Next-generation balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve in low-risk aortic stenosis patients.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes at 30-day follow-up of the balloon-expandable (BE) Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) in low-risk patients. BACKGROUND: The results of the next-generation BE Myval THV in low-risk aortic stenosis (AS) patients are still unknown. METHODS: Retrospective registry performed in nine European centers including patients with low predicted operative mortality risk according to Society of thoracic surgeons (STS) and European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE-II) scores. RESULTS: Between September 2019 and February 2021, a total of 100 patients (51% males, mean age 80 ± 6.5 years) were included. Mean STS score and EuroSCORE-II were 2.4 ± 0.8% and 2.2 ± 0.7%, respectively. Intermediate sizes were used in 39% (21.5 mm: 8%, 24.5 mm: 15%, 27.5 mm: 15%). There were no cases of valve embolization, coronary artery occlusion, annulus rupture, or procedural death. A definitive pacemaker implantation was needed in eight patients (8%). At 30-day follow-up aortic valve area (0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 2.1 ± 0.6 cm2 ) and mean aortic valve gradient (43.4 ± 11.1 vs. 9.0 ± 3.7 mmHg) improved significantly (p < 0.001). Moderate aortic regurgitation occurred in 4%. Endpoints of early safety and clinical efficacy were 3 and 1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic performance and 30-day clinical outcomes of the BE Myval THV in low-risk AS patients were favorable. Longer-term follow-up is warranted.

Balloon-Expandable TAVR Bioprostheses: Area or Perimeter Sizing? A Prospective Pilot Study.

Objective: In TAVR, area sizing is used for balloon-expandable (BE) valves, whereas self-expanding valves are sized to annulus perimeter. For BE valves, this seems illogical: these frames force a circular shape even on an ellipsoid annulus. This can potentially lead to relative undersizing when area sizing is being applied. We developed a perimeter-based sizing algorithm to evaluate the safety and feasibility of perimeter sizing for the Myval BE valve. Methods: In this prospective single-center study, 60 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the Myval BE valve were included. Perimeter sizing was used with limited oversizing of 3.7% ± 1.3% compared to the annulus perimeter. After TAVR, clinical outcomes were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. An echocardiographic follow-up took place at 30 days. Results: At 30 days, the need for PPI and stroke occurred in 2% and 3% of the patients, respectively. Moreover, cardiac death and moderate-severe PVL were absent. At 1-year, cardiac death and stroke were observed in 3% and 8% of the patients, respectively. In 33.3% of the patients, a larger valve size was implanted compared to the valve size calculated by area sizing. Conclusions: Perimeter sizing with the Myval BE valve leads to substantial use of larger valve sizes and favorable clinical outcomes, with low PPI and the absence of significant PVL. A randomized controlled trial is being planned to prove the superiority of this alternative sizing method.

Final five-year results of the REMEDEE Registry: Real-world experience with the dual-therapy COMBO stent.

OBJECTIVES: This final report from the REMEDEE Registry assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of the dual-therapy COMBO stent in a large unselected patient population. BACKGROUND: The bio-engineered COMBO stent (OrbusNeich Medical BV, The Netherlands) is a dual-therapy pro-healing stent. Data of long-term safety and efficacy of the this stent is lacking. METHODS: The prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated REMEDEE Registry evaluated clinical outcomes after COMBO stent implantation in daily clinical practice. One thousand patients were enrolled between June 2013 and March 2014. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up data were obtained in 97.2% of patients. At 5-years, target lesion failure (TLF) (composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) was present in 145 patients (14.8%). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 0.9%, with no additional case beyond 3-years of follow-up. In males, 5-year TLF-rate was 15.6 versus 12.6% in females (p = .22). Patients without diabetes mellitus (DM) had TLF-rate of 11.4%, noninsulin-treated DM 22.7% (p = .001) and insulin-treated DM 41.2% (p < .001). Patients presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) had higher incidence of TLF compared to non-ACS (20.4 vs. 13.3%; p = .008), while incidence with STE-ACS was comparable to non-ACS (10.7 vs. 13.3%; p = .43). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous coronary intervention with the dual-therapy COMBO stent in unselected patient population shows low rates of TLF and ST to 5 years. Remarkably, no case of ST was noted beyond 3 years.

Sex differences in 1-year clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with COMBO stents: From the COMBO collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The COMBO drug eluting stent is a novel device with luminal endothelial progenitor cell capture technology for rapid homogeneous endothelialization. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined for sex differences in 1-year outcomes after COMBO stenting from the COMBO collaboration, a pooled patient-level dataset from the MASCOT and REMEDEE multicenter registries. The primary endpoint was 1-year target lesion failure (TLF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Secondary outcomes included stent thrombosis (ST). Adjusted outcomes were assessed using Cox regression methods. The study included 861 (23.8%) women and 2,753 (76.2%) men. Women were older with higher prevalence of several comorbidities including diabetes mellitus. Risk of 1-year TLF was similar in both sexes (3.8% vs. 3.9%, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59-1.42, p = .70), without sex differences in the incidence of cardiac death (1.6% vs. 1.5%, p = .78), TV-MI (1.5% vs. 1.1%, p = .32), or CD-TLR (2.0% vs. 2.2%, p = .67). Definite or probable ST occurred in 0.4% women and 1.0% men (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.06-1.11, p = .069). CONCLUSIONS: Despite greater clinical risks at baseline, women treated with COMBO stents had similarly low 1-year TLF and other ischemic outcomes compared to men.

One-Year COMBO Stent Outcomes in Acute Coronary Syndrome: from the COMBO Collaboration.

PURPOSE: The COMBO biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent includes endothelial progenitor cell capture (EPC) technology for rapid endothelialization, which may offer advantage in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We sought to analyze the performance of the COMBO stent by ACS status and ACS subtype. METHODS: The COMBO collaboration (n = 3614) is a patient-level pooled dataset from the MASCOT and REMEDEE registries. We evaluated outcomes by ACS status, and ACS subtype in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) versus unstable angina (UA). The primary endpoint was 1-year target lesion failure (TLF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Secondary outcomes included stent thrombosis (ST). RESULTS: We compared 1965 (54%) ACS and 1649 (46.0%) non-ACS patients. ACS presentations included 40% (n = 789) STEMI, 31% (n = 600) NSTEMI, and 29% (n = 576) UA patients. Risk of 1-year TLF was greater in ACS patients (4.5% vs. 3.3%, HR 1.51 95% CI 1.01-2.25, p = 0.045) without significant differences in definite/probable ST (1.1% vs 0.5%, HR 2.40, 95% CI 0.91-6.31, p = 0.08). One-year TLF was similar in STEMI, NSTEMI, and UA (4.8% vs 4.8% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.60), but definite/probable ST was higher in STEMI patients (1.9% vs 0.5% vs 0.7%, p = 0.03). Adjusted outcomes were not different in MI versus UA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the novel EPC capture technology, COMBO stent PCI was associated with somewhat greater risk of 1-year TLF in ACS than in non-ACS patients, without significant differences in stent thrombosis. No differences were observed in 1-year TLF among ACS subtypes.

Three-year clinical outcomes after dual-therapy COMBO stent placement: Insights from the REMEDEE registry.

BACKGROUND: The bio-engineered COMBO stent (OrbusNeich Medical BV, The Netherlands) is a dual-therapy pro-healing stent. This novel technology may allow a shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stenting. We present the first 3 year clinical outcomes of patients treated with COMBO stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated, all-comers REMEDEE Registry evaluates clinical outcomes after COMBO stent treatment. A 1,000 patients were enrolled between June 2013 and March 2014. Patients had a mean of 65 years ±11, 26% of the patients were females and 18% diabetics. More than 50% of patients presented with acute coronary syndrome, 60% of treated lesions were AHA/ACC lesion type B2 or C. Target lesion failure (TLF) at 3 year follow-up occurred in 10.7% of patients (N = 105). The separate components cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization occurred in 4.1%, 2.0%, and 7.1%, respectively of patients. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) was observed in 0.7% of all patients. At 3-year follow-up there were only 73 patients taking DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: At 3-year follow-up, patients treated with COMBO stent in the present large prospective all-comers cohort, continue to show good clinical outcomes. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01874002. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: The COMBO stent is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a luminal anti-CD34-antibody layer, that binds endothelial progenitor cells. These cells can differentiate to endothelial cells and stimulate early endothelialization of the stent. The REMEDEE Registry is the first large, multicenter, prospective, cohort study evaluating the clinical outcomes of 1,000 all-comers patients treated with COMBO stent. Target lesion failure at 3 year follow-up was 10.7% and the rate of definite ST was 0.7%.

Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5-year results of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Data for the safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents at long-term follow-up, and specifically in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, are scarce. In the EXAMINATION trial, we compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In this study, we assessed the 5-year outcomes of the population in the EXAMINATION trial. METHODS: In the multicentre EXAMINATION trial, done in Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EES or BMS. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated and central randomisation (by telephone) was used to allocate patients in blocks of four or six, stratified by centre. Patients were masked to treatment assignment. At 5 years, we assessed the combined patient-oriented outcome of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. FINDINGS: 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). At 5 years, complete clinical follow-up data were obtained for 731 patients treated with EES and 727 treated with BMS (97% of both groups). The patient-oriented endpoint occurred in 159 (21%) patients in the EES group versus 192 (26%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·65-0·98; p=0·033). This difference was mainly driven by a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (65 [9%] vs 88 [12%]; 0·72, 0·52-0·10; p=0·047). INTERPRETATION: Our findings should be taken as a point of reference for the assessment of new bioresorbable polymer-based metallic stents or bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. FUNDING: Spanish Heart Foundation.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes after COMBO stent treatment in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at increased risk of complications after percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement compared to patients with stable angina (SA) treated in an elective setting. The novel pro-healing COMBO stent is a bio-engineered drug eluting stent designed to promote vessel healing. Therefore, the stent may reduce this difference in clinical outcomes between elective and ACS-patients and prevent late stent thrombosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The European, prospective, multicenter, 1000 all-comers patient REMEDEE registry evaluates clinical outcomes after COMBO stent placement in ACS- and elective patients. The primary endpoint at 12 months is target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization. A total of 49.9% (n = 498) of patients presented with acute coronary syndrome. TLF was 7.1% in ACS patients, definite and probable stent thrombosis was observed in 0.5% of ACS patients and in all within 9 days post stenting. We found no significant difference in TLF between ACS and non-ACS patients and a low overall rate of TLF. CONCLUSIONS: The COMBO stent is a safe and efficient device for patients presenting with ACS. Low ST rate and only early stent thrombosis were observed. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Rationale and design of POPular-TAVI: antiPlatelet therapy fOr Patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Despite improving experience and techniques, ischemic and bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain prevalent and impair survival. Current guidelines recommend the temporary addition of clopidogrel in the initial period after TAVI to prevent thromboembolic events. However, explorative studies suggest that this is associated with a higher rate of major bleeding without a decrease in thromboembolic complications. METHODS: The POPular TAVI trial is a prospective randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter clinical trial to test the hypothesis that monotherapy with aspirin or oral anticoagulation (OAC) after TAVI is safer than the addition of clopidogrel for 3 months, without compromising clinical benefit. This trial encompasses 2 cohorts: cohort A, patients are randomized 1:1 to aspirin vs aspirin + clopidogrel, and cohort B, patients on OAC therapy are randomized 1:1 to OAC vs OAC + clopidogrel. Primary outcome is freedom from non-procedure-related bleeding at 1 year. Secondary net-clinical benefit outcome is freedom from the composite of cardiovascular death, non-procedural-related bleeding, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The primary outcome is analyzed for superiority, whereas the secondary outcome is analyzed for noninferiority. Recruitment began in February 2014, and the trial will continue until a total of 1,000 patients (684 expected in cohort A and 316 in cohort B) are included and followed up for 1 year. SUMMARY: The POPular TAVI trial (NCT02247128) is the first large randomized controlled trial to test if monotherapy with aspirin or OAC vs additional clopidogrel after TAVI reduces bleeding with a favorable net-clinical benefit.