Long-term follow-up of balloon-expandable valves according to the implantation strategy: insight from the DIRECTAVI trial.

BACKGROUND: Safety and feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) using the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable device has been previously demonstrated. The impact on long-term valve hemodynamic performances and outcomes remains however unknown. We evaluate long-term clinical and hemodynamic results according to the implant strategy (direct TAVR vs BAV pre-TAVR) in patients included in the DIRECTAVI randomized trial (NCT02729519). METHODS: Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up until January 2023 was performed for all patients included in the DIRECTAVI trial since 2016 (n = 228). The primary endpoint was incidence of moderate/severe hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD), according to the Valve Academic Research defined Consortium-3 criteria (increase in mean gradient ≥10 mmHg resulting in a final mean gradient ≥20 mmHg, or new/worsening aortic regurgitation of 1 grade resulting in ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3.8 (2.2-4.7) years. Mean age at follow-up was 87 ± 6.7 years. No difference in incidence of HVD in the direct implantation group compared to the BAV group was found (incidence of 1.97 per 100 person-years and 1.45 per 100 person-years, respectively, P = 0.6). Prevalence of predicted prothesis-patient mismatch was low (n = 13 [11.4%] in the direct TAVR group vs n = 15 [13.2%] in BAV group) and similar between both groups (P = .7). Major outcomes including death, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure and pacemaker implantation were similar between both groups, (P = .4, P = .7, P = .3, and P = .3 respectively). CONCLUSION: Direct implantation of the balloon-expandable device in TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of moderate/severe HVD or major outcomes up to 6-year follow-up. These results guarantee wide use of direct balloon-expandable valve implantation, when feasible. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05140317.

Balloon predilation or direct valve implantation in TAVI for women: Insights from the DIRECTAVI study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized DIRECTAVI trial demonstrated safety and feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) using SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable devices. However, the female population with smaller anatomy may have potential higher risk of residual gradient and/or mismatch. PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of BAV on the procedural success rate and clinical outcomes in the female population of the DIRECTAVI trial. METHODS: Between May 2016 and May 2018, 91 of the 250 patients included in the DIRECTAVI trial were women (38.6%), 45 of them (49.5%) were enrolled in the BAV group and 46 of them (50.5%) in the direct TAVI group. The primary endpoint was procedural success rate in women (Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria). The secondary endpoint included evaluation of PPM and 1-month major adverse events according to the implantation stategy in women and comparison between men and women regarding major endpoints. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 29 women (64.4%) in the BAV group and in 34 women (73.9%) in the direct TAVI group (mean difference 9.47%; 95% confidence interval: 6.5%-25.4%; p = 0.045 for non-inferiority of the direct strategy). One-month major adverse events were similar between the 2 women groups. Procedural success was lower in women vs men (p = 0.01) due to higher incidence of moderate mismatches in women (p = 0.001) but with no significant difference regarding the implantation strategy (p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Direct implantation of the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve was non-inferior to predilatation on procedural success in women. Incidence of moderate mismatch was higher in women but was not related to the implantation strategy.

Association of Use and Dose of Lipid-Lowering Therapy Post Acute Myocardial Infarction With 5-Year Survival in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Older people are underrepresented in randomized trials. The association between lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and its intensity after acute myocardial infarction and long-term mortality in this population deserves to be assessed. METHODS: The FAST-MI (French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation or Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) program consists of nationwide French surveys including all patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction ≤48 hours from onset over a 1- to 2-month period in 2005, 2010, and 2015, with long-term follow-up. Numerous data were collected and a centralized 10-year follow-up was organized. The present analysis focused on the association between prescription of LLT (atorvastatin ≥40 mg or equivalent, or any combination of statin and ezetimibe) and 5-year mortality in patients aged ≥80 years discharged alive. Cox multivariable analysis and propensity score matching were used to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Among the 2258 patients aged ≥80 years (mean age, 85±4 years; 51% women; 39% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 58% with percutaneous coronary intervention), 415 were discharged without LLT (18%), 866 with conventional doses (38%), and 977 with high-dose LLT (43%). Five-year survival was 36%, 47.5%, and 58%, respectively. Compared with patients without LLT, high-dose LLT was significantly associated with lower 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]), whereas conventional-intensity LLT was not (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.80-1.09]). In propensity score-matched cohorts (n=278 receiving high-intensity LLT and n=278 receiving no statins), 5-year survival was 52% with high-intensity LLT at discharge and 42% without statins (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: In these observational cohorts, high-intensity LLT at discharge after acute myocardial infarction was associated with reduced all-cause mortality at 5 years in an older adult population. These results suggest that high-intensity LLT should not be denied to patients on the basis of old age. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00673036, NCT01237418, and NCT02566200.

Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether ticagrelor in chronic coronary syndrome patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can prevent cardiovascular events is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate outcomes of complex PCI and the efficacy of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in stable patients randomized in the ALPHEUS (Assessment of Loading with the P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor or clopidogrel to Halt ischemic Events in patients Undergoing elective coronary Stenting) trial. METHODS: All PCI procedures were blindly reviewed and classified as complex if they had at least 1 of the following criteria: stent length >60 mm, 2-stent bifurcation, left main, bypass graft, chronic total occlusion, use of atherectomy or guiding catheter extensions, multiwire technique, multiple stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of type 4a or b myocardial infarction (MI) and major myocardial injury during the 48 hours after PCI. We compared the event rates according to the presence or not of complex PCI criteria and evaluated the interaction with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. RESULTS: Among the 1,866 patients randomized, 910 PCI (48.3%) were classified as complex PCI. The primary endpoint was more frequent in complex PCI (45.6% vs 26.6%; P < 0.001) driven by higher rates of type 4 MI and angiographic complications (12.2% vs 4.8 %; P < 0.001 and 19.3% vs 8.6%; P < 0.05, respectively). The composite of death, MI, and stroke at 48 hours (12.7% vs 5.1 %; P < 0.05) and at 30 days (13.4% vs 5.3%; P < 0.05) was more frequent in complex PCI. No interaction was found between PCI complexity and the randomized treatment for the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.47) nor the secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic coronary syndrome, patients undergoing a complex PCI have higher rates of periprocedural and cardiovascular events that are not reduced by ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel.

Clinical effects of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Insights from the nationwide FRANCE-TAVI registry.

BACKGROUND: The influence of permanent pacemaker implantation upon outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains controversial. AIMS: To evaluate the impact of permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI on short- and long-term mortality, and on the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. METHODS: Data from the large FRANCE-TAVI registry, linked to the French national health single-payer claims database, were analysed to compare 30-day and long-term mortality rates and hospitalization for heart failure rates among patients with versus without permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI. Multivariable regressions were performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 36,549 patients (mean age 82.6years; 51.6% female) who underwent TAVI from 2013 to 2019 were included in the present analysis. Among them, 6999 (19.1%) received permanent pacemaker implantation during the index hospitalization, whereas 232 (0.6%) underwent permanent pacemaker implantation between hospital discharge and 30days after TAVI, at a median of 11 (interquartile range: 7-18) days. In-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation was not associated with an increased risk of death between discharge and 30days (adjusted odds ratio: 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.29). At 5years, the incidence of all-cause death was higher among patients with versus without permanent pacemaker implantation within 30days of the procedure (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.19). Permanent pacemaker implantation within 30days of TAVI was also associated with a higher 5-year rate of hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted subhazard ratio: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI is associated with an increased risk of long-term hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality. Further research to mitigate the risk of postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation is needed as TAVI indications expand to lower-risk patients.

Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in Clopidogrel-Naive Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether ticagrelor may reduce periprocedural myocardial necrosis after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy before undergoing elective PCI. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of the ALPHEUS (Assessment of Loading With the P2Y12 Inhibitor Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel to Halt Ischemic Events in Patients Undergoing Elective Coronary Stenting) trial, patients were defined as clopidogrel(+) and clopidogrel(-) according to the presence and absence of clopidogrel treatment for ≥7 days before PCI, respectively. The primary endpoint was the composite of PCI-related myocardial infarction and major injury as defined by the third and fourth universal definition 48 hours after PCI. RESULTS: A total of 1,882 patients were included, 805 (42.7%) of whom were clopidogrel(+). These patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had more frequent features of complex PCI. The primary endpoint was less frequently present in clopidogrel(-) compared to clopidogrel(+) patients (32.8% vs 40.0%; OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60-0.88), but no significant differences were reported for the risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack at 48 hours or 30 days. Ticagrelor did not reduce periprocedural myocardial necrosis or the risk of adverse outcomes, and there was no significant interaction regarding the presence of chronic clopidogrel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel-naive patients presented less periprocedural complications compared to clopidogrel(+) patients, a difference related to a lower risk profile and less complex PCI. The absence of clopidogrel at baseline did not affect the absence of a difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in terms of PCI-related complications supporting the use of clopidogrel as the standard of care in elective PCI in patients with or without chronic clopidogrel treatment.

Flecainide to prevent atrial arrhythmia after patent foramen ovale closure, Rationale and design of the randomized AFLOAT study.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial arrhythmia is the most common complication of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure. The real incidence of post-PFO closure atrial arrhytmia and whether this complication can be prevented is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: The Assessment of Flecainide to Lower the PFO closure risk of Atrial fibrillation or Tachycardia (AFLOAT) trial is a prospective, national, multicentre, randomized, open-label, superiority trial with a blind evaluation of all the endpoints (PROBE design). A total of 186 patients are randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio immediately after PFO closure to receive Flecainide (150 mg per day in a single sustained-release (SR) dose) for 6 months (Group 1), Flecainide (150 mg per day in a single SR dose) for 3 months (Group 2), or no additional treatment (standard of care) for 6 months (Group 3). The primary endpoint is the percentage of patients with at least one episode of symptomatic or asymptomatic atrial arrhythmia episode (≥30 s) recorded within 3 months after PFO closure on long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor. Whether 3 months of treatment is sufficient compared to 6 months will be analysed as a secondary objective of the study. CONCLUSION: AFLOAT is the first trial to test the hypothesis that a short treatment with oral Flecainide can prevent the new-onset of atrial arrhythmia after PFO closure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05213104 (clinicaltrials.gov).

PRADOC: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Efficiency of PRADO-IC, a Nationwide Pragmatic Transition Care Management Plan for Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure in France.

BACKGROUND: The PRADO-IC (Programme de Retour à Domicile après une Insuffisance Cardiaque) is a transition care program designed to improve the coordination of care between hospital and home that was generalized in France in 2014. The PRADO-IC consists of an administrative assistant who visits patients during hospitalization to schedule follow-up visits. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the PRADO-IC program based on the hypotheses provided by health authorities. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRADOC study is a multicenter, controlled, randomized, open-label, mixed-method trial of the transition program PRADO-IC versus usual management in patients hospitalized with heart failure (standard of care group; NCT03396081). A total of 404 patients were recruited between April 2018 and May 2021. The mean patient age was 75 years (±12 years) in both groups. The 2 groups were well balanced regarding severity indices. At discharge, patients homogeneously received the recommended drugs. There was no difference between groups regarding hospitalizations for acute heart failure at 1 year, with 24.60% in the standard of care group and 25.40% in the PRADO-IC group during the year following the index hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.56]; P=0.85) or cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.34-1.31]; P=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: The PRADO-IC has not significantly improved clinical outcomes, though a trend toward reduced cardiovascular mortality is evident. These results will help in understanding how transitional care programs remain to be integrated in pathways of current patients, including telemonitoring, and to better tailor individualized approaches. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03396081.

Rationale and design of the FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation (FRENCHIE) study.

BACKGROUND: Despite major advances in prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases - particularly acute myocardial infarction - remain a leading cause of death worldwide and in France. Collecting contemporary data about the characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction in France is important. AIMS: The main objectives are to describe baseline characteristics, contemporary management, in-hospital and long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized in tertiary care centres in France; secondary objectives are to investigate determinants of prognosis (including periodontal disease and sleep-disordered breathing), to identify gaps between evidence-based recommendations and management and to assess medical care costs for the index hospitalization and during the follow-up period. METHODS: FRENCHIE (FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation) is an ongoing prospective multicentre observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04050956) enrolling more than 19,000 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction with onset of symptoms within 48hours in 35 participating centres in France since March 2019. Main exclusion criteria are age<18 years, lack of health coverage and procedure-related myocardial infarction (types 4a and 5). Detailed information was collected prospectively, starting at admission, including demographic data, risk factors, medical history and treatments, initial management, with prehospital care pathways and medication doses, and outcomes until hospital discharge. The follow-up period (up to 20 years for each patient) is ensured by linking with the French national health database (Système national des données de santé), and includes information on death, hospital admissions, major clinical events, healthcare consumption (including drug reimbursement) and total healthcare costs. FRENCHIE is also used as a platform for cohort-nested studies - currently three randomized trials and two observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide large contemporary cohort with very long-term follow-up will improve knowledge about acute myocardial infarction management and outcomes in France, and provide a useful platform for nested studies and trials.

Three-Year Outcomes With Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided or Angiography-Guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the FLOWER-MI trial (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) showed that a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy was not superior to an angiography-guided strategy for treatment of noninfarct-related artery lesions regarding the 1-year risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. The extension phase of the trial was planned using the same primary outcome to determine whether a difference in outcomes would be observed with a longer follow-up. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease with successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR (n=586) or angiography (n=577). RESULTS: After 3 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 52 of 498 patients (9.40%) in the FFR-guided group and in 44 of 502 patients (8.17%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.79-1.77]; P=0.4). Death occurred in 22 patients (4.00%) in the FFR-guided group and in 23 (4.32%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.71]); nonfatal myocardial infarction in 23 (4.13%) and 14 (2.56%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.84-3.16]); and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 21 (3.83%) and 18 (3.36%; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.61-2.16]), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although event rates in the trial were lower than expected, in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization up to 3 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954.