ONCOR: design of the Dutch cardio-oncology registry.

BACKGROUND: The relative new subspecialty 'cardio-oncology' was established to meet the growing demand for an interdisciplinary approach to the management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular adverse events. In recent years, specialised cardio-oncology services have been implemented worldwide, which all strive to improve the cardiovascular health of cancer patients. However, limited data are currently available on the outcomes and experiences of these specialised services, and optimal strategies for cardio-oncological care have not been established. AIM: The ONCOR registry has been created for prospective data collection and evaluation of cardio-oncological care in daily practice. METHODS: Dutch hospitals using a standardised cardio-oncology care pathway are included in this national, multicentre, observational cohort study. All patients visiting these cardio-oncology services are eligible for study inclusion. Data collection at baseline consists of the (planned) cancer treatment and the cardiovascular risk profile, which are used to estimate the cardiotoxic risk. Information regarding invasive and noninvasive tests is collected during the time patients receive cardio-oncological care. Outcome data consist of the incidence of cardiovascular complications and major adverse cardiac events, and the impact of these events on the oncological treatment. DISCUSSION: Outcomes of the ONCOR registry may aid in gaining more insight into the incidence of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular complications. The registry facilitates research on mechanisms of cardiovascular complications and on diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic strategies. In addition, it provides a platform for future (interventional) studies. Centres with cardio-oncology services that are interested in contributing to the ONCOR registry are hereby invited to participate.

Randomised comparison of a balloon-expandable and self-expandable valve with quantitative assessment of aortic regurgitation using magnetic resonance imaging.

INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and effective treatment for inoperable, intermediate- or high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and has been associated with excellent clinical outcomes. A clinically relevant remaining problem is aortic regurgitation (AR) post-TAVI, which is associated with increased mortality. Therefore, we conducted a prospective randomised trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a first-generation self-expandable valve (SEV; CoreValve) and a third-generation balloon-expandable valve (BEV; Sapien 3) with respect to clinical outcomes and AR as determined quantitatively by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The ELECT study was an investigator-initiated, single-centre trial involving patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and with a clinical indication for transfemoral TAVI. Fifty-six patients were randomly assigned to the BEV or SEV group. RESULTS: AR determined quantitatively by MRI was lower in the BEV than in the SEV group [regurgitant fraction: 1.1% (0-8.0) vs 8.7% (3.0-14.8) for SEV; p = 0.01]. Secondary endpoints according to the criteria of the Second Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2) showed BEV to have better early safety [0 (0%) vs 8 (30%); p = 0.002] at 30 days and a lower risk of stroke [0 (0%) vs 5 (21%); p = 0.01], major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [0 (0%) vs 10 (38%); p < 0.001] or death [0 (0%) vs 5 (19%); p = 0.02] in the 1st year compared with SEV. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the latest generation of BEV was associated with less AR as quantitatively assessed by MRI. Although the use of MRI to quantify AR is not feasible in daily clinical practice, it should be considered as a surrogate endpoint for clinical outcomes in comparative studies of valves for TAVI. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01982032.

Rationale and design of the Edwards SAPIEN-3 periprosthetic leakage evaluation versus Medtronic CoreValve in transfemoral aortic valve implantation (ELECT) trial : A randomised comparison of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve prostheses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Periprosthetic aortic regurgitation (PPR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains an important issue associated with impaired long-term outcomes. The current randomised study aims to evaluate potential differences between the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN-3 and the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve system with the main focus on post-TAVI PPR by means of novel imaging endpoints, and an additional focus on other clinical endpoints. ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint of this study is quantitative assessment of the severity of post-procedural PPR using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Several other novel imaging modalities (X-ray contrast angiography, echocardiography) are used as secondary imaging modalities for the assessment of PPR following TAVI. Secondary objectives of the study include clinical outcomes such as cerebral and kidney injury related to TAVI, and quality of life. METHODS AND DESIGN: The ELECT study is a single-centre, prospective, two-armed randomised controlled trial. For the purpose of this study, 108 consecutive adult patients suitable for transfemoral TAVI will be randomly allocated to receive the SAPIEN-3 (n = 54) or the CoreValve system (n = 54). DISCUSSION: The ELECT trial is the first randomised controlled trial to quantitatively compare the extent of post-TAVI PPR between the SAPIEN-3 and CoreValve. Furthermore, it will evaluate potential differences between the two prostheses with regard to mid-term clinical outcome and quality of life.