Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for native aortic valve regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Large datasets of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for pure aortic valve regurgitation (PAVR) are scarce. AIMS: We aimed to report procedural safety and long-term clinical events (CE) in a contemporary cohort of PAVR patients treated with new-generation devices (NGD). METHODS: Patients with grade III/IV PAVR enrolled in the FRANCE-TAVI Registry were selected. The primary safety endpoint was technical success (TS) according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. The co-primary endpoint was defined as a composite of mortality, heart failure hospitalisation and valve reintervention at last follow-up. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2021, 227 individuals (64.3% males, median age 81.0 [interquartile range {IQR} 73.5-85.0] years, with EuroSCORE II 6.0% [IQR 4.0-10.9]) from 41 centres underwent TAVI with NGD, using either self-expanding (55.1%) or balloon-expandable valves (44.9%; p=0.50). TS was 85.5%, with a non-significant trend towards increased TS in high-volume activity centres. A second valve implantation (SVI) was needed in 8.8% of patients, independent of valve type (p=0.82). Device size was ≥29 mm in 73.0% of patients, post-procedure grade ≥III residual aortic regurgitation was rare (1.2%), and the permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rate was 36.0%. At 30 days, the incidences of mortality and reintervention were 8.4% and 3.5%, respectively. The co-primary endpoint reached 41.6% (IQR 34.4-49.6) at 1 year, increased up to 61.8% (IQR 52.4-71.2) at 4 years, and was independently predicted by TS, with a hazard ratio of 0.45 (95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.76); p=0.003. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI with NGD in PAVR patients is efficient and reasonably safe. Preventing the need for an SVI embodies the major technical challenge. Larger implanted valves may have limited this complication, outweighing the increased risk of PPI. Despite successful TAVI, PAVR patients experience frequent CE at long-term follow-up.

Beta-Blocker Interruption or Continuation after Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate duration of treatment with beta-blocker drugs after a myocardial infarction is unknown. Data are needed on the safety and efficacy of the interruption of long-term beta-blocker treatment to reduce side effects and improve quality of life in patients with a history of uncomplicated myocardial infarction. METHODS: In a multicenter, open label, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 49 sites in France, we randomly assigned patients with a history of myocardial infarction, in a 1:1 ratio, to interruption or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All the patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40% while receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment and had no history of a cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons at the longest follow-up (minimum, 1 year), according to an analysis of noninferiority (defined as a between-group difference of <3 percentage points for the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval). The main secondary end point was the change in quality of life as measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 3698 patients underwent randomization: 1846 to the interruption group and 1852 to the continuation group. The median time between the last myocardial infarction and randomization was 2.9 years (interquartile range, 1.2 to 6.4), and the median follow-up was 3.0 years (interquartile range, 2.0 to 4.0). A primary-outcome event occurred in 432 of 1812 patients (23.8%) in the interruption group and in 384 of 1821 patients (21.1%) in the continuation group (risk difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], <0.1 to 5.5), for a hazard ratio of 1.16 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33; P = 0.44 for noninferiority). Beta-blocker interruption did not seem to improve the patients' quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a history of myocardial infarction, interruption of long-term beta-blocker treatment was not found to be noninferior to a strategy of beta-blocker continuation. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and ACTION Study Group; ABYSS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03498066; EudraCT number, 2017-003903-23.).

Rationale and design of the FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation (FRENCHIE) study.

BACKGROUND: Despite major advances in prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases - particularly acute myocardial infarction - remain a leading cause of death worldwide and in France. Collecting contemporary data about the characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction in France is important. AIMS: The main objectives are to describe baseline characteristics, contemporary management, in-hospital and long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized in tertiary care centres in France; secondary objectives are to investigate determinants of prognosis (including periodontal disease and sleep-disordered breathing), to identify gaps between evidence-based recommendations and management and to assess medical care costs for the index hospitalization and during the follow-up period. METHODS: FRENCHIE (FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation) is an ongoing prospective multicentre observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04050956) enrolling more than 19,000 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction with onset of symptoms within 48hours in 35 participating centres in France since March 2019. Main exclusion criteria are age<18 years, lack of health coverage and procedure-related myocardial infarction (types 4a and 5). Detailed information was collected prospectively, starting at admission, including demographic data, risk factors, medical history and treatments, initial management, with prehospital care pathways and medication doses, and outcomes until hospital discharge. The follow-up period (up to 20 years for each patient) is ensured by linking with the French national health database (Système national des données de santé), and includes information on death, hospital admissions, major clinical events, healthcare consumption (including drug reimbursement) and total healthcare costs. FRENCHIE is also used as a platform for cohort-nested studies - currently three randomized trials and two observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide large contemporary cohort with very long-term follow-up will improve knowledge about acute myocardial infarction management and outcomes in France, and provide a useful platform for nested studies and trials.

Three-Year Outcomes With Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided or Angiography-Guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the FLOWER-MI trial (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) showed that a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy was not superior to an angiography-guided strategy for treatment of noninfarct-related artery lesions regarding the 1-year risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. The extension phase of the trial was planned using the same primary outcome to determine whether a difference in outcomes would be observed with a longer follow-up. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease with successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR (n=586) or angiography (n=577). RESULTS: After 3 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 52 of 498 patients (9.40%) in the FFR-guided group and in 44 of 502 patients (8.17%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.79-1.77]; P=0.4). Death occurred in 22 patients (4.00%) in the FFR-guided group and in 23 (4.32%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.71]); nonfatal myocardial infarction in 23 (4.13%) and 14 (2.56%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.84-3.16]); and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 21 (3.83%) and 18 (3.36%; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.61-2.16]), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although event rates in the trial were lower than expected, in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization up to 3 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954.

Snare technique failure in extracting an embolized coronary sinus reducer to the pulmonary artery.

We report the case of a 79-year-old male patient who benefited from the implantation of a coronary sinus reducer (CSR) (Reducer; Neovasc, Inc.) in the management of typical angina with mild exertion with optimal medical treatment.

Reducing length of stay after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the FAST-TAVI II trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The length of stay (LOS) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains extremely variable whereas early discharge has been shown to be feasible and safe. The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intervention aimed at reducing LOS after transfemoral TAVI. METHODS: FAST-TAVI II is a prospective, multicentre, cluster, randomized, controlled study including patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, who had transfemoral TAVI. The intervention consisted in a dedicated training programme to implement 10 quality of care measures to reduce LOS with an implementation phase of eight weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients discharged early within 3 days. Secondary endpoints included: LOS, 30-day mortality and 30-day incidence of readmission for cardiovascular events. RESULTS: During the study period, 969 patients were enrolled in the intervention group and 860 patients in the control group. Mean age was 81.9 ± 6.6 years and mean EuroSCORE II was 4.4 ± 4.5%. Early discharge was achieved in 563 (58.1%) patients in the intervention group vs. 364 (42.3%) patients in the control group (P < .0001). Median LOS was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group [3 (IQR: 3) vs. 4 days (IQR: 3), P < .0001]. Thirty-day mortality was low and similar in the two groups (0.5% vs. 0.9%, P = .30), as were 30-day readmissions (4.6% vs. 2.8%, P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was simple and fast to implement, and was effective and safe to reduce LOS and increase the proportion of patients discharged early after TAVI (NCT04503655).

Survival outcomes of TAVR and self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

AIMS: There is a growing body of literature on long-term outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but to our knowledge, few research have focused on patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction. This challenging category of patients was excluded from the Partner 3 clinical trial. There are no data to guide the choice of valve type in patients with severely depressed ejection fraction. This study evaluates the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. It compares post-TAVR survival outcomes with self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV) valves in the context of cardiac dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort was conducted on 977 patients who underwent TAVR at Toulouse University Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. The study population included two groups: LVEF ≤ 35% (N = 157) and LVEF ≥ 50% (N = 820). The group of LVEF ≤ 35% was divided into two subgroups according to the type of implanted device: self-expanding (N = 66) versus balloon-expandable (N = 91). The living status of each of study's participants was observed in December 2022. Patients with low ejection fraction were younger (82 vs. 84.6 years) and commonly males (71.3% vs. 45.6%). Procedural success was almost 98% in both study groups (97.5% vs. 97.9%). The prevalence of all in-hospital post-TAVR complications [acute kidney injury (3.8% vs. 2.2%), major bleeding events (2.5% vs. 3.2%), stroke (1.3% vs. 1.6%), pacemaker implantation (10.2% vs. 10.7%), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 4.5%), new onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% vs. 3.4%), and in-hospital death (3.2% vs. 2.8%)] were similar between groups (LVEF ≤ 35% vs. LVEF ≥ 50%). No difference in long-term survival has been revealed over 3.4 years (P = 0.268). In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, except for post-TAVR mean aortic gradient (7.8 ± 4.2 vs. 10.2 ± 3.6), baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between SEV versus BEV subgroups. An early improvement in LVEF (from 29.2 ± 5.5 to 37.4 ± 10.8) was observed. In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, the all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in BEV than that in SEV subgroups, respectively (40.7% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.018). Kaplan-Meier curve showed better survival outcomes after SEV implantation (P = 0.032). A Cox regression identified BEV as independent predictor of mortality [HR = 3.276, 95% CI (1.520-7.060), P = 0.002]. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of low LVEF, TAVR remains a safe and effective procedure not associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. SEV implantation may likely result in superior survival outcomes in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

[Percutaneous aortic valve replacement: outcome of patients evaluated by EMG at Toulouse University Hospital preprocedure]. / Remplacement valvulaire aortique par voie percutanée : devenir des patients évalués par l'EMG au CHU de Toulouse en préprocédure.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation has become the preferred method of aortic valve replacement in the elderly. Preoperative standardized geriatric assessment (SGA) helps guide the decision to proceed, taking into account geriatric parameters not targeted by surgical risk scores. This is a descriptive, retrospective study of patients who underwent EGS at the Toulouse University Hospital, analyzing their length of stay and postoperative care pathway.

Outcomes of Provisional Stenting With Versus Without Side Branch Intervention in Patients With Bifurcation Lesion-Related ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

To date, the best approach to coronary bifurcation lesion remains unsettled, and the parameters to guide side branch ballooning or stenting are not yet defined. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes after provisional stenting with versus without side branch intervention. A cohort was conducted on 132 patients who underwent coronary angiography at Toulouse University Hospital for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with large culprit nonleft main coronary bifurcation lesion. Study participants were divided into 2 groups depending on the performance or not of a side branch intervention. We observed the living status at 1-year after hospital discharge. Side branch intervention by balloon inflation or final balloon kissing technique was performed in 34.1% of study participants. At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 7.8 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1 to 15), and although it seemed higher in the side branch intervention group (10 per 100 person-years [95% CI 3.8 to 26.7] vs 6.6 per 100 persons-years [95% CI 2.8 to 15.9]), the survival analyses showed no differences in survival outcomes (hazard ratio side branch intervention 1.55 [0.42 to 5.78], p = 0.513). In conclusion, in the setting of a coronary bifurcation causing ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, simple provisional stenting without side branch intervention showed a low mortality rate and no differences in the 1-year survival outcomes.

Comparison of Paravalvular Leak in SAPIEN 3 and EVOLUT PRO Valves in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Registry.

Paravalvular leak (PVL), conduction disturbances, and vascular complications remain the most common complications after TAVR. To address these adverse outcomes, the third generation of transcatheter heart valves has been developed. The last generation prosthesis provides an outer pericardial wrap for enhanced sealing and PVL prevention. This study aimed to compare the incidence and severity of PVL and 1-year survival after TAVR using SAPIEN 3 with those using EVOLUT PRO. An observational retrospective analysis was conducted in 1,481 patients who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in 6 different European centers. The primary end point was to assess the frequency and severity of PVL at 30 days after TAVR. The secondary end point was to compare 1-year survival using EVOLUT PRO with that using SAPIEN 3. SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve was implanted in 78.3% of study participants (n = 1,160) whereas EVOLUT PRO was implanted in 21.7% (n = 321). PVL is more commonly observed in patients treated with EVOLUT PRO at prehospital discharge (55.1% vs 37.3%) and at 1-month (51% vs 41.4%) and 1-year (51.3% vs 39.3%) follow-up. This difference mainly concerns low-grade (mild/trace) PVL. The frequency of high-degree (moderate/severe) PVL was almost similar in both groups throughout the study period (5.3% vs 5.8% before hospital discharge, 4% vs 3.1% at 1 month, and 3.2% vs 4.9% at 1 year). No significant difference in survival over 1 year has been observed (hazard ratio 0.73 [0.33 to 1.63], p = 0.442) (Graphical abstract). In conclusion, the detection rate of PVL after TAVR with third-generation heart valves remains high, and there are no major differences between the devices regarding the frequency of significant (moderate/severe) PVL and survival.

Impact of transfusion strategy on platelet aggregation and biomarkers in myocardial infarction patients with anemia.

BACKGROUND: Higher rates of thrombotic events have been reported in myocardial infarction (MI) patients requiring blood transfusion. The impact of blood transfusion strategy on thrombosis and inflammation is still unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of a liberal vs. a restrictive transfusion strategy on P2Y12 platelet reactivity and biomarkers in the multicentric randomized REALITY trial. METHODS: Patients randomized to a liberal (hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL) or a restrictive (hemoglobin ≤8 g/dL) transfusion strategy had VASP-PRI platelet reactivity measured centrally in a blinded fashion and platelet reactivity unit (PRU) measured locally using encrypted VerifyNow; at baseline and after randomization. Biomarkers of thrombosis (P-selectin, PAI-1, vWF) and inflammation (TNF-α) were also measured. The primary endpoint was the change in the VASP-PRI (difference from baseline and post randomization) between the randomized groups. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients randomized were included in this study (n = 50 in each group). Transfused patients received on average 2.4 ± 1.6 units of blood. We found no differences in change of the VASP PRI (difference 1.2% 95% CI (-10.3-12.7%)) or by the PRU (difference 13.0 95% CI (-21.8-47.8)) before and after randomization in both randomized groups. Similar results were found in transfused patients (n = 71) regardless of the randomized group, VASP PRI (difference 1.7%; 95% CI (-9.5-1.7%)) or PRU (difference 27.0; 95% CI (-45.0-0.0)). We did not find an impact of transfusion strategy or transfusion itself in the levels of P-selectin, PAI-1, vWF, and TNF-α. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found no impact of a liberal vs. a restrictive transfusion strategy on platelet reactivity and biomarkers in MI patients with anemia. A conclusion that should be tempered due to missing patients with exploitable biological data that has affected our power to show a difference.

Biodegradable-Polymer or Durable-Polymer Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk: A Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the comparative efficacy and safety of different stent platforms in patients at high bleeding risk undergoing an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy duration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent in patients at high bleeding risk receiving 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI. METHODS: The Bioflow-DAPT Study is an international, randomized, open-label trial conducted at 52 interventional cardiology hospitals in 18 countries from February 24, 2020, through September 20, 2021. Patients with a clinical indication to PCI because of acute or chronic coronary syndrome who fulfilled 1 or more criteria for high bleeding risk were eligible for enrollment. Patients were randomized to receive either biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable-polymer, slow-release zotarolimus-eluting stents after successful lesion preparation, followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy and thereafter single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was the composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year, and was powered for noninferiority, with an absolute margin of 4.1% at 1-sided 5% alpha. RESULTS: A total of 1948 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (969 patients) or durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (979 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 33 of 969 patients (3.6%) in the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 32 of 979 patients (3.4%) in the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the 1-sided 95% CI, 1.8; upper boundary of the 1-sided 97.5% CI, 2.1; P<0.0001 for noninferiority for both tests). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for bleeding who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, the use of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to the use of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents with regard to the composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04137510.

Design and Rationale of the BIOFLOW-DAPT Trial: a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety of the Orsiro Mission Stent Compared to the Resolute Onyx Stent in Subjects at High Risk for Bleeding in Combination with 1-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy.

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with implantation of the Orsiro Mission stent remains unclear. The BIOFLOW-DAPT (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04137510) trial is a prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled study designed to assess the safety of the Orsiro Mission versus the Resolute Onyx stent in HBR patients. Patients are treated with DAPT (aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor) for 1 month, followed by a single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year. With a final sample size of 1948 HBR patients, this study is powered to assess the noninferiority of the Orsiro Mission stent with respect to the primary study endpoint. The BIOFLOW-DAPT is the first randomized clinical trial investigating 1-month DAPT duration in HBR patients after implantation of the Orsiro Mission stent.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04137510 Study design and key features. Patient selection starts before the index PCI, when consented patients will be randomized to the Orsiro Mission or the Resolute Onyx stent with mandated 1-month DAPT. At 1 month, eligibility is reassessed and if met, patients will discontinue DAPT and continue with P2Y12 inhibitor or aspirin monotherapy. PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; DES, drug-eluting stent; HBR, high bleeding risk; P2Y12i, P2Y12 inhibitor; ST, stent thrombosis.

A prospective study comparing short versus standard dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: design and rationale of the TARGET-FIRST trial.

Based on the latest knowledge and technological advancements, it is still debatable whether a modern revascularisation approach in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including complete revascularisation (in patients with significant non-culprit lesions) with newer-generation highly biocompatible drug-eluting stents, requires prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). TARGET-FIRST (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04753749) is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled study comparing short (one month) DAPT versus standard (12 months) DAPT in a population of patients with non-ST/ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, completely revascularised at index or staged procedure (within 7 days), using Firehawk, an abluminal in-groove biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent. The study will be conducted at approximately 50 sites in Europe. After a mandatory 30-40 days of DAPT with aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors (preferably potent P2Y12 inhibitors), patients are randomised (1:1) to 1) immediate discontinuation of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (experimental arm), or 2) continued DAPT with the same regimen (control arm), up until 12 months. With a final sample size of 2,246 patients, the study is powered to evaluate the primary endpoint (non-inferiority of short antiplatelet therapy in completely revascularised patients) for net adverse clinical and cerebral events. If the primary endpoint is met, the study is powered to assess the main secondary endpoint (superiority of short DAPT in terms of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding). TARGET-FIRST is the first randomised clinical trial to investigate the optimisation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with AMI after achieving complete revascularisation with an abluminal in-groove biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent implantation.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure.

Background: In recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR). Methods: A cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR (N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR (N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed. Results: In comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications (p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications (p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097-1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056-0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed (p = 0.074). Conclusion: VIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.

TIcagrelor in Rotational Atherectomy to Reduce TROPonin Enhancement: The TIRATROP Study, A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Because rotational atherectomy (RA) is associated with arterial trauma and platelet activation, patients treated with RA may benefit from more potent antiplatelet drugs. The aim of this trial was to assess the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel in reducing post procedure troponin release. METHODS: TIRATROP (TIcagrelor in Rotational Atherectomy to reduce TROPonin enhancement) is a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial that included 180 patients with severe calcified lesions requiring RA who received either clopidogrel (300 mg loading dose, then 75 mg/d) or ticagrelor (loading dose 180 mg then 90 mg twice daily). Blood samples were collected at the beginning (T0), and 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 h after the procedure. Primary end point was troponin release within the first 24 h using area under the curve analysis (troponin level as a function of time). RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 76 ± 10 years, 35% had diabetes. RA was used to treat 1, 2 or 3 calcified lesions in 72%, 23% and 5% of patients, respectively. Troponin release within the first 24 h was similar in both the ticagrelor (adjusted mean ±SD of ln AUC 8.85 ± 0.33) and the clopidogrel (8.77 ± 0.34, p = 0.60) arms. Independent predictors for troponin enhancement were acute coronary syndrome presentation, renal failure, elevated C-Reactive protein and multiple lesions treated with RA. CONCLUSION: Troponin release did not differ among treatment arms. Our results suggest that greater platelet inhibition does not affect periprocedural myocardial necrosis in the setting of RA.

Clinical Outcomes of Left Main Coronary Artery PCI With Rotational Atherectomy.

Data regarding rotational atherectomy percutaneous coronary intervention (RA PCI) angioplasty in the left main (LM) coronary artery are scarce, and mostly outdated. We aimed to describe clinical outcomes of RA PCI in LM. Patients requiring RA in 8 European countries and 19 centers were prospectively and consecutively included in the European registry of Cardiac Care of Calcified and Complex patients registry. In-hospital data collection and 1-year follow-up were performed for each patient. Between October 2016 and July 2018, 966 patients with complete data were included. Among them, 241 presented with an LM lesion, and 171 required an LM lesion preparation by RA. The latter, allocated to the LM-RA group, were compared with the 725 patients in the non-LM-RA group. Clinical success of the RA procedure was comparable in both groups, but in-hospital major adverse cardiac events were higher in the RA-LM group (7.6% vs 3.2%, adjusted p = 0.04), mainly driven by a higher in-hospital mortality rate (5.3 vs 0.3%, adjusted p = 0.005). At 1-year follow-up, mortality and major adverse cardiac event rates were comparable in both groups (12.9% vs 8.0%, adjusted p value: 0.821, and 15.8% vs 10.9%, adjusted p value: 0.329, respectively), but the rate of target vessel revascularization remained higher in the RA-LM group (5.3% vs 3.2%, adjusted p = 0.021). In conclusion, RA PCI is an efficient option for calcified LM lesions, providing acceptable outcomes regarding this population with high risk at 1 year, and yields comparable outcomes with RA PCI performed on non-LM lesions.

Immediate versus staged complete myocardial revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: A post hoc analysis of the randomized FLOWER-MI trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention for non-culprit lesions is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. The optimal timing for non-infarct-related artery revascularization - immediate versus staged - has not been investigated adequately. AIM: We aimed to assess clinical outcomes at 1 year in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease using immediate versus staged non-infarct-related artery revascularization. METHODS: Outcomes were analysed in patients from the randomized FLOWER-MI trial, in whom, after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention, non-culprit lesions were assessed using fractional flow reserve or angiography during the index procedure or during a staged procedure during the initial hospital stay, ≤5 days after the index procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and unplanned hospitalization with urgent revascularization at 1year. RESULTS: Among 1171 patients enrolled in this study, 1119 (96.2%) had complete revascularization performed during a staged procedure, and 44 (3.8%) at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in one of the patients (2.3%) with an immediate strategy and in 55 patients (4.9%) with a staged strategy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.39-12.69; P=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Staged non-infarct-related artery complete revascularization was the strategy preferred by investigators in practice in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. This strategy was not superior to immediate revascularization, which, in the context of this trial, was used in a small proportion of patients. Further randomized studies are needed to confirm these observational findings.

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair following surgical valve repair with ring implantation: Results from the multicentre "Clip-in-Ring" registry.

BACKGROUND: Management of mitral regurgitation recurrence after failed surgical valve repair with ring implantation is controversial. AIM: To describe the French experience regarding midterm safety and efficacy of transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEER) in patients with failed surgical valve repair with ring implantation. METHODS: The "Clip-in-Ring" registry is a multicentre registry conducted in 11 centres in France, approved by local institutional review boards, of consecutive TEER following surgical valve repair with ring implantation. Outcomes were Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) technical success, modified 30-day device and procedural success (where 10mmHg is considered as a cut-off for significant mitral stenosis) and MVARC complications. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were studied: mean age, 69±10years; male sex, 74%; EuroSCORE II, 16±17; left ventricular ejection fraction, 53±12%; mitral regurgitation grade 3+/4+, 17%/78%; New York Heart Association class III/IV, 47%/22%; median surgery to TEER delay, 23 (6-94) months. Technical success was 100%. At discharge, residual mitral regurgitation grade was≤2+ in 87% and median transmitral gradient was 4 (3-5) mmHg. Thirty-day modified MVARC device and procedural success was 82%: four patients (17%) had residual mitral regurgitation grade>2+, including two patients who needed complementary surgery. No patient had a 30-day transmitral gradient>7mmHg. No patient died or had a stroke or any life-threatening complications. One patient presented a vascular access complication requiring transfusion. No other MVARC-2 adverse event was reported. CONCLUSIONS: TEER in patients with failed mitral ring is feasible and safe. Further studies should delineate its exact role in the therapeutic armamentarium for this medical issue.