Impact of percutaneous closure device type on vascular and bleeding complications after TAVR: A post hoc analysis from the BRAVO-3 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Prostar XL (PS) and ProGlide (PG) are common vascular closure devices (VCD) used in TAVR via transfemoral vascular approach. The impact of these VCD on vascular and bleeding complications remains unclear. METHODS: The BRAVO-3 trial randomized 802 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. We stratified patients according to type of VCD used and examined the 30-day incidence of major or minor vascular complications, major bleeding (BARC ≥3b), AKI and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction or stroke). RESULTS: A total of 746 (93%) patients were treated with either PS (n = 352, 47%) or PG (n = 394, 53%) VCD, without significant differences in successful deployment rate (PS 322 [91.2%] vs. PG 373 [94.2%] respectively, p = .20). PG was associated with a significantly lower incidence of major or minor vascular complications, compared to PS (adjusted OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.37-0.80; p < .01). Rates of acute kidney injury were also lower with the PG device. There was no significant difference between bleeding, MACCE, and death. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PS, the PG VCD was associated with a lower rate of major or minor vascular complications and lower rates of AKI after transfemoral TAVR.

Longest available clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the DELFT (Drug Eluting stent for LeFT main) Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes after DES implantation for ULMCA disease have not yet been ascertained. METHODS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 358 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA were retrospectively selected and analyzed in 7 European and U.S. tertiary care centers. No patients were excluded from the analysis, and all patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: Technical success rate was 100%. Procedural success rate was 89.6%. After 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival in the whole population was 73.5%. According to the Academic Research Consortium definitions, cardiac death occurred in 9.2% of patients, and reinfarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 8.6%, 5.8%, and 14.2% of patients, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (specifically at 0 and 439 days). In elective patients, the 3-year MACE-free survival was 74.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 6.2%, 8.3%, 6.6%, and 16%, respectively. In the emergent group the 3-year MACE-free survival was 68.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 21.4%, 10%, 2.8%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine DES implantation in ULMCA disease seems encouraging, with favorable long-term clinical results.

Patent foramen ovale using the Premere device: the results of the CLOSEUP trial.

OBJECTIVES: The CLOSEUP trial was conducted to determine the safety and effectiveness of the Premere closure device in closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO). BACKGROUND: PFO is a relatively common congenital condition, associated with cryptogenic stroke and migraine with aura. The Premere device is specifically designed to close PFO of variable size and length, with right and left anchor arms connected by a flexible tether. The device has an open architecture, a low profile, and a small surface area on the left atrial side which may discourage thrombus formation. METHODS: Patients between 18 and 65 years of age who had a cryptogenic ischemic stroke or a transient ischemic attack and a PFO underwent percutaneous PFO closure using the Premere device. RESULTS: Of the 73 enrolled patients, six patients had atrial anatomy not appropriate for the Premere; 27 patients received the 15 mm and 40 patients received the 20 mm device. Implantation was successful in all patients. At 6 months of follow-up, 86% of patients had no shunt that could be provoked with Valsalva as assessed during contrast echocardiography. Closure rates were better with the 20 mm versus the 15 mm device, and three patients with residual shunt had atrial septal aneurysms at baseline. One patient had transient atrial fibrillation which resolved by 3 months. There were no instances of thrombus, death, or stroke. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that the Premere device can safely and effectively close PFO. Additional studies should be undertaken to demonstrate the effectiveness of PFO closure in reducing thrombo-embolic events such as stroke.

Influence of frequency of stenting on acute and one-year follow-up results.

BACKGROUND: There has been a continuous increase in the frequency of stenting, with recent reports suggesting performing stenting in all coronary angioplasty interventions. The aim of this retrospective investigation was to study the in-hospital and 1-year event rates of the most and the least avid stent user (both highly experienced) at our institution. METHODS: A total of 322 consecutive patients undergoing coronary angioplasty at our institution were retrospectively studied. Post-intervention CK, CK-MB and troponin T values and information of major in-hospital cardiac events were obtained from the charts. Events during a 1-year follow-up were collected. Comparisons were made between patients treated by the most generous (operator 1: 71% stenting) and the most frugal (operator 2: 49% stenting) stent user. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable. Post-intervention CK max (418+/- 744 versus 427+/- 1250; p = 0.33), CK-MB (105+/- 159 versus 239+/-263; p = 0.07) and troponin T (149+/-326 versus 282+/- 380; p = 0.3) values were similar in both groups. In-hospital (2% versus 1.8%; p = 1) and 1-year follow-up cardiac events (21% versus 18%; p = 0.58) between both groups were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Stenting is a useful tool for selected patients. However, a higher frequency of stenting does not beneficially influence in-hospital or 1-year cardiac events. These findings recommend provisional stenting rather then elective stenting.