Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium Definitions for Tricuspid Regurgitation and Trial Endpoints.

Interest in the pathophysiology, etiology, management, and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has grown in the wake of multiple natural history studies showing progressively worse outcomes associated with increasing TR severity, even after adjusting for multiple comorbidities. Historically, isolated tricuspid valve surgery has been associated with high in-hospital mortality rates, leading to the development of transcatheter treatment options. The aim of this first Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document is to standardize definitions of disease etiology and severity, as well as endpoints for trials that aim to address the gaps in our knowledge related to identification and management of patients with TR. Standardizing endpoints for trials should provide consistency and enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. A second Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document will focus on further defining trial endpoints and will discuss trial design options.

Clinical Trial Design Principles and Outcomes Definitions for Device-Based Therapies for Hypertension: A Consensus Document From the Hypertension Academic Research Consortium.

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world's leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies.

Fractional flow reserve or 3D-quantitative-coronary-angiography based vessel-FFR guided revascularization. Rationale and study design of the prospective randomized fast III trial.

BACKGROUND: Physiological assessment of intermediate coronary lesions to guide coronary revascularization is currently recommended by international guidelines. Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has emerged as a new approach to derive fractional flow reserve (FFR) from 3D-quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) without the need for hyperemic agents or pressure wires. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: The FAST III is an investigator-initiated, open label, multicenter randomized trial comparing vFFR guided versus FFR guided coronary revascularization in approximately 2228 patients with intermediate coronary lesions (defined as 30%-80% stenosis by visual assessment or QCA). Intermediate lesions are physiologically assessed using on-line vFFR or FFR and treated if vFFR or FFR ≤0.80. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 1-year post-randomization. Secondary end points include the individual components of the primary end point and cost-effectiveness will be investigated. CONCLUSIONS: FAST III is the first randomized trial to explore whether a vFFR guided revascularization strategy is non-inferior to an FFR guided strategy in terms of clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up in patients with intermediate coronary artery lesions.

Five-year outcomes after state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three-vessel disease: final results of the SYNTAX II study.

AIMS: The SYNTAX II study evaluated the impact of advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), integrated into a single revascularization strategy, on outcomes of patients with de novo three-vessel disease. The study employed decision-making utilizing the SYNTAX score II, use of coronary physiology, thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents, intravascular ultrasound, enhanced treatments of chronic total occlusions, and optimized medical therapy. Patients treated with this approach were compared with predefined patients from the SYNTAX I trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: SYNTAX II was a multicentre, single-arm, open-label study of patients requiring revascularization who demonstrated clinical equipoise for treatment with either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or PCI, predicted by the SYNTAX score II. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which included any revascularization. The comparators were a matched PCI cohort trial and a matched CABG cohort, both from the SYNTAX I trial. At 5 years, MACCE rate in SYNTAX II was significantly lower than in the SYNTAX I PCI cohort (21.5% vs. 36.4%, P < 0.001). This reflected lower rates of revascularization (13.8% vs. 23.8%, P < 0.001), and myocardial infarction (MI) (2.7% vs. 10.4%, P < 0.001), consisting of both procedural MI (0.2% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001) and spontaneous MI (2.3% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.004). All-cause mortality was lower in SYNTAX II (8.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.013) reflecting a lower rate of cardiac death (2.8% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.001). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events' outcomes at 5 years among patients in SYNTAX II and predefined patients in the SYNTAX I CABG cohort were similar (21.5% vs. 24.6%, P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the SYNTAX II PCI strategy in patients with de novo three-vessel disease led to improved and durable clinical results when compared to predefined patients treated with PCI in the original SYNTAX I trial. A predefined exploratory analysis found no significant difference in MACCE between SYNTAX II PCI and matched SYNTAX I CABG patients at 5-year follow-up.

Independence of clinical events committees: A consensus statement from clinical research organizations.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging. METHODS: This consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance. RESULTS: An independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.

Clinical events classification (CEC) in clinical trials: Report on the current landscape and future directions - proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation. OBSERVATIONS: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: (1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; (2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; (3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and (4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.

Validation of a simplified intravascular ultrasound core lab analysis method in stented coronary arteries.

OBJECTIVES: To validate a simplified core laboratory intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) analysis method based on frames with visually determined minimal lumen areas (MLAs) as compared with a comprehensive (per frame) analysis method. BACKGROUND: IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention has proven to be superior to angiography-guided stenting. In clinical practice, cross-sections with visually determined MLA are measured to determine lesion severity or minimal stent area (MSA), however, its accuracy has not been compared with a comprehensive per frame analysis method. METHODS: A total of 50 stented coronary segments of anonymized core lab datasets were analyzed using a comprehensive analysis method and reanalyzed by two core lab analysts using the simplified method including a maximum of seven frames to be analyzed (the visually determined MSA, the first and last frame, and the MLA of each reference segment). The main parameters of interest were MSA, MLA in the reference segments, and plaque burden. RESULTS: The simplified method showed moderate agreement for measurement of the proximal MLA (7.51 ± 2.52 vs. 6.32 ± 1.88 mm2 , intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.73), good agreement for the distal MLA (5.41 ± 1.85 vs. 5.11 ± 1.38 mm2 , ICC = 0.84) and plaque burden proximal (0.49 ± 0.12 vs. 0.50 ± 0.11, ICC = 0.88), and excellent agreement for the MSA (5.35 ± 1.05 vs. 5.32 ± 0.99 mm2 , ICC = 0.94) and plaque burden distal (0.47 ± 0.14 vs. 0.47 ± 0.12, ICC = 0.92), when compared with the comprehensive analysis method. Inter- and intraobserver analysis revealed good-to-excellent agreement for all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring poststenting IVUS cross-sections with visually determined MLAs by experienced core lab analysts is an accurate and reproducible method to identify MLAs.

Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with ultra-thin strut for treatment of atherosclerotic lesions (TALENT): a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts. We aimed to compare Supraflex with the standard of care, Xience, an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating, regarding clinical outcomes with a randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre study (TALENT) across 23 centres in Europe (the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Italy). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had one or more coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater in a native coronary artery, saphenous venous graft, or arterial bypass conduit, and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·25-4·50 mm. Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manner. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts (Supraflex) or an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators by use of a web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between groups at 12 months after the procedure, assessed in an intention-to-treat population. On assumption of 1-year composite endpoint prevalence of 8·3%, a margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the Xience group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02870140. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2016, and July 3, 2017, 1435 patients with 1046 lesions were randomly assigned to Supraflex, of whom 720 received the index procedure, and 715 patients with 1030 lesions were assigned to Xience, all receiving the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 35 patients (4·9 %) in the Supraflex group and in 37 patients (5·3%) in the Xience group (absolute difference -0·3% [one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1·6%], pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis prevalence, a safety indicator, was low in both groups and did not differ between them. INTERPRETATION: The Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. Supraflex seems a safe and effective alternative drug-eluting stent to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: European Cardiovascular Research Institute.

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk.

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Randomized placebo controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of single low-dose intracoronary insulin-like growth factor following percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction (RESUS-AMI).

BACKGROUND: Residual and significant postinfarction left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, despite technically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), remains an important clinical issue. In preclinical models, low-dose insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) has potent cytoprotective and positive cardiac remodeling effects. We studied the safety and efficacy of immediate post-PCI low-dose intracoronary IGF1 infusion in STEMI patients. METHODS: Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multidose study design, we randomized 47 STEMI patients with significantly reduced (≤40%) LV ejection fraction (LVEF) after successful PCI to single intracoronary infusion of placebo (n = 15), 1.5 ng IGF1 (n = 16), or 15 ng IGF1 (n = 16). All received optimal medical therapy. Safety end points were freedom from hypoglycemia, hypotension, or significant arrhythmias within 1 hour of therapy. The primary efficacy end point was LVEF, and secondary end points were LV volumes, mass, stroke volume, and infarct size at 2-month follow-up, all assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Treatment effects were estimated by analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline (24 hours) outcome. RESULTS: No significant differences in safety end points occurred between treatment groups out to 30 days (χ2 test, P value = .77). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline (24 hours post STEMI) clinical characteristics or LVEF among groups. LVEF at 2 months, compared to baseline, increased in all groups, with no statistically significant differences related to treatment assignment. However, compared with placebo or 1.5 ng IGF1, treatment with 15 ng IGF1 was associated with a significant improvement in indexed LV end-diastolic volume (P = .018), LV mass (P = .004), and stroke volume (P = .016). Late gadolinium enhancement (±SD) at 2 months was lower in 15 ng IGF1 (34.5 ± 29.6 g) compared to placebo (49.1 ± 19.3 g) or 1.5 ng IGF1 (47.4 ± 22.4 g) treated patients, although the result was not statistically significant (P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, low-dose IGF1, given after optimal mechanical reperfusion in STEMI, is safe but does not improve LVEF. However, there is a signal for a dose-dependent benefit on post-MI remodeling that may warrant further study.

Accuracy of an automated transthoracic echocardiographic tool for 3D assessment of left heart chamber volumes.

AIMS: The feasibility and accuracy of an automated adaptive algorithm (Heart Model) for the quantification of left heart chamber volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction has been reported earlier. An improved version of the algorithm is available, and we aimed to test its accuracy compared with manual 3D echocardiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Apical 3D transthoracic datasets were obtained in 67 patients. Acquisitions covering ventricles and atria were performed for analysis using the automated software (Heart Model, Philips Healthcare). In addition, acquisitions focused on the left ventricle were acquired for left ventricle manual 3D measurements (QLAB 10 3DQA, Philips Healthcare). Automated results using endocardial contouring settings at 50% showed a strong correlation with manual 3D measurements (r=.84-.97). Left ventricular end-diastolic volumes were underestimated (bias -5.9 mL, LOA ±38.5 mL), with no significant differences in other parameters. Intra-observer variability using the automated algorithm was zero for all parameters given the lack of human interaction. Manual corrections of the automatic algorithm introduced small but significant differences in volumes but not in ejection fraction when compared with automatic results. Manually corrected results of the automatic algorithm were not significantly different from those obtained with manual 3D echocardiography, except for a small underestimation of left atrial volumes (bias -2.1 mL, LOA ±15.2 mL). CONCLUSIONS: The current improved version of the automated adaptive algorithm is accurate for the assessment of left heart chamber volumes, albeit a small underestimation of left ventricular end-diastolic volume is seen, when compared with manual 3D echocardiography.

Ten-year clinical outcomes of first-generation drug-eluting stents: the Sirolimus-Eluting vs. Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) VERY LATE trial.

AIMS: Compared with bare metal stents, first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are associated with an increased risk of late restenosis and stent thrombosis (ST). Whether this risk continues or attenuates during long-term follow-up remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We extended the follow-up of 1012 patients [sirolimus-eluting stent (SES): N = 503 and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES): N = 509] included in the all-comers, randomized Sirolimus-Eluting vs. Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) trial to 10 years. Follow-up was complete in 895 patients (88.4%) at 10 years. At 1, 5, and 10 years of follow-up, rates of ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) were 8.1%, 14.6% and 17.7%, respectively, and rates of ST were 1.9%, 4.5% and 5.6%, respectively. The annual risks of ID-TLR and definite ST were significantly higher between 1 and 5 years as compared with the 5- to 10-year period [ID-TLR: 1.8% vs. 0.7%/year, hazard ratio (HR) 0.36, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 0.21-0.62, P < 0.001; definite ST: 0.67% vs. 0.23%/year, HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.75, P = 0.01]. The attenuation of the risk of ID-TLR and ST beyond 5 years was independent of age. Major adverse events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ID-TLR) occurred in 33.7% of SES- and 33.8% of PES-treated patients (P = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: During long-term follow-up through 10 years, the annual risks of ID-TLR and definite ST significantly decreased beyond 5 years after first-generation DES implantation. These findings may have important implications for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention with first-generation DES including long-term antiplatelet therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00297661.

Rationale and design of the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to UNload the Left ventricle in patients with ADvanced heart failure (TAVR UNLOAD) trial.

BACKGROUND: Coexistence of moderate aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is not uncommon. Moderate AS increases afterload, whereas pharmacologic reduction of afterload is a pillar of contemporary HF management. HYPOTHESIS: Unloading the left ventricle by reducing the transaortic gradient with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with moderate AS and HF with reduced ejection fraction. STUDY DESIGN: The TAVR UNLOAD (NCT02661451) is an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of TAVR with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in addition to optimal heart failure therapy (OHFT) vs OHFT alone in patients with moderate AS (defined by a mean transaortic gradient ≥20 mm Hg and <40 mm Hg, and an aortic valve area >1.0 cm2 and ≤1.5 cm2 at rest or after dobutamine stress echocardiography) and reduced ejection fraction. A total of 600 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion. Clinical follow-up is scheduled at 1, 6, and 12 months, and 2 years after randomization. The primary end point is the hierarchical occurrence of all-cause death, disabling stroke, hospitalizations related to HF, symptomatic aortic valve disease or nondisabling stroke, and the change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 1 year. Secondary end points capture effects on clinical outcome, biomarkers, echocardiographic parameters, and quality of life. SUMMARY: The TAVR UNLOAD trial aims to test the hypothesis that TAVR on top of OHFT improves clinical outcomes in patients with moderate AS and HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary artery disease: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Significant unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease is encountered in approximately 5 % of patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) overcomes many of the known limitations of angiography and improves outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in stable or complex coronary artery disease. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence on IVUS-guidance versus angiography-guidance in ULMCA PCI, highlighting the chronological frequencies of event rates in line with the maturation of PCI technique and devices over time. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search in Medline was performed to identify all studies that had assessed the effect of IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided ULMCA PCI on various primary and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (2 randomized, 10 non-randomized and 5 meta-analyses) were included in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review on IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided PCI in patients with significant ULMCA disease strongly supports the hypothesis that IVUS-guided PCI is associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events composites, all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. Ongoing, adequately powered trials will contribute significantly to the level of evidence.

Echocardiography Core Laboratory Methodology for TAVR: A Transatlantic Consensus.

Inter-echocardiography core laboratory (ECL) harmonization is pivotal to consider data from different ECLs interchangeable. On the basis of the experience of the first trans-Atlantic harmonization of 2 established ECLs in the field of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials, this review describes the harmonized ECL methodology in analyzing and adjudicating the post-TAVR echocardiographic endpoints according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions. This review presents the feasibility and intra- and inter-ECL reproducibility, explains the root cause of potential important inter-ECL variability, and formulates ECL recommendations for optimal post-TAVR echocardiographic image acquisition. The implementation of inter-ECL harmonization may further define the best practice of ECLs and have logistic and regulatory implications for the realization of future TAVR trials.

Association of Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve (vFFR) with Luminal Obstruction and Plaque Characteristics as Detected by Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) in Patients With NSTE-ACS: the FAST OCT Study.

AIMS: There is a paucity of data on the performance of angiography-derived vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) in coronary artery lesions of patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) allows for visualization of lumen dimensions and plaque integrity with high resolution. The aim of the present study was to define the association between vFFR and OCT findings in intermediate coronary artery lesions in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The FAST OCT study was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS with intermediate to severe coronary artery stenosis in one or multiple vessels with TIMI 3 flow suitable for OCT imaging were eligible. Complete pre-procedural vFFR and OCT data were available in 226 vessels (in 188 patients). A significant association between vFFR and minimal lumen area (MLA) was observed, showing an average decrease of 20.4% (95% CI -23.9% - -16.7%) in MLA per 0.10 decrease in vFFR (adjusted p<0.001). vFFR≤0.80 showed a sensitivity of 56.7% and specificity of 92.5% to detect MLA≤2.5 mm². Conversely, vFFR had a poor to moderate discriminative ability to detect plaque instability (sensitivity, 46.9% specificity 71.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NSTE-ACS, vFFR is significantly associated with OCT-detected MLA and a vFFR≤0.80 is highly predictive for the presence of significant disease based on OCT. Conversely, the sensitivity of vFFR≤0.80 to detect OCT-assessed significant disease was low, indicating that the presence of significant OCT findings cannot be ruled out based on a negative vFFR. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT04683133.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure and Moderate Aortic Stenosis: TAVR UNLOAD.

BACKGROUND: Neurohormonal modulation and afterload reduction are key for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In HFrEF patients with concomitant moderate aortic stenosis (AS), treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be complementary to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether TAVR for moderate AS provides clinical benefit in patients with HFrEF on top of GDMT. METHODS: We performed an investigator-initiated, international, randomized controlled trial in patients with HFrEF on GDMT with moderate AS who were suitable for transfemoral TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve. Patients were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or clinical aortic stenosis surveillance (CASS) with aortic valve replacement upon progression to severe AS. The primary endpoint was the hierarchical occurrence of: 1) all-cause death; 2) disabling stroke; 3) disease-related hospitalizations and heart failure equivalents; and 4) change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score analyzed using the win ratio. RESULTS: From January 2017 to December 2022, 178 patients were randomized to TAVR (n = 89) or AS surveillance (n = 89). The mean age was 77 years, 20.8% were female, and 55.6% were in NYHA functional class III or IV. The median follow-up duration was 23 months (Q1-Q3: 12-33 months). A total of 38 (43%) patients in the CASS group (of whom 35 had progressed to severe AS) underwent TAVR at a median of 12 months postrandomization. TAVR was associated with wins in 47.6% of pairs, compared with 36.6% in the CASS group, resulting in a win ratio of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.91-1.88; P = 0.14). At 1 year, TAVR resulted in a greater improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score compared with the CASS group (12.8 ± 21.9 points vs 3.2 ± 22.8 points; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR was not superior to AS surveillance for the primary hierarchical composite endpoint in patients with moderate AS and HFrEF on GDMT. Preemptive TAVR for moderate AS was safe and may provide clinically meaningful quality-of-life benefits.