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

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

The role of diabetes mellitus in the composition of coronary thrombi in patients presenting with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Although diabetes mellitus (DM) is a predictor of poor outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), few studies have analyzed the impact of DM on the constituency of coronary thrombi. OBJECTIVES: Comparing morphologic and histopathologic aspects of coronary thrombi in STEMI patients with and without DM who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: All consecutive patients with STEMI admitted to our institution between April 2010 and December 2012 (n = 1,548) were considered for inclusion. Thrombus material was obtained by aspiration thrombectomy; morphologic and histopathologic aspects were assessed by 3 independent pathologists blinded to clinical characteristics and outcomes. Patients with DM were compared with those without DM. A sensitivity analysis was performed using a propensity score. RESULTS: During the study period, coronary thrombi material from 259 patients was obtained, of whom 19% (n = 49) had diabetes. Diabetic patients were older (P = .10), had a higher frequency of hypertension (P < .01) and dyslipidemia (P = .03), and had a trend to a longer time from the onset of chest pain to hospital arrival (P = .08). The number of retrieved fragments, the size of the thrombi and its composition (leukocytes, fibrin, and erythrocytes percent), and thrombus age and color were similar between patients with or without DM. There were also no statistically significant differences in thrombus constituency of the propensity score-matched patients (n = 92). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, morphologic and histopathologic constituency of coronary thrombi in the setting of a ST-elevation myocardial infarction was not significantly different between patients with or without DM. This finding was intriguing and deserves further investigation.

Changing strategies of the retrograde approach for chronic total occlusion during the past 7 years.

OBJECTIVE: We reviewed the technical changes and results achieved with the retrograde approach since we introduced it 7 years ago. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The subjects were 1,268 patients who were treated for CTO between January 2004 and December 2010. They were investigated with respect to the success rate, the frequency of employing the retrograde approach and its outcome, and other factors. RESULTS: The retrograde approach was employed in ∼30% of chronic total occlusion (CTO) patients (n = 281) and the retrograde guidewire success rate was 81.1%. The kissing wire technique was substituted for the retrograde approach in 126 of the 281 patients, with antegrade crossing of a guidewire being successful in 88 of them (70%). The retrograde approach was combined with the CART and reverse controlled antegrade retrograde tracking (CART) techniques in 22 and 21 patients, respectively. Among 83 patients treated with Corsair catheters, crossing of the CTO was achieved in 63. The overall procedural success rate was 79.7% (224 patients). Complications of the retrograde approach included collateral channel dissection (2.1%), channel perforation (1.7%), CTO perforation (1.7%), and donor artery occlusion (1.1%). CONCLUSION: The success rate and safety of the retrograde approach are both satisfactory if the appropriate devices and techniques are selected.

Characterization of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve discordance using doppler flow and clinical follow-up.

The physiological mechanisms of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve disagreement are not fully understood. We aimed to characterize the coronary flow and resistance profile of intermediate stenosed epicardial coronary arteries with concordant and discordant FFR and QFR. Post-hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLOW study. Anatomical and Doppler-derived physiological parameters were compared for lesions with FFR+QFR- (n = 18) vs. FFR+QFR+ (n = 43) and for FFR-QFR+ (n = 34) vs. FFR-QFR- (n = 139). The association of QFR results with the two-year rate of target vessel failure was assessed in the proportion of vessels (n = 195) that did not undergo revascularization. Coronary flow reserve was higher [2.3 (IQR: 2.1-2.7) vs. 1.9 (IQR: 1.5-2.4)], hyperemic microvascular resistance lower [1.72 (IQR: 1.48-2.31) vs. 2.26 (IQR: 1.79-2.87)] and anatomical lesion severity less severe [% diameter stenosis 45.5 (IQR: 41.5-52.5) vs. 58.5 (IQR: 53.1-64.0)] for FFR+QFR- lesions compared with FFR+QFR+ lesions. In comparison of FFR-QFR+ vs. FFR-QFR- lesions, lesion severity was more severe [% diameter stenosis 55.2 (IQR: 51.7-61.3) vs. 43.4 (IQR: 35.0-50.6)] while coronary flow reserve [2.2 (IQR: 1.9-2.9) vs. 2.2 (IQR: 1.9-2.6)] and hyperemic microvascular resistance [2.34 (IQR: 1.85-2.81) vs. 2.57 (IQR: 2.01-3.22)] did not differ. The agreement and diagnostic performance of FFR using hyperemic stenosis resistance (> 0.80) as reference standard was higher compared with QFR and coronary flow reserve. Disagreement between FFR and QFR is partly explained by physiological and anatomical factors. Clinical Trials Registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01813435. Changes in central physiological and anatomical parameters according to FFR and QFR match/mismatch quadrants.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery with bilateral or single internal mammary artery grafts.

OBJECTIVE: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending artery (LAD) bypass with percutaneous intervention of non-LAD vessels. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of HCR to conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) or bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting. METHODS: Between October 2003 and September 2013, 306 consecutive patients who underwent HCR were compared with 8254 patients who underwent CABG with SIMA (7381; 89.4%) or BIMA (873; 10.6%) at a US academic center. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (major cerebrovascular and cardiac event [MACCE]). In addition to multiple logistic and linear regression analysis, a propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare HCR with SIMA and with BIMA. RESULTS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-predicted risk of mortality was 1.6% for HCR, 2.1% for SIMA, and 1.1% for BIMA (P < .001). Factors associated with HCR use were older age, lower body mass index, history of percutaneous coronary intervention, and 2-vessel disease. In propensity-matched groups, 30-day MACCE rates were comparable (3.3% for HCR vs 1.3% for BIMA [odds ratio (OR), 2.50; P = .12] and vs 3.6% for SIMA [OR, 1.00; P = 1.00]). In-hospital complications were lower after HCR versus SIMA or BIMA (OR, 0.59; P = .033 and OR, 0.55; P = .015, respectively), as was the need for blood transfusion (OR, 0.44; P < .001 and OR, 0.57; P < .001). HCR was associated with shorter hospital stay compared with SIMA (OR, 1.28; P = .038) or BIMA (OR, 1.40; P = .006). No survival difference between matched groups was found at midterm follow-up (HCR vs SIMA: hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-1.38; P = .66; HCR vs BIMA: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-2.29; P = .91). CONCLUSIONS: HCR may represent a safe, less invasive alternative to conventional CABG in carefully selected patients, with similar short-term and midterm outcomes as CABG performed with either SIMA or BIMA grafting.

Direct stenting of de novo coronary stenoses with tacrolimus-eluting versus carbon-coated carbostents. The randomized JUPITER II trial.

AIMS: Drug-eluting stents are being increasingly used for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. This trial compared the performance of tacrolimus-eluting stents (TES) with that of equivalent carbon-coated stents (CCS). METHODS AND RESULTS: The JUPITER II trial enrolled 332 patients (mean age = 64 years, 75% men) with de novo coronary stenoses. Patients were randomly assigned to TES versus CCS and underwent repeat coronary angiography at 6 months. The primary study endpoint was in-stent and in-segment late lumen loss (LLL). The main secondary endpoints included binary restenosis, and rates of major adverse clinical events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularisation and stent thrombosis at 1, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. The procedure was successful in 99.4% of patients in both groups. There was no procedural death, 1 cardiac death at 2 months, and 1 acute and 2 subacute CCS thromboses. Angiographic follow-ups were available in 94.4% and 95.1% of patients assigned to TES and CCS, respectively. The mean in-segment and in-stent LLL was 0.42+/-0.46 mm and 0.65+/-0.47 mm, respectively, in the TES, versus 0.48+/-0.52 mm and 0.66+/-0.53 mm, respectively, in the CCS group (ns). The 12-month cumulative MACE rate was 19.5% in the CCS versus 16.1% in the TES group (ns). CONCLUSIONS: Both stents showed high safety, with no stent thrombosis in the TES group. No difference was observed in 6-month angiographic results and 12-month MACE rates between TES and CCS.