Dynamic Coronary Roadmap versus standard angiography for percutaneous coronary intervention: the randomised, multicentre DCR4Contrast trial.

BACKGROUND: Decreasing the amount of iodinated contrast is an important safety aspect of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), particularly in patients with a high risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI). Dynamic Coronary Roadmap (DCR) is a PCI navigation support tool projecting a motion-compensated virtual coronary roadmap overlay on fluoroscopy, potentially limiting the need for contrast during PCI. AIMS: This study investigates the contrast-sparing potential of DCR in PCI, compared to standard angiographic guidance. METHODS: The Dynamic Coronary Roadmap for Contrast Reduction (DCR4Contrast) trial is a multicentre, international, prospective, unblinded, stratified 1:1 randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to either DCR-guided PCI or to conventional angiography-guided PCI. The primary endpoint was the total volume of iodinated contrast administered, and the secondary endpoint was the number of cineangiography runs during PCI. RESULTS: The study population included 356 randomised patients (179 in DCR and 177 in control groups, respectively). There were no differences in patient demographics, angiographic characteristics or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the two groups. The total contrast volume used during PCI was significantly lower with DCR guidance compared with conventional angiographic guidance (64.6±44.4 ml vs 90.8±55.4 ml, respectively; p<0.001). The total number of cineangiography runs was also significantly reduced in the DCR group (8.7±4.7 vs 11.7±7.6 in the control group; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional angiography-guided PCI, DCR guidance was associated with a significant reduction in both contrast volume and the number of cineangiography runs during PCI. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04085614).

Evolut PRO and SAPIEN ULTRA Performance in Small Aortic Annuli: The OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli. METHODS: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Sex-Related Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: Insights from the OPERA-TAVI Registry.

Evidence regarding gender-related differences in response to transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to the valve type is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gender on the treatment effect of Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices on clinical outcomes. The Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OPERA-TAVI) is a multicenter, multinational registry including patients who underwent the latest-iteration PRO or ULTRA implantation. Overall, 1,174 of 1,897 patients were matched based on valve type and compared according to gender, whereas 470 men and 630 women were matched and compared according to valve type. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. In the PRO and ULTRA groups, men had a higher co-morbidity burden, whereas women had smaller aortic root. The 30-day (device success [DS], early safety outcome, permanent pacemaker implantation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular regurgitation, bleedings, vascular complications, and all-cause death) and 1-year outcomes (all-cause death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization) did not differ according to gender in both valve groups. However, the male gender decreased the likelihood of 30-day DS with ULTRA versus PRO (p for interaction = 0.047). A higher risk of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation and 1-year stroke and a lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed in PRO versus ULTRA, regardless of gender. In conclusion, gender did not modify the treatment effect of PRO versus ULTRA on clinical outcomes, except for 30-day DS, which was decreased in men (vs women) who received ULTRA (vs PRO).