Percutaneous MitraClip Device or Surgical Mitral Valve Repair in Patients With Primary Mitral Regurgitation Who Are Candidates for Surgery: Design and Rationale of the REPAIR MR Trial.

Background The current standard of care for the treatment of patients with primary mitral regurgitation (MR) is surgical mitral valve repair. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip device provides a less invasive treatment option for patients with both primary and secondary MR. Worldwide, >150 000 patients have been treated with the MitraClip device. However, in the United States, MitraClip is approved for use only in primary patients with MR who are at high or prohibitive risk for mitral valve surgery. The REPAIR MR (Percutaneous MitraClip Device or Surgical Mitral Valve Repair in Patients With Primary Mitral Regurgitation Who Are Candidates for Surgery) trial is designed to compare early and late outcomes associated with transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip and surgical repair of primary MR in older or moderate surgical risk patients. Methods and Results The REPAIR MR trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, open-label multicenter, noninferiority trial for the treatment of severe primary MR (verified by an independent echocardiographic core laboratory). Patients with severe MR and indications for surgery because of symptoms (New York Heart Association class II-IV), or without symptoms with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤60%, pulmonary artery systolic pressure >50 mm Hg, or left ventricular end-systolic diameter ≥40 mm are eligible for the trial provided they meet the moderate surgical risk criteria as follows: (1) ≥75 years of age, or (2) if <75 years of age, then the subject has a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk Of Mortality score of ≥2% for mitral repair (or Society of Thoracic Surgeons replacement score of ≥4%), or the presence of a comorbidity that may introduce a surgery-specific risk. The local surgeon must determine that the mitral valve can be surgically repaired. Additionally, an independent eligibility committee will confirm that the MR can be reduced to mild or less with both the MitraClip and surgical mitral valve repair with a high degree of certainty. A total of 500 eligible subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the MitraClip device or to undergo surgical mitral valve repair (control group). There are 2 co-primary end points for the trial, both of which will be evaluated at 2 years. Each subject will be followed for 10 years after enrollment. The study has received approval from both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and enrolled its first subject in July 2020. Conclusions The REPAIR MR trial will determine the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip in patients with primary MR who are at moderate surgical risk and are candidates for surgical MV repair. The trial will generate contemporary comparative clinical evidence for the MitraClip device and surgical MV repair. Registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04198870; NCT04198870.

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.

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.

Embolic protection: the FilterWire EZ Embolic Protection System.

The field of interventional cardiology has grown dramatically over the past 30 years, including recent advances in the area of peripheral vascular intervention. The phenomenon of no-reflow, characterized by a reduction in coronary blood flow during vascular intervention, has been associated with adverse outcomes in both saphenous vein graft and carotid artery interventions. Distal embolic protection devices, such as the FilterWire EZ System, have been shown to reduce the incidence of no-reflow and adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing saphenous vein graft interventions. Recently approved indications for the FilterWire EZ System include carotid artery stenting. With the definite reduction in adverse events from the use of distal protection, future advancements will focus on improved deliverability of such devices.

Cost effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: results from the TAXUS-IV Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare aggregate medical care costs for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to formally evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness of PES for patients undergoing single-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Although the cost effectiveness of SES has been studied in both clinical trials and decision-analytic models, few data exist on the cost effectiveness of alternative drug-eluting stent (DES) designs. In addition, no clinical trials have specifically examined the cost effectiveness of DES among patients managed without mandatory angiographic follow-up. METHODS: We performed a prospective economic evaluation among 1,314 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization randomized to either PES (N = 662) or BMS (N = 652) in the TAXUS-IV trial. Clinical outcomes, resource use, and costs (from a societal perspective) were assessed prospectively for all patients over a 1-year follow-up period. Cost effectiveness was defined as the incremental cost per target vessel revascularization (TVR) event avoided and was analyzed separately among cohorts assigned to mandatory angiographic follow-up (n = 732) or clinical follow-up alone (n = 582). RESULTS: The PES reduced TVR by 12.2 events per 100 patients treated, resulting in a 1-year cost difference of 572 dollars per patient with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 4,678 dollars per TVR avoided and 47,798 dollars/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Among patients assigned to clinical follow-up alone, the net 1-year cost difference was 97 dollars per patient with cost-effectiveness ratios of 760 dollars per TVR event avoided and $5,105/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: In the TAXUS-IV trial, treatment with PES led to substantial reductions in the need for repeat revascularization while increasing 1-year costs only modestly. The cost-effectiveness ratio for PES in the study population compares reasonably with that for other treatments that reduce coronary restenosis, including alternative drug-eluting stent platforms.