Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Strategies After Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention improves outcomes compared with culprit revascularization following myocardial infarction (MI) with multivessel coronary artery disease. An all-cause mortality reduction has never been demonstrated. Debate also remains regarding the optimal timing of complete revascularization (immediate or staged), and method of evaluation of nonculprit lesions (physiology or angiography). OBJECTIVES: This study aims to perform an updated systematic review with frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses including the totality of randomized data investigating revascularization strategies in patients presenting with MI and multivessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: The primary comparison tested complete vs culprit revascularization. Timing and methods of achieving complete revascularization were assessed. The prespecified primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Outcomes were expressed as relative risk (RR) (95% CI). RESULTS: Twenty-four eligible trials randomized 16,371 patients (weighted mean follow-up: 26.4 months). Compared with culprit revascularization, complete revascularization reduced all-cause mortality in patients with any MI (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.99; P = 0.04). Cardiovascular mortality, MI, major adverse cardiac events and repeat revascularization were also significantly reduced. In patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, the point estimate for all-cause mortality with complete revascularization was RR: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78-1.05; P = 0.18). Rates of stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury were similar. Immediate complete revascularization ranked higher than staged complete revascularization for all endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Complete revascularization following MI reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, major adverse cardiac events, and repeat revascularization. There may be benefits to immediate complete revascularization, but additional head-to-head trials are needed.

A Novel Sirolimus-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Lesions: The SELUTION SFA Japan Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal (FP) lesions have not been systematically studied, but initial outcomes from early studies are promising. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the SELUTION SLR SCB, composed of proprietary microreservoir technology combining sirolimus and biodegradable polymer, when used to treat mild-to-moderate FP disease in a Japanese population. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm study (SELUTION SFA JAPAN) enrolled 134 patients with FP disease. It was independently adjudicated by an imaging core laboratory and clinical events committee. The primary endpoint was 12-month primary patency, defined as peak systolic velocity ratio ≥2.5 by duplex ultrasound and compared against a prespecified performance goal of 60% based on established angioplasty data. RESULTS: The mean age was 73.8 ± 6.9 years, and 60.3% of patients had diabetes mellitus. The mean lesion length was 127.4 ± 59.7 mm, 17.2% were chronic total occlusions, and 47.8% involved the popliteal artery. Data on 12-month restenosis were available in 127 patients (94.8%). The 12-month primary patency rate was 87.9%, and the freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) was 97.0% per Kaplan-Meier estimate. The major adverse event rate was 6.7%, driven by 4 CD-TLRs and 5 deaths, none of which were related to the device or procedure. Ankle-brachial index data improved significantly from 0.73 ± 0.16 at baseline to 0.96 ± 0.14 at 30 days postprocedure and was sustained through 12 months (0.94 ± 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The SELUTION SFA JAPAN trial demonstrated that a novel SELUTION SCB is a safe and effective treatment option for FP disease in symptomatic patients.

Statistical considerations for cardiovascular clinical trials straddling the continuum of pandemic phases.

In 2020, the NIH and FDA issued guidance documents that laid the foundation for human subject research during an unprecedented pandemic. To bridge these general considerations to actual applications in cardiovascular interventional device trials, the PAndemic Impact on INTErventional device ReSearch (PAIINTERS) Working Group was formed in early 2021 under the Predictable And Sustainable Implementation Of National CardioVascular Registries (PASSION CV Registries). The PAIINTER's Part I report, published by Rymer et al. [5], provided a comprehensive overview of the operational impact on interventional studies during the first year of the Pandemic. PAIINTERS Part II focused on potential statistical issues related to bias, variability, missing data, and study power when interventional studies may start and end in different pandemic phases. Importantly, the paper also offers practical mitigation strategies to adjust or minimize the impact for both SATs and RCTs, providing a valuable resource for researchers and professionals involved in cardiovascular clinical trials.

Angiographic Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Impella-Supported High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the cVAD PROTECT III Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have found that patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have worse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are no data about patients with advanced CKD undergoing Impella-supported high-risk PCI. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate angiographic characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with CKD who received Impella-supported high-risk PCI as part of the catheter-based ventricular assist device PROTECT III study (A Prospective, Multi-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial of the IMPELLA RECOVER LP 2.5 System Versus Intra Aortic Balloon Pump [IABP] in Patients Undergoing Non Emergent High Risk PCI). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the PROTECT III study were analyzed according to their baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The primary outcome was 90-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and repeat revascularization). RESULTS: Of 1237 enrolled patients, 1052 patients with complete eGFR baseline assessment were evaluated: 586 with eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, 190 with eGFR ≥45 to <60, 105 with eGFR ≥30 to <45, and 171 with eGFR <30 or on dialysis. Patients with lower eGFR (all groups with eGFR <60) were more frequently females and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, anemia, and peripheral artery disease. The baseline Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score was similar between groups (28.2±12.6 for all groups). Patients with lower eGFR were more likely to have severe coronary calcifications and higher usage of atherectomy. There were no differences in individual PCI-related coronary complications between groups, but the rates of overall PCI complications were less frequent among patients with lower eGFR. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 90 days and 1-year mortality were significantly higher among patients with eGFR <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced CKD undergoing Impella-assisted high-risk PCI tend to have higher baseline comorbidities, severe coronary calcification, and higher atherectomy usage, yet CKD was not associated with a higher rate of immediate PCI-related complications. However, 90-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and 1-year mortality were significantly higher among patients with eGFR<30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or on dialysis. Future studies of strategies to improve intermediate and long-term outcomes of these high-risk patients are warranted. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04136392.

Illusion of revascularization: does anyone achieve optimal revascularization during percutaneous coronary intervention?

This Perspective article is a form of 'pastiche', inspired by the 1993 review by Lincoff and Topol entitled 'Illusion of reperfusion', and explores how their concept continues to apply to percutaneous revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease and ischaemia. Just as Lincoff and Topol argued that reperfusion of acute myocardial infarction was facing unresolved obstacles that hampered clinical success in 1993, we propose that challenging issues are similarly jeopardizing the potential benefits of stent-based angioplasty today. By analysing the appropriateness and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we emphasize the limitations of relying solely on visual angiographic guidance, which frequently leads to inappropriate stenting and overtreatment in up to one-third of patients and the associated increased risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction. The lack of optimal revascularization observed in half of patients undergoing PCI confers risks such as suboptimal physiology after PCI, residual angina and long-term stent-related events, leaving an estimated 76% of patients with an 'illusion of revascularization'. These outcomes highlight the need to refine our diagnostic tools by integrating physiological assessments with targeted intracoronary imaging and emerging strategies, such as co-registration systems and angiography-based computational methods enhanced by artificial intelligence, to achieve optimal revascularization outcomes.

Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes in Chronic Versus Acute Coronary Syndromes (TARGET All Comers Trial).

In the Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal coated, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegreadable polymer coronary stent (TARGET; NCT02520180) All Comers trial the biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was noninferior to the durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 and 5 years; however, the long-term safety and efficacy in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We sought to assess the long-term outcomes in ACS versus chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) with BP sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus DP everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The TARGET AC study was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial of all comer patients randomly allocated 1:1 to BP SES or DP EES (stratified by ST-elevation myocardial infarction and study site). In this predefined substudy, the outcomes were compared based on clinical presentation (ACS vs CCS) and treatment allocation. A total of 1,653 patients were enrolled (728 with ACS and 922 with CCS), with 94% completing the 5-year follow-up. The baseline characteristics were well-matched between the 2 stent types; however, co-morbidities were more prevalent in the CCS than in the ACS population. TLF (15.5% vs 17.7%, p = 0.24), patient-oriented outcomes (32.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.31), and stent thrombosis (4.1% vs 3.3%, p = 0.40) were similar between patients with ACS and patients with CCS. In the ACS cohort, the outcomes at 5 years for BP SES versus DP EES were similar for TLF (16.0% vs 14.9%, p = 0.70), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 8.3%, p = 0.17), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.7% vs 4.6%, p = 0.18). The same was true for the CCS cohort, with 5-year outcomes for BP SES versus DP EES for TLF (18.0% vs 17.4%, p = 0.82), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.4% vs 5.0%, p = 0.37), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (3.0% vs 1.8%, p = 0.26). In conclusion, in the TARGET AC trial, 1 in 3 patients had a major adverse event at 5 years, irrespective of CCS or ACS presentation. Long-term, the BP sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was as safe and effective as the DP everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent across the spectrum of clinical presentations.

Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Outcomes of the RECOVER III Postapproval Study by Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Shock Stage.

BACKGROUND: The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions proposed a staging system (A-E) to predict prognosis in cardiogenic shock. Herein, we report clinical outcomes of the RECOVER III study for the first time, according to Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification. METHODS AND RESULTS: The RECOVER III study is an observational, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, postapproval study of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support. Patients enrolled in the RECOVER III study were assigned a baseline Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage. Staging was then repeated within 24 hours after initiation of Impella. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were conducted to assess survival across Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stages at both time points. At baseline assessment, 16.5%, 11.4%, and 72.2% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. At ≤24-hour assessment, 26.4%, 33.2%, and 40.0% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. Thirty-day survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at baseline was 59.7%, 56.5%, and 42.9%, respectively (P=0.003). Survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at ≤24 hours was 65.7%, 52.1%, and 29.5%, respectively (P<0.001). After multivariable analysis of impact of shock stage classifications at baseline and ≤24 hours, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was a significant predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 4.8; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was significantly predictive of mortality, suggesting that response to therapy may be more important than clinical severity of shock at presentation.

Approval, Evidence, and "Off-Label" Device Utilization: The Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Story.

BACKGROUND: Following regulatory approval, medical devices may be used "off-label." Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is indicated to reduce recurrent stroke but has been proposed for other indications, including migraine, transient ischemic attack, and diving decompression illness. We sought to evaluate PFO closure rates and indications relative to the timing of regulatory approval and publication of key randomized trials. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse of US commercial insurance enrollees from 2006 to 2019. We quantified PFO closure among individuals with ≥2 years of preprocedure coverage to establish indications, classified hierarchically as stroke/systemic embolism, migraine, transient ischemia attack, or other. RESULTS: We identified 5315 patients undergoing PFO closure (51.8% female, 29.2%≥60 years old), which increased from 4.75 per 100 000 person-years in 2006 to 6.60 per 100 000 person-years in 2019. Patients aged ≥60 years accounted for 29.2% of closures. Procedure volumes corresponded weakly with supportive clinical publications and device approval. Among patients with PFO closure, 58.6% underwent closure for stroke/systemic embolism, 10.2% for transient ischemia attack, 8.8% for migraine, and 22.4% for other indications; 17.6% of patients had atrial fibrillation at baseline; and 11.9% developed atrial fibrillation postprocedure. Those aged ≥60 years and male were less likely to undergo closure for migraine than stroke/systemic embolism. CONCLUSIONS: From 2006 to 2019, PFO closure use was consistently low and corresponded weakly with clinical trial publications and regulatory status. Nearly half of patients underwent PFO closure for indications unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration. Regulators and payers should coordinate mechanisms to promote utilization for approved indications to ensure patient safety and should facilitate clinical trials for other possible indications.

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials: strengthening the concept through a robust international collaborative network: PRIME-9-Pragmatic Research and Innovation through Multinational Experimentation.

In an era focused on value-based healthcare, the quality of healthcare and resource allocation should be underpinned by empirical evidence. Pragmatic clinical trials (pRCTs) are essential in this endeavor, providing randomized controlled trial (RCT) insights that encapsulate real-world effects of interventions. The rising popularity of pRCTs can be attributed to their ability to mirror real-world practices, accommodate larger sample sizes, and provide cost advantages over traditional RCTs. By harmonizing efficacy with effectiveness, pRCTs assist decision-makers in prioritizing interventions that have a substantial public health impact and align with the tenets of value-based health care. An international network for pRCT provides several advantages, including larger and diverse patient populations, access to a broader range of healthcare settings, sharing knowledge and expertise, and overcoming ethical and regulatory barriers. The hypothesis and study design of pRCT answers the decision-maker's questions. pRCT compares clinically relevant alternative interventions, recruits participants from diverse practice settings, and collects data on various health outcomes. They are scarce because the medical products industry typically does not fund pRCT. Prioritizing these studies by expanding the infrastructure to conduct clinical research within the healthcare delivery system and increasing public and private funding for these studies will be necessary to facilitate pRCTs. These changes require more clinical and health policy decision-makers in clinical research priority setting, infrastructure development, and funding. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of pRCTs, emphasizing their importance in evidence-based medicine and the advantages of an international collaborative network for their execution. It details the development of PRIME-9, an international initiative across nine countries to advance pRCTs, and explores various statistical approaches for these trials. The paper underscores the need to overcome current challenges, such as funding limitations and infrastructural constraints, to leverage the full potential of pRCTs in optimizing healthcare quality and resource utilization.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite the initial evidence supporting the utility of intravascular imaging to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), adoption remains low. Recent new trial data have become available. An updated study-level meta-analysis comparing intravascular imaging to angiography to guide PCI was performed. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, and all-cause death. Mixed-effects meta-regression was performed to investigate the impact of complex PCI on the primary outcomes. A total of 16 trials with 7814 patients were included. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 28.8 months. Intravascular imaging led to a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (relative risk [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55-0.82]; P<0.001), cardiac death (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34-0.71]; P<0.001), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40-0.99]; P=0.046), target-lesion revascularization (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.91]; P=0.01), and target-vessel revascularization (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.45-0.80]; P<0.001). In complex lesion subsets, the point estimate for imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI for all-cause death was a RR of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.55-1.02; P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI, intravascular imaging is associated with reductions in major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, target-lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. The magnitude of benefit is large and consistent across all included studies. There may also be benefits in all-cause death, particularly in complex lesion subsets. These results support the use of intravascular imaging as standard of care and updates of clinical guidelines.

Developmental or Procedural Vena Cava Interruption and Venous Thromboembolism: A Review.

The inferior vena cava (IVC) and superior vena cava are the main conduits of the systemic venous circulation into the right atrium. Developmental or procedural interruptions of vena cava might predispose to stasis and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) distal to the anomaly and may impact the subsequent rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to review the various etiologies of developmental or procedural vena cava interruption and their impact on venous thromboembolism. A systematic search was performed in PubMed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines per each clinical question. For management questions with no high-quality evidence and no mutual agreements between authors, Delphi methods were used. IVC agenesis is the most common form of congenital vena cava interruption, is associated with an increased risk of DVT, and should be suspected in young patients with unexpected extensive bilateral DVT. Surgical techniques for vena cava interruption (ligation, clipping, and plication) to prevent PE have been largely abandoned due to short-term procedural risks and long-term complications, although survivors of prior procedures are occasionally encountered. Vena cava filters are now the most commonly used method of procedural interruption, frequently placed in the infrarenal IVC. The most agreed-upon indication for vena cava filters is for patients with acute venous thromboembolism and coexisting contraindications to anticoagulation. Familiarity with different forms of vena cava interruption and their local and systemic adverse effects is important to minimize complications and thrombotic events.

Effect of antecedent statin usage on conduction disturbances and arrhythmias after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) conduction disturbances and atrial fibrillation (AF) are associated with markedly worse short- and long-term prognosis. Statins have multiple pleotropic effects that may be beneficial in mitigating the risk of these procedural complications as has been found for various other cardiac procedures and surgeries. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected on consecutive patients in the Yale New Haven Health TAVR Registry who did not have a prior pacemaker, had at least 1 pre- and post-TAVR electrocardiogram, and did not have a change to their statin regimen during the index hospitalization. The primary endpoint was the composite of new pacemaker placement, new AF, and other new conduction disturbances evaluated at 7 days post-TAVR. RESULTS: Between, July 2012 and August 2019, 612 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 162 patients were not on antecedent statins, and 450 were (28 low-intensity, 225 moderate-intensity, and 197 high-intensity). After 1:1 propensity matching, 99 patients on moderate-/high-intensity statins were matched to 99 patients not on antecedent statins. At 7 days, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of the primary endpoint (57 % statin users vs 46 % non-statin users; p = 0.16). There was a trend toward increased conduction disturbances 7 days after TAVR in statin users (56 % vs 42 %; p = 0.07), but rates of AF (5 % vs 8 %; p = 0.39) and pacemaker placement (9 % vs 15 %; p = 0.20) were numerically lower in statin users. There was no significant difference in persistent conduction disturbances (21 % vs 18 %; p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Statins do not appear to reduce the risk of post-TAVR AF or conduction abnormalities in this small retrospective study.

Impact of sex on Transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes: Results of a single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Early studies on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes showed that female sex was associated with better survival. With increased use of new-generation valves, the impact of sex on contemporary TAVR outcomes is less well known. METHODS: Retrospective analysis using institutional National Cardiovascular Data Registry STS/ACC TVT data was performed on all patients undergoing TAVR at Yale New Haven Hospital from July 2012 to August 2019. New-generation valves were Evolut PRO, Evolut R, and SAPIEN 3. Old-generation valves were CoreValve, SAPIEN, and SAPIEN XT. Log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare sex differences in survival up to 1 year after TAVR. Cox modeling was used to adjust for baseline and procedural characteristic differences. RESULTS: 927 consecutive patients (41.4% women) underwent TAVR. Women were older (82.8 vs 80.6 years old; p < 0.001) with higher STS mortality scores compared with men (7.6% vs 6.4%; p < 0.001) despite lower prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities including coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and smoking. Most cases used transfemoral access (90.5%) and new-generation devices (72.3%). Women received smaller valves compared with men (20-26 mm: 78.0% vs 32.9%; 29-34 mm: 22.1% vs 67.1%; overall p < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences between sexes in both unadjusted and adjusted 1-year mortality. CONCLUSION: Our data show no significant difference in 1-year survival between sexes using primarily new generation valves. Further studies should reassess the impact of sex on TAVR outcomes and whether newer technologies like new valve design and sizes, and CT imaging may have eliminated sex-based disparities.

Sex-specific analysis of intravascular lithotripsy for peripheral artery disease from the Disrupt PAD III observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular therapy of lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with higher complication rates and worse outcomes in women vs men. Although intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has shown similarly favorable outcomes in men and women in calcified coronary arteries, there is no published safety and effectiveness data of peripheral IVL differentiated by sex. This study aims to evaluate sex-specific acute procedural safety and effectiveness following IVL treatment of calcified PAD. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the multicenter Disrupt PAD III Observational Study, which assessed short-term procedural outcomes of patients undergoing treatment of symptomatic calcified lower extremity PAD with the Shockwave peripheral IVL system. Adjudicated acute safety and efficacy outcomes were compared by sex using univariate analysis performed with the χ2 test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 1262 patients (29.9% women) were included, with >85% having moderate to severe lesion calcification. Women were older (74 vs 71 years; P < .001), had lower ankle-brachial index (0.7 vs 0.8; P = .003), smaller reference vessel size (5.3 vs 5.6 mm; P = .009), and more severe stenosis at baseline vs men (82.3% vs 79.8%; P = .012). Rates of diabetes, renal insufficiency, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, lesion length, and atherectomy use were similar in both groups. Residual stenosis after IVL alone was significantly reduced in both groups. Final residual stenosis was 21.9% in women and 24.7% in men (P = .001). Serious angiographic complications were infrequent and similar in both groups (1.4% vs 0.6%; P = .21), with no abrupt vessel closure, distal embolization, or thrombotic events during any procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IVL to treat calcified PAD in this observational registry demonstrated favorable acute safety and effectiveness in both women and men.

Influence of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients undergoing contemporary pLVAD-supported high-risk PCI.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction worsens outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The objective of this study, therefore, was to evaluate outcomes of pLVAD-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) patients according to LV ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: Patients from the PROTECT III study undergoing pLVAD-supported HRPCI were stratified according to baseline LVEF: severe LV dysfunction (LVEF <30%), mild and moderate LV dysfunction (LVEF ≥30% to <50%), or preserved LV function (LVEF ≥50%). Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and repeat revascularization), and PCI-related complications were assessed at 90 days and mortality was assessed at 1-year. RESULTS: From March 2017 to March 2020, 940 patients had evaluable baseline LVEF recorded in the study database. Patients with preserved LV function were older, more frequently presented with myocardial infarction, and underwent more left main PCI and atherectomy. Immediate PCI-related coronary complications were infrequent (2.7%, overall), similar between groups (P = 0.98), and not associated with LVEF. Unadjusted 90-day MACCE rates were similar among LVEF groups; however, as a continuous variable, LVEF was associated with both 90-day MACCE (adj.HR per 5% 0.89, 95% CI [0.80, 0.98], P = 0.018) and 1-year mortality (adj.HR per 5% 0.84 [0.78, 0.90], P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent pLVAD-supported HRPCI exhibited low incidence of PCI-related complications, regardless of baseline LVEF. However, LVEF was associated with 90-day MACCE and 1-year mortality.

Stroke reduction by cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The use of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been studied in several randomised trials. We aimed to perform a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised CEP trials, focusing on a clinically relevant reduction in disabling stroke. METHODS: A systematic search was applied to three electronic databases, including trials that randomised TAVI patients to CEP versus standard treatment. The primary outcome was the risk of disabling stroke. Outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR), absolute risk differences (ARDs), numbers needed to treat (NNTs) and the 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The minimal clinically important difference was determined at 1.1% ARD, per expert consensus (NNT 91). The principal Bayesian meta-analysis was performed under a vague prior, and secondary analyses were performed under two informed literature-based priors. RESULTS: Seven randomised studies were included for meta-analysis (n=3996: CEP n=2126, control n=1870). Under a vague prior, the estimated median RR of CEP use for disabling stroke was 0.56 (95% CrI 0.28 to 1.19, derived ARD 0.56% and NNT 179, I2=0%). Although the estimated posterior probability of any benefit was 94.4%, the probability of a clinically relevant effect was 0-0.1% under the vague and informed literature-based priors. Results were robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: There is a high probability of a beneficial CEP treatment effect, but this is unlikely to be clinically relevant. These findings suggest that future trials should focus on identifying TAVI patients with an increased baseline risk of stroke, and on the development of new generation devices. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023407006.