Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the dual-seal mechanism of the Amulet LAA occluder compared with the Watchman device. METHODS: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo percutaneous implantation of a LAA occluder with the Amulet occluder or Watchman device. The primary end points included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and the rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Prespecified secondary end points included a composite of all stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months, major bleeding at 18 months, and superiority test of the 3 primary end points. RESULTS: A total of 1878 patients were enrolled. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary safety end point (14.5% versus 14.7%; difference=-0.14 [95% CI, -3.42 to 3.13]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding and all-cause death were similar between groups (10.6% versus 10.0% and 3.9% versus 5.1%, respectively). Procedure-related complications were higher for the Amulet occluder (4.5% versus 2.5%), largely related to more frequent pericardial effusion and device embolization. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary effectiveness end point (2.8% versus 2.8%; difference=0.00 [95% CI, -1.55 to 1.55]; P<0.001 for noninferiority), and the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death (5.6% versus 7.7%, difference=-2.12 [95% CI, -4.45 to 0.21]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of major bleeding was similar between groups (11.6% versus 12.3%; difference=-0.71 [95% CI, -3.72 to 2.31]; P=0.32 for superiority). LAA occlusion was higher for the Amulet occluder than for the Watchman device (98.9% versus 96.8%; difference=2.03 [95% CI, 0.41-3.66]; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.003 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: The Amulet occluder was noninferior for safety and effectiveness of stroke prevention for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared with the Watchman device and superior for LAA occlusion. Procedure-related complications were higher with the Amulet occluder and decreased with operator experience. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02879448.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Durable Polymer Cobalt-Chromium Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk: A Patient-Level Stratified Analysis From Four Postapproval Studies.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent are unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate long-term adverse events in HBR patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: We analyzed stratified data from 4 all-comers postapproval registries. Patients with at least 1 of the following criteria were categorized as HBR: age ≥75 years, history of major bleeding (MB), history of stroke, chronic oral anticoagulant use, chronic kidney disease, anemia, or thrombocytopenia. Additionally, in a separate analysis, patients were categorized according to the recently published Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for time-to-event analyses. Coronary thrombotic events (CTE) included myocardial infarction or definite/probable stent thrombosis. MB was defined according to the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) or GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) scales. Impact of CTE and MB on subsequent risk of mortality was assessed using multivariable Cox regression with MB and CTE included as time-updated covariates. RESULTS: Of the total 10 502 patients included, 3507 (33%) were identified as HBR. Compared with non-HBR patients, those at HBR had more comorbidities, higher lesion complexity, and a higher risk of 4-year mortality (Hazard Ratio [HR] 4.38 [95% CI, 3.76-5.11]). Results were qualitatively similar when using Academic Research Consortium criteria to define HBR. Risk of mortality was increased after CTE (HR 5.02 [95% CI, 3.93-6.41]), as well as after MB (HR 4.92 [95% CI, 3.82-6.35]). Of note, this effect was consistent across the spectrum of bleeding risk (P-interaction test 0.97 and 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the non-HBR population, HBR patients experienced worse 4-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. Both CTE and MB had a significant impact on subsequent risk of mortality irrespective of bleeding risk.

Self-expanding intra-annular versus commercially available transcatheter heart valves in high and extreme risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (PORTICO IDE): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trial data assessing the safety and efficacy of the self-expanding intra-annular Portico transcatheter aortic valve system (Abbott Structural Heart, St Paul, MN, USA) compared with any commercially available valves are needed to compare performance among designs. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (the Portico Re-sheathable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System US Investigational Device Exemption trial [PORTICO IDE]), high and extreme risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis were recruited from 52 medical centres experienced in performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the USA and Australia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 21 years or older, in New York Heart Association functional class II or higher, and had severe native aortic stenosis. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) and stratified by clinical investigational site, surgical risk cohort, and vascular access method, to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the first generation Portico valve and delivery system or a commercially available valve (either an intra-annular balloon-expandable Edwards-SAPIEN, SAPIEN XT, or SAPIEN 3 valve [Edwards LifeSciences, Irvine, CA, USA]; or a supra-annular self-expanding CoreValve, Evolut-R, or Evolut-PRO valve [Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA]). Investigational site staff, implanting physician, and study participant were unmasked to treatment assignment. Core laboratories and clinical event assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, life-threatening bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, or major vascular complication at 30 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1 year. Clinical outcomes and valve performance were assessed up to 2 years after the procedure. Primary analyses were by intention to treat and the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates. The non-inferiority margin was 8·5% for primary safety and 8·0% for primary efficacy endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02000115, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Sept 12, 2014, and between Aug 21, 2015, and Oct 10, 2017, with recruitment paused for 11 months by the funder, we recruited 1034 patients, of whom 750 were eligible and randomly assigned to the Portico valve group (n=381) or commercially available valve group (n=369). Mean age was 83 years (SD 7) and 395 (52·7%) patients were female. For the primary safety endpoint at 30 days, the event rate was higher in the Portico valve group than in the commercial valve group (52 [13·8%] vs 35 [9·6%]; absolute difference 4·2, 95% CI -0·4 to 8·8 [upper confidence bound {UCB} 8·1%]; pnon-inferiority=0·034, psuperiority=0·071). At 1 year, the rates of the primary efficacy endpoint were similar between the groups (55 [14·8%] in the Portico group vs 48 [13·4%] in the commercial valve group; difference 1·5%, 95% CI -3·6 to 6·5 [UCB 5·7%]; pnon-inferiority=0·0058, psuperiority=0·50). At 2 years, rates of death (80 [22·3%] vs 70 [20·2%]; p=0·40) or disabling stroke (10 [3·1%] vs 16 [5·0%]; p=0·23) were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: The Portico valve was associated with similar rates of death or disabling stroke at 2 years compared with commercial valves, but was associated with higher rates of the primary composite safety endpoint including death at 30 days. The first-generation Portico valve and delivery system did not offer advantages over other commercially available valves. FUNDING: Abbott.

Design and rationale of the XIENCE short DAPT clinical program: An assessment of the safety of 3-month and 1-month DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk undergoing PCI with an everolimus-eluting stent.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is key for the prevention of recurrent ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, it increases the risk of bleeding complications. While new generation drug-eluting stents have been shown superior to bare-metal stents after a short DAPT course, the optimal DAPT duration in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) remains to be determined. TRIAL DESIGN: The XIENCE Short DAPT program consists of three prospective, single-arm studies (XIENCE 90, XIENCE 28 Global and XIENCE 28 USA) investigating 3- or 1-month DAPT durations in HBR patients undergoing PCI with the XIENCE stent. The XIENCE 90 study is being conducted in the US and enrolled 2047 subjects who discontinued DAPT at 3 months if they were free from myocardial infarction (MI), repeat coronary revascularization, stroke, or stent thrombosis. The XIENCE 28 program includes the USA study, enrolling 642 patients in US and Canada, and the Global study, enrolling 963 patients in Europe and Asia. In XIENCE 28, patients were to discontinue DAPT at 1 month post-PCI if event-free. The primary hypothesis for both XIENCE 90 and XIENCE 28 is that a short DAPT regimen will be non-inferior to a conventional DAPT duration with respect to the composite of all-cause death or MI. Patients enrolled in the prospective multicenter post-market XIENCE V USA study will be used as historical control group in a stratified propensity-adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The XIENCE Short DAPT Program will provide insights into the safety and efficacy of 2 abbreviated DAPT regimens of 3- and 1-month duration in a large cohort of HBR patients undergoing PCI with the XIENCE stent.

The need for future coronary access following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The aim of the study was to estimate the percentage of Medicare patients needing coronary access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary angiography following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Indications for TAVR have expanded to include younger and low-risk patients, raising the question of coronary access for future procedures. Medicare patients <80 years old with an AVR between 2011 and 2018 were included. Time-to-event analyses were conducted using Cox hazard models to estimate risk of coronary access up to 7 years after AVR. Model adjustments included age, sex, race, region, comorbidity, concomitant CABG, and smoking. A total of 13,469 Medicare patients (mean age 70.6) met inclusion criteria. Models estimated that 2.5% of patients at 1-year post-index and 17% at over 7 years would need coronary access. For patients who had SAVR (with or without CABG), estimates for coronary access were similar and over 15% after 6.5 years. For TAVR patients, with a previous PCI, 28% at 4.5 years required coronary access, which was higher than TAVR patients without a previous PCI. SAVR patients with and without CAD at baseline were similar; however, TAVR patients with CAD had a 22% rate of coronary access versus 7% for those without at 3 years. Approximately half of patients who needed coronary access returned to the same hospital as their initial AVR. Coronary access is required in a substantial portion of AVR patients especially those with PCI or a history of CAD undergoing TAVR. The need for coronary access may increase as transcatheter AVR becomes accessible to younger patients with a longer life expectancy.

Comparative influence of bleeding and ischemic risk factors on diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of ischemic and bleeding risk factors on long-term clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: Second-generation drug-eluting stents have substantially improved outcomes after PCI in the general population; however, DM patients continue to experience high rates of ischemic and bleeding complications. METHODS: DM patients from the pooled XIENCE V registry were divided into high or low bleeding and ischemic risk groups (HBR, LBR, HIR, and LIR) based on established bleeding (age ≥ 75 years; chronic kidney disease; anemia; prior stroke; oral anticoagulation; thrombocytopenia; prior major bleeding) and ischemic (acute coronary syndrome; prior myocardial infarction [MI]; ≥3 stents implanted; ≥3 vessels treated; ≥3 lesions treated; stent length > 60 mm; bifurcation treated with ≥2 stents; chronic total occlusion) risk factors. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, MI, or stent thrombosis) and major bleeding at 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3,704 DM patients were divided into four groups (21.5% LBR/LIR; 39.0% LBR/HIR; 15.6% HBR/LIR; 23.9% HBR/HIR). Compared with LBR/LIR patients, those at HBR/HIR and HBR/LIR had a significantly higher risk of MACE (HR (95% CI) 2.7 (1.9-3.9) and 2.2 (1.5-3.2), respectively) and major bleeding (2.7 (1.6-4.8) and 2.6 (1.4-4.7), respectively), while LBR/HIR patients did not. CONCLUSIONS: Among DM patients undergoing PCI, presence of bleeding risk factors was associated with a higher risk of both ischemic and bleeding events, whereas commonly used features of ischemic risk did not impact long-term clinical outcomes.

Early outcomes from the CLASP IID trial roll-in cohort for prohibitive risk patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation.

OBJECTIVES: We report the 30-day outcomes from the roll-in cohort of the CLASP IID trial, representing the first procedures performed by each site. BACKGROUND: The currently enrolling CLASP IID/IIF pivotal trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial assessing the safety and effectiveness of the PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system in patients with clinically significant MR. The trial allows for up to three roll-in patients per site. METHODS: Eligibility criteria were: DMR ≥3+, prohibitive surgical risk, and deemed suitable for transcatheter repair by the local heart team. Trial oversight included a central screening committee and echocardiographic core laboratory. The primary safety endpoint was a 30-day composite MAE: cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), new need for renal replacement therapy, severe bleeding, and non-elective mitral valve re-intervention, adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Thirty-day echocardiographic, functional, and quality of life outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 45 roll-in patients with mean age of 83 years and 69% in NYHA class III/IV were treated. Successful implantation was achieved in 100%. The 30-day composite MAE rate was 8.9% including one cardiovascular death (2.2%) due to severe bleeding from a hemorrhagic stroke, one MI, and no need for re-intervention. MR≤1+ was achieved in 73% and ≤2+ in 98% of patients. 89% of patients were in NYHA class I/II (p < .001) with improvements in 6MWD (30 m; p = .054) and KCCQ (17 points; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Early results representing sites with first experience with the PASCAL repair system showed favorable 30-day outcomes in patients with DMR≥3+ at prohibitive surgical risk.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Impact of renal function in high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a patient-level stratified analysis from four post-approval studies.

Data on ischemic and bleeding outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are scarce. We aimed to evaluate the association between CKD and ischemic and bleeding outcomes in HBR patients who underwent PCI. Among 10,502 patients in the four post-approval registries evaluating patients undergoing PCI, 2,300 patients presented with at least one major or two minor ARC-HBR criteria. CKD was defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. These HBR patients were divided into 3 groups: eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 defined as severe CKD (N = 221), eGFR 30- < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 defined as moderate CKD (N = 970), eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 defined as no CKD (N = 1,109). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis, and the safety endpoint was major bleeding up to 4-year follow-up. HBR patients with CKD were more often female and had higher rates of comorbidities compared to those without CKD. Reduced renal function was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint (severe CKD vs. moderate CKD vs. no CKD: 30.2% vs. 12.5% vs. 9.1%, P < 0.01) as well as major bleeding (10.3% vs. 8.9% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.03). After adjustment, severe CKD and moderate CKD in HBR patients remained independent predictors for the primary endpoint (HR [95%CI] 2.84 [1.94-4.16], P < 0.01, 1.48 [1.10-2.00], P < 0.01) compared to those with no CKD. However, decreased renal function was no longer significantly associated with major bleeding after adjustment. In conclusions, in HBR patients undergoing PCI, CKD has an important impact on major ischemic events after PCI.

Triage considerations for patients referred for structural heart disease intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ACC/SCAI position statement.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment, as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions 2020 think tank.

The society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) think tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2020 think tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease (CHD). Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's emerging leader mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialogue from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI and the industry community in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Rationale and design for AMPLATZER Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE randomized controlled trial (Amulet IDE Trial).

The Amulet IDE Trial is an ongoing, prospective, randomized, multi-national trial, designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the AMPLATZER Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder for stroke prevention in comparison to the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients at high risk of stroke (CHADS2 score ≥2 or a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥3) who are suitable candidates for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) will be fully informed and requested to participate in the trial. A total of 1878 patients at up to 150 sites worldwide will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the AMPLATZER Amulet device (investigational) and the Boston Scientific WATCHMAN device (control). Each patient will be followed for 5 years, with follow-up assessments at discharge, 45 days, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months and then annually. The trial has three primary endpoints: A composite of procedure-related complications, or all-cause death, or major bleeding through 12 months (safety); a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism through 18 months (effectiveness); and effective device LAAO, defined as residual jet around the device ≤5 mm at the 45-day visit (mechanism of action). SUMMARY: The Amulet IDE Trial is the first randomized head-to-head LAAO device trial and will provide data for the AMPLATZER Amulet occluder in a population with a high risk of stroke and bleeding.

Treatment of Bifurcation Lesions: Has DK Crush"ed" the Competition?

PURPOSE: This paper reviews the double-kiss crush (DK crush) technique in coronary artery bifurcation lesions. The technical aspects of the procedure and the clinical data supporting its use are summarized. RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized studies support the adoption of DK technique in complex bifurcation lesions for both left main and non-left-main lesions. For true bifurcation lesions, DK crush may become the default technique for lesions in which the side-branch disease is complex and long. Optimal technique is essential for obtaining the clinical outcomes noted in the DKCRUSH randomized studies.

Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended after coronary stenting to prevent thrombotic complications, yet the benefits and risks of treatment beyond 1 year are uncertain. METHODS: Patients were enrolled after they had undergone a coronary stent procedure in which a drug-eluting stent was placed. After 12 months of treatment with a thienopyridine drug (clopidogrel or prasugrel) and aspirin, patients were randomly assigned to continue receiving thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo for another 18 months; all patients continued receiving aspirin. The coprimary efficacy end points were stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during the period from 12 to 30 months. The primary safety end point was moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 9961 patients were randomly assigned to continue thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo. Continued treatment with thienopyridine, as compared with placebo, reduced the rates of stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.4%; hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.17 to 0.48]; P<0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.3% vs. 5.9%; hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85]; P<0.001). The rate of myocardial infarction was lower with thienopyridine treatment than with placebo (2.1% vs. 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.47; P<0.001). The rate of death from any cause was 2.0% in the group that continued thienopyridine therapy and 1.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.85]; P=0.05). The rate of moderate or severe bleeding was increased with continued thienopyridine treatment (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P=0.001). An elevated risk of stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction was observed in both groups during the 3 months after discontinuation of thienopyridine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after placement of a drug-eluting stent, as compared with aspirin therapy alone, significantly reduced the risks of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. (Funded by a consortium of eight device and drug manufacturers and others; DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00977938.).

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: We compared transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), using a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and an increased risk of death during surgery. METHODS: We recruited patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk as determined by the heart team at each study center. Risk assessment included the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predictor Risk of Mortality estimate and consideration of other key risk factors. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to TAVR with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (TAVR group) or to surgical aortic-valve replacement (surgical group). The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause at 1 year, evaluated with the use of both noninferiority and superiority testing. RESULTS: A total of 795 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. In the as-treated analysis, the rate of death from any cause at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgical group (14.2% vs. 19.1%), with an absolute reduction in risk of 4.9 percentage points (upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval, -0.4; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.04 for superiority). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis. In a hierarchical testing procedure, TAVR was noninferior with respect to echocardiographic indexes of valve stenosis, functional status, and quality of life. Exploratory analyses suggested a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and no increase in the risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Medtronic; U.S. CoreValve High Risk Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01240902.).

Durability of quality of life benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Long-term results from the CoreValve US extreme risk trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at extreme surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leads to improved survival and health status when compared with medical therapy. Whether the early health status benefits of TAVR in these patients are sustained beyond 1 year of follow-up is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-nine patients with severe AS at extreme surgical risk underwent TAVR in the CoreValve US Extreme Risk Pivotal trial. Health status was evaluated at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Short-Form-12, and the EuroQoL-5D. Analyses were performed using pattern mixture models to account for both death and missing data and were stratified by iliofemoral (IF) and non-iliofemoral (non-IF) access. After TAVR, there was substantial health status improvement in disease-specific and generic scales by 6 to 12 months. Although there were small declines in health status after 12 months, the initial benefits of TAVR were largely sustained through 3 years for both IF and non-IF cohorts (change from baseline in KCCQ Overall Summary score 19.0 points in IF patients and 14.9 points in non-IF patients; P<.01 for both comparisons). Among surviving patients, clinically meaningful (≥10 point) improvements in the KCCQ Overall Summary Score at 3 years were observed in 85.0% and 83.4% of IF and non-IF patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among extreme risk patients with severe AS, TAVR resulted in large initial health status benefits that were sustained through 3-year follow-up. Although late mortality was high in this population, these findings demonstrate that TAVR offers substantial and durable health status improvements for surviving patients.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: Clinical outcomes from randomized controlled trials.

The permanent metal prosthesis common to bare metal stents (BMS) as well as both first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) following treatment of coronary artery disease represents a long-lasting substrate for late adverse coronary events including restenosis, thrombosis, and neoatherosclerosis. Following resorbtion, bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) may eliminate this nidus and improve late outcomes through restoration of the vessel to more normal vascular structure and function. BRS represents a single platform which incorporates the mechanical features of metallic stents to provide safe and effective revascularization, suppression of restenosis and prevention of constrictive remodeling with long-term restoration of the treated vessel to a more natural state. The landscape of BRS is rapidly evolving with new materials which target various performance goals for the duration of vascular support and polymer resorption time. The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS), recently approved by United States Food and Drug Administration, has extensive clinical evidence to date in support of its clinical efficacy and safety. Recently published data from well-executed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as part of the ABSORB Clinical development program along with other investigator-initiated trials provide insights into the safety and performance of this device in patients with de novo coronary lesions as well in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This review provides a comprehensive, outcomes based understanding of the available evidence from RCTs that offer head-to-head comparisons of Absorb BVS with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES). © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Clinical outcomes in real-world patients with bifurcation lesions receiving Xience V everolimus-eluting stents: Four-year results from the Xience V USA study.

BACKGROUND: The Xience V USA Study demonstrated safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V(®) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in a large, prospective study of a real-world, unselected patient population. There is limited long-term data regarding EES performance in high risk patients with bifurcation lesions (BIF). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of EES in patients with BIF from the XIENCE V USA study. METHODS: The Xience V USA Study was a single arm, prospective, multicenter, real-world study (n = 5,054) undergoing PCI with EES. Baseline data and clinical outcomes at 4 years were evaluated in the subgroup of patients with ≥ 1 BIF who did not undergo a staged procedure. Co-primary endpoints were ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis and a composite of cardiac death and ARC-defined myocardial infarction (MI). Endpoints were adjudicated by an independent CEC. RESULTS: Of 4,768 patients who did not undergo a staged procedure, there were 511 (10.7%) patients with BIF and 4,257 (89.3%) patients without BIF. Follow-up data was available in 4,459 patients (466 BIF, 3,993 non-BIF). Through binary outcome analysis, at 1 year the overall definite/probable stent thrombosis rates were higher in the BIF group (1.84% vs. 0.76%, P = 0.03). However, at 4 years, the difference in cumulative rates of ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis (BIF 2.3% vs. non-BIF 1.4%, P = 0.13) remained the same as that at 1 year, with no incremental definite/probable stent thrombosis in BIF patients from 2-4 years. The 4-year rates of composite cardiac death and MI were 13.5% for BIF vs. 14.1% for non-BIF (P = 0.78). At 4 years, target lesion failure (19.1% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.66) and ischemia driven-target lesion revascularization (10.2% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.89) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This subgroup analysis of BIF lesions in a real world population receiving EES demonstrates continued low rates of clinical outcomes in the BIF subgroup at 4 years with no incremental stent thrombosis increase in BIF patients from 2 to 4 years. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.