 18.00% (p = 0.0264) after 36 months of clinical follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates for TLR after 12 months were 1.46% for short and 7.69% for long lesions (p = 0.0012), 2.06% vs. 8.75% after 24 months (p = 0.0027) and 4.96% vs. 9.59% after 36 months of follow-up (p = 0.0109). Scaffold thrombosis rates were low. CONCLUSIONS: In long lesions compared to short ones the bioresorbable scaffold Absorb implanted with the proper PSP technique Absorb has significant higher rates of DOCE. THE LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Is 3 (non-random sample).

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation pump in heart failure patients during MitraClip implantation-A propensity-score matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze 30-day and 6-month results after percutaneous mitral valve repair using an IABP as circulatory support. BACKGROUND: The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation pump extended the spectrum of cardiovascular interventions. METHODS: Since 2014, 17 patients of 365 patients (4.7%) at our center received an IABP during MitraClip implantation procedure. We compare the periprocedural results to a control group of 17 patients treated with MitraClip without an IABP support. To adjust for differences of baseline characteristics a propensity-score matching for age, baseline blood pressure, preoperative EuroSCORE II and left ventricular ejection fraction was performed. The decision for prophylactic implantation of an IABP was at the discretion of the interventionalist. For both groups, clinical results up to 6 months were evaluated. RESULTS: The IABP group had higher NT-pro BNP levels at baseline and increased left ventricular diameters. The procedure was more often categorized as "urgent" due to refractory heart failure in the IABP group. All procedures were carried out successfully, thereby achieving a sufficient MR reduction in both groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the IABP group 11.7 ± 14 days (compared to 6.5 ± 2.9 days in the No IABP group, P < 0.01). All patients in both groups had an event-free 30-day follow-up. MACCE rate was higher in the IABP group compared to the No IABP group (47.1% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.14). CONCLUSION: Insertion of an IABP during MitraClip procedure might be a feasible option to achieve comparable results and may provide additional safety and procedural hemodynamic stability in the setting of high-risk percutaneous mitral valve repair.