Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Long term safety and outcomes after atrial shunting for heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction: 5-year and 3-year follow-up in the REDUCE LAP-HF I and II trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a little evidence regarding long-term safety and efficacy for atrial shunt devices in heart failure (HF). METHODS: The REDUCE LAP-HF I (n = 44) and II (n = 621) trials (RCT-I and -II) were multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled trials of patients with HF and ejection fraction >40%. Outcome data were analyzed from RCT-I, a mechanistic trial with 5-year follow-up, and RCT-II, a pivotal trial identifying a responder group (n = 313) defined by exercise PVR <1.74 WU and no cardiac rhythm management device with 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: At 5 years in RCT I, there were no differences in cardiovascular (CV) mortality, HF events, embolic stroke, or new-onset atrial fibrillation between groups. After 3 years in RCT II, there was no difference in the primary outcome (hierarchical composite of CV mortality, stroke, HF events, and KCCQ) between shunt and sham in the overall trial. Compared to sham, those with responder characteristics in RCT-II had a better outcome with shunt (win ratio 1.6 [95% CI 1.2-2.2], P = .006; 44% reduction in HF events [shunt 9 vs. control 16 per 100 patient-years], P = .005; and greater improvement in KCCQ overall summary score [+17.9 ± 20.0 vs. +7.6 ± 20.4], P < .001), while nonresponders had significantly more HF events. Shunt treatment at 3 years was associated with a higher rate of ischemic stroke (3.2% vs. 0%, 95% CI 2%-6.1%, P = .032) and lower incidence of worsening kidney dysfunction (10.7% vs. 19.3%, P = .041). CONCLUSIONS: With up to 5 years of follow up, adverse events were low in patients receiving atrial shunts. In the responder group, atrial shunt treatment was associated with a significantly lower HF event rate and improved KCCQ compared to sham through 3 years of follow-up. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02600234, NCT03088033.

Latent Pulmonary Vascular Disease May Alter the Response to Therapeutic Atrial Shunt Device in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: In REDUCE LAP-HF II (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure), implantation of an atrial shunt device did not provide overall clinical benefit for patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. However, prespecified analyses identified differences in response in subgroups defined by pulmonary artery systolic pressure during submaximal exercise, right atrial volume, and sex. Shunt implantation reduces left atrial pressures but increases pulmonary blood flow, which may be poorly tolerated in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD). On the basis of these results, we hypothesized that patients with latent PVD, defined as elevated pulmonary vascular resistance during exercise, might be harmed by shunt implantation, and conversely that patients without PVD might benefit. METHODS: REDUCE LAP-HF II enrolled 626 patients with heart failure, ejection fraction ≥40%, exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≥25 mm Hg, and resting pulmonary vascular resistance <3.5 Wood units who were randomized 1:1 to atrial shunt device or sham control. The primary outcome-a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal ischemic stroke, recurrent HF events, and change in health status-was analyzed using the win ratio. Latent PVD was defined as pulmonary vascular resistance ≥1.74 Wood units (highest tertile) at peak exercise, measured before randomization. RESULTS: Compared with patients without PVD (n=382), those with latent PVD (n=188) were older, had more atrial fibrillation and right heart dysfunction, and were more likely to have elevated left atrial pressure at rest. Shunt treatment was associated with worse outcomes in patients with PVD (win ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.86]; P=0.005) and signal of clinical benefit in patients without PVD (win ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02, 1.68]; P=0.038). Patients with larger right atrial volumes and men had worse outcomes with the device and both groups were more likely to have pacemakers, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and increased left atrial volume. For patients without latent PVD or pacemaker (n=313; 50% of randomized patients), shunt treatment resulted in more robust signal of clinical benefit (win ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14, 2.00]; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction, the presence of latent PVD uncovered by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing identifies patients who may worsen with atrial shunt therapy, whereas those without latent PVD may benefit.

Clinical Trial Design Principles and Outcomes Definitions for Device-Based Therapies for Hypertension: A Consensus Document From the Hypertension Academic Research Consortium.

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world's leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies.

Atrial shunt device for heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction (REDUCE LAP-HF II): a randomised, multicentre, blinded, sham-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Placement of an interatrial shunt device reduces pulmonary capillary wedge pressure during exercise in patients with heart failure and preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to investigate whether an interatrial shunt can reduce heart failure events or improve health status in these patients. METHODS: In this randomised, international, blinded, sham-controlled trial performed at 89 health-care centres, we included patients (aged ≥40 years) with symptomatic heart failure, an ejection fraction of at least 40%, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg while exceeding right atrial pressure by at least 5 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a shunt device or sham procedure. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death or non-fatal ischemic stroke at 12 months, rate of total heart failure events up to 24 months, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score at 12 months. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted for the heart failure event endpoint. Analysis of the primary endpoint, all other efficacy endpoints, and safety endpoints was conducted in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly allocated to receive treatment, excluding those found to be ineligible after randomisation and therefore not treated. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088033. FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2017, and July 24, 2020, 1072 participants were enrolled, of whom 626 were randomly assigned to either the atrial shunt device (n=314) or sham procedure (n=312). There were no differences between groups in the primary composite endpoint (win ratio 1·0 [95% CI 0·8-1·2]; p=0·85) or in the individual components of the primary endpoint. The prespecified subgroups demonstrating a differential effect of atrial shunt device treatment on heart failure events were pulmonary artery systolic pressure at 20W of exercise (pinteraction=0·002 [>70 mm Hg associated with worse outcomes]), right atrial volume index (pinteraction=0·012 [≥29·7 mL/m2, worse outcomes]), and sex (pinteraction=0·02 [men, worse outcomes]). There were no differences in the composite safety endpoint between the two groups (n=116 [38%] for shunt device vs n=97 [31%] for sham procedure; p=0·11). INTERPRETATION: Placement of an atrial shunt device did not reduce the total rate of heart failure events or improve health status in the overall population of patients with heart failure and ejection fraction of greater than or equal to 40%. FUNDING: Corvia Medical.

Retrieval of renal function after renal artery stenting improves event-free survival in a subgroup analysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) trial, a multicenter randomized controlled trial with 947 patients, concluded that there was no benefit of renal artery stenting (RAS) over medical therapy. However, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) were not analyzed separately in the CORAL trial. CKD is a risk factor for cardiovascular and renal morbidity. We hypothesized that improved renal function after RAS would be associated with increased long-term survival and a lower risk of cardiovascular and renal events in patients with CKD. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the CORAL trial included 842 patients with CKD stages 2 to 4 at baseline who were randomized to optimal medical therapy alone (OMT; n = 432) or RAS plus OMT (RAS + OMT; n = 410). Patients were categorized as responders or nonresponders based on the change in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline to last follow-up (median, 3.6 years; interquartile range, 2.6-4.6 years). Responders were defined by a 20% or greater increase in eGFR from baseline; all others were designated as nonresponders. Event-free survival was defined as freedom from death and multiple cardiovascular and renal complications. Event-free survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of event-free survival. RESULTS: The RAS + OMT group had a higher proportion of patients with improved renal function (≥20% increase in eGFR over baseline), compared with the OMT group (25.6% vs 17.1%; P = .003). However, event-free survival was no different for the two cohorts (P = .18 by the log-rank test). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis identified four variables that independently correlated with event-free survival for the stented cohort. Higher preoperative eGFR (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-0.99; P = .002) and being a responder to stenting (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.95; P = .033) increased event-free survival, whereas a history of congestive heart failure (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.46-4.35; P < .001) and a higher preoperative systolic BP (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .002) decreased event-free survival. Within the stented group, 105 of 410 patients (25.6%) were responders. Event-free survival was superior for responders, compared with nonresponders (P = .009 by log-rank test). The only independent preoperative negative predictor of improved renal function after stenting was diabetes (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.84; P = .017), which decreased the probability of improved renal function after RAS + OMT. A subset of patients (23.4%) after RAS had worsened renal function, but OMT alone produced an equivalent incidence of worsened renal function. An increased urine albumin/creatinine ratio was an independent predictor of worsened renal function after RAS. CONCLUSIONS: CORAL participants who demonstrated improved kidney function after RAS + OMT demonstrated improved event-free survival. This finding reinforces the need for predictors of outcome to guide patient selection for RAS.

Definitions and Clinical Trial Design Principles for Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Therapies: CTO-ARC Consensus Recommendations.

Over the past 2 decades, chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention has developed into its own subspecialty of interventional cardiology. Dedicated terminology, techniques, devices, courses, and training programs have enabled progressive advancements. However, only a few randomized trials have been performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Moreover, several published observational studies have shown conflicting data. Part of the paucity of clinical data stems from the fact that prior studies have been suboptimally designed and performed. The absence of standardized end points and the discrepancy in definitions also prevent consistency and uniform interpretability of reported results in CTO intervention. To standardize the field, we therefore assembled a broad consortium comprising academicians, practicing physicians, researchers, medical society representatives, and regulators (US Food and Drug Administration) to develop methods, end points, biomarkers, parameters, data, materials, processes, procedures, evaluations, tools, and techniques for CTO interventions. This article summarizes the effort and is organized into 3 sections: key elements and procedural definitions, end point definitions, and clinical trial design principles. The Chronic Total Occlusion Academic Research Consortium is a first step toward improved comparability and interpretability of study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention evidence.

Rationale and design of the safe and timely antithrombotic removal - ticagrelor (STAR-T) trial: A prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating reductions in postoperative bleeding with intraoperative removal of ticagrelor by the drugsorb™-ATR device in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery within 48 hours from last ticagrelor dose.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor is often administered to patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, when these patients require urgent or emergent cardiothoracic (CT) surgery the presence of ticagrelor significantly increases surgical bleeding. The goal of the current trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the DrugSorb-ATR hemoadsorption device for the intraoperative removal of ticagrelor to reduce postoperative bleeding in the above patient population. The Safe and Timely Antithrombotic Removal - Ticagrelor (STAR-T) Trial is a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial enrolling patients who require cardiothoracic surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) within 48 hours of last ticagrelor dose. METHODS: Subjects will be randomized 1:1 to receive either the DrugSorb-ATR device or an identical sham device during CPB. The study will enroll up to 120 subjects at 20 U.S centers, and the primary outcome is the composite of fatal perioperative bleeding, moderate/severe/massive bleeding according to the Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding in Cardiac Surgery (UDPB), and 24 hours chest tube drainage. The components of the composite are hierarchically ranked according to clinical significance and the primary analysis will utilize the Win Ratio method. Percent change in ticagrelor levels before and after CPB (drug removal) will be the key secondary endpoint. An independent Clinical Events Committee will adjudicate all clinical endpoints including safety endpoints relating to postoperative thrombotic events. Subjects will be followed through 30 days after the index operation. CONCLUSIONS: The results from STAR-T, if positive, will potentially support FDA market approval for DrugSorb-ATR, and provide a solution to an important unmet clinical need.

Biomarkers of platelet activation and cardiovascular risk in the DAPT trial.

Prolonged use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), but with increased bleeding. It remains unknown whether biomarkers of platelet activation may be useful for identifying patients at increased risk of MACE. The DAPT study was a randomized trial of 12 versus 30 months of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI. Serum biomarkers [myeloid-related protein (MRP)-8/14, P-selectin, soluble CD-40 ligand (sCD40L)] were assessed in 1399 patients early post-PCI. On-treatment platelet reactivity index (PRI) using VASP phosphorylation was assessed in 443 patients randomized to continued DAPT at 1 year. MACE was defined as CV death, MI, or ischemic stroke. Multivariable models were adjusted for baseline characteristics, index event, and stent type. A stepwise increase in the risk of MACE was observed with increasing tertiles of both MRP-8/14 and P-selectin (p-trend = 0.04 for both). After multivariable adjustment, the adjusted HR (95% CI) for MACE in patients in the top tertile was 1.94 (1.14-3.30) for MRP-8/14 and 1.62 (0.99-2.64) for P-selectin. In contrast, baseline sCD40L was not associated with CV risk. Among patients randomized to continued DAPT, higher on-treatment platelet reactivity was not significantly associated with risk of MACE (p-trend = 0.32; adj-HR T3 vs. T1 1.54, 95% CI 0.20-12.18) or bleeding (P-trend = 0.17; adj-HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.05-1.21). MRP-8/14 and soluble P-selectin may be useful for identifying patients at increased risk of MACE after PCI. The utility of on-treatment platelet function testing requires further study.Clinical Trial Registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier NCT00977938.

2017 Cardiovascular and Stroke Endpoint Definitions for Clinical Trials.

This publication describes uniform definitions for cardiovascular and stroke outcomes developed by the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA established the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative in 2009 to simplify the design and conduct of clinical trials intended to support marketing applications. The writing committee recognizes that these definitions may be used in other types of clinical trials and clinical care processes where appropriate. Use of these definitions at the FDA has enhanced the ability to aggregate data within and across medical product development programs, conduct meta-analyses to evaluate cardiovascular safety, integrate data from multiple trials, and compare effectiveness of drugs and devices. Further study is needed to determine whether prospective data collection using these common definitions improves the design, conduct, and interpretability of the results of clinical trials.

Clinical Trial Principles and Endpoint Definitions for Paravalvular Leaks in Surgical Prosthesis.

The VARC (Valve Academic Research Consortium) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement set the standard for selecting appropriate clinical endpoints reflecting safety and effectiveness of transcatheter devices, and defining single and composite clinical endpoints for clinical trials. No such standardization exists for circumferentially sutured surgical valve paravalvular leak (PVL) closure. This document seeks to provide core principles, appropriate clinical endpoints, and endpoint definitions to be used in clinical trials of PVL closure devices. The PVL Academic Research Consortium met to review evidence and make recommendations for assessment of disease severity, data collection, and updated endpoint definitions. A 5-class grading scheme to evaluate PVL was developed in concordance with VARC recommendations. Unresolved issues in the field are outlined. The current PVL Academic Research Consortium provides recommendations for assessment of disease severity, data collection, and endpoint definitions. Future research in the field is warranted.

Proposed Standardized Neurological Endpoints for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: An Academic Research Consortium Initiative.

Surgical and catheter-based cardiovascular procedures and adjunctive pharmacology have an inherent risk of neurological complications. The current diversity of neurological endpoint definitions and ascertainment methods in clinical trials has led to uncertainties in the neurological risk attributable to cardiovascular procedures and inconsistent evaluation of therapies intended to prevent or mitigate neurological injury. Benefit-risk assessment of such procedures should be on the basis of an evaluation of well-defined neurological outcomes that are ascertained with consistent methods and capture the full spectrum of neurovascular injury and its clinical effect. The Neurologic Academic Research Consortium is an international collaboration intended to establish consensus on the definition, classification, and assessment of neurological endpoints applicable to clinical trials of a broad range of cardiovascular interventions. Systematic application of the proposed definitions and assessments will improve our ability to evaluate the risks of cardiovascular procedures and the safety and effectiveness of preventive therapies.

Myocardial Infarction Risk After Discontinuation of Thienopyridine Therapy in the Randomized DAPT Study (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy).

BACKGROUND: Thienopyridine plus aspirin beyond 1 year after coronary stenting reduces myocardial infarction (MI) risk and increases bleeding risk in comparison with aspirin alone. The hazard associated with late thienopyridine discontinuation and risk factors for MI after discontinuation are poorly defined. METHODS: In the DAPT Study (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), after percutaneous coronary intervention and 12 months of thienopyridine (clopidogrel or prasugrel) plus aspirin, eligible patients remained on aspirin and were randomly assigned to continued thienopyridine versus placebo for 18 months. At 30 months, patients stopped the study drug and were observed for 3 months. Cumulative incidence of MI was assessed over 3 months after randomization (months 12-15) and 3 months after study drug discontinuation (months 30-33). The MI hazard for each of these periods was assessed across randomized treatment arms and by DAPT score values <2 or ≥2. RESULTS: Among the 11 648 randomly assigned patients, the monthly cumulative incidence of MI was lower with continued thienopyridine versus placebo at 12 to 15 months (0.12% versus 0.37%, P<0.001, in all patients; 0.13% versus 0.27%, P=0.02, in patients not treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents), and higher at 30 to 33 months (0.30% versus 0.15%, P=0.013, in all patients; in patients without paclitaxel-eluting stents, 0.18% versus 0.17%, P=0.91). The majority of MIs in both time periods (74% and 76%) were not related to stent thrombosis. After multivariable adjustment, treatment arm independently predicted MI at months 12 to 15 (P<0.001) and 30 to 33 (P=0.011). During months 12 to 15, patients with DAPT scores <2 or ≥2 both had lower rates of MI with continued thienopyridine (MI monthly incidence 0.16% versus 0.51%, P<0.001, for scores ≥2; 0.08% versus 0.24%, P=0.012, for scores<2, interaction P=0.064). CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuing thienopyridine after either 12 or 30 months is associated with an early increase in MI risk, mainly unrelated to stent thrombosis; the magnitude of risk is highest in the earlier time frame, and lower in patients not treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Although higher DAPT scores identify patients with greater absolute ischemic benefit (relative to bleeding harm) with continued thienopyridine therapy, discontinuation at 12 months increases MI hazard regardless of DAPT score group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00977938.

Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The development of coronary drug-eluting stents has included use of new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and use of bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve clinical safety and efficacy has not been shown in previous randomised trials. We aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: BIOFLOW V was an international, randomised trial done in patients undergoing elective and urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in 90 hospitals in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA). Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older with ischaemic heart disease undergoing planned stent implantation in de-novo, native coronary lesions. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either an ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Randomisation was via a central web-based data capture system (mixed blocks of 3 and 6), and stratified by study site. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure. The primary non-inferiority comparison combined these data from two additional randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with Bayesian methods. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389946. FINDINGS: Between May 8, 2015, and March 31, 2016, 4772 patients were recruited into the study. 1334 patients met inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (n=450). 52 (6%) of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patients in the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent group met the 12-month primary endpoint of target lesion failure (95% CI -6·84 to -0·29, p=0·0399), with differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (39 [5%] of 831 patients vs 35 [8%] of 424 patients, p=0·0155). The posterior probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was 100% (Bayesian analysis, difference in target lesion failure frequency -2·6% [95% credible interval -5·5 to 0·1], non-inferiority margin 3·85%, n=2208). INTERPRETATION: The outperformance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention suggests a new direction in improving next generation drug-eluting stent technology. FUNDING: BIOTRONIK.

Factors associated with performing urgent coronary angiography in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

OBJECTIVES: Factors associated with performing urgent coronary angiography (UCA) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) were identified. BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for resuscitated OHCA patients recommend UCA if there is ST-elevation on post-arrest electrocardiogram or high suspicion of acute myocardial infarction. Some have advocated for UCA in all OHCA regardless of suspected etiology. The reasons for variations in performing UCA are not well understood. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of subjects presenting with resuscitated OHCA to a single academic medical center from 12/15/2007 to 8/31/2014 was conducted. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients undergoing UCA, defined as angiography within 6 hr of presentation, were compared with those not undergoing UCA. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors of UCA. RESULTS: A total of 323 resuscitated OHCA patients (mean age, 64 years; women, 35%) were included in the analysis; 107 (33.1%) underwent coronary angiography during their hospitalization and 66 (20.4%) underwent UCA. Multivariable adjusted factors associated with UCA were ST-elevation [odds ratio (OR) 14.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.28-34.24, P < 0.001], initial shockable rhythm (OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.52-8.97, P = 0.004), and history of coronary artery disease (CAD) (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.43-7.95, P = 0.005). Higher age (OR 0.71 per decade, 95% CI 0.55-0.92, P = 0.01) and obvious non-cardiac cause of arrest (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.38, P = 0.001) were negatively associated with UCA. CONCLUSIONS: In resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, ST-elevation, shockable rhythm, and history of CAD were associated with performing urgent coronary angiography; older patients and those with obvious non-cardiac causes of arrest were negatively associated.

Impact of Optimal Medical Therapy in the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study.

BACKGROUND: Continued dual antiplatelet therapy and optimal medical therapy (OMT) improve outcomes in selected patient populations with established coronary heart disease, but whether OMT modifies the treatment effect of dual antiplatelet therapy is unknown. METHODS: The DAPT (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) Study, a double-blind trial, randomly assigned 11 648 patients who had undergone coronary stenting and completed 1 year of dual antiplatelet therapy without major bleeding or ischemic events to an additional 18 months of continued thienopyridine or placebo. OMT was defined as a combination of statin, ß-blocker, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use in patients with an American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association class I indication for each medication. Per protocol, all patients were treated with 75 to 325 mg aspirin daily. End points included myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Arteries moderate or severe bleeding events. RESULTS: Of 11 643 randomly assigned patients with complete medication data, 63% were on OMT. Between 12 and 30 months, continued thienopyridine reduced myocardial infarction in comparison with placebo in both groups (on OMT 2.1% versus 3.3%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.86; P=0.003; off OMT 2.2% versus 5.2%, HR, 0.41; CI, 0.29-0.58; P<0.001; interaction P=0.103). Comparing continued thienopyridine versus placebo, rates of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were 4.2% versus 5.0% among patients on OMT (HR, 0.82; CI, 0.66-1.02; P=0.077) and 4.5% versus 7.0% among those off OMT (HR, 0.63; CI, 0.49-0.82; P<0.001; interaction P=0.250); rates of bleeding for thienopyridine versus placebo in patients on OMT were 2.2% versus 1.0% (HR, 2.13; CI, 1.43-3.17; P<0.001), and in patients off OMT were 2.8% versus 2.2% (HR, 1.30; CI, 0.88-1.92; P=0.189; interaction P=0.073). Overall, patients on OMT had lower rates of myocardial infarction (2.7% versus 3.7%, P=0.003), major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.6% versus 5.7%, P=0.007), and bleeding (1.6% versus 2.5%, P<0.001) in comparison with patients off OMT. Rates of stent thrombosis (0.8% versus 1.0%, P=0.171) and death (1.6% versus 1.9%, P=0.155) did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Continued thienopyridine therapy reduced the rate of myocardial infarction regardless of OMT status and had consistent effects on reduction in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and increased bleeding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00977938.

Diabetes Mellitus and Prevention of Late Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Stenting in the Randomized Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at high risk for recurrent ischemic events after coronary stenting. We assessed the effects of continued thienopyridine among patients with DM participating in the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) Study as a prespecified analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: After coronary stent placement and 12 months treatment with open-label thienopyridine plus aspirin, 11 648 patients free of ischemic or bleeding events and who were medication compliant were randomly assigned to continued thienopyridine or placebo, in addition to aspirin, for 18 more months. After randomization, patients with DM (n=3391), in comparison with patients without DM (n=8257), had increased composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke (6.8% versus 4.3%, P<0.001), increased death (2.5% versus 1.4%, P<0.001), and MI (4.2% versus 2.6%, P<0.001). Among patients with DM, in a comparison of continued thienopyridine versus placebo, rates of stent thrombosis were 0.5% versus 1.1%, P=0.06, and rates of MI were 3.5% versus 4.8%, P=0.058; and among patients without DM the rates were 0.4% versus 1.4%, P<0.001 (stent thrombosis, P interaction=0.21) and 1.6% versus 3.6%, P<0.001 (MI, P interaction=0.02). Bleeding risk with continued thienopyridine was similar among patients with or without DM (interaction P=0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DM, continued thienopyridine beyond 1 year after coronary stenting is associated with reduced risk of MI, although this benefit is attenuated in comparison with patients without DM. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00977938.

Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis is a common problem in the elderly. Despite two randomized trials that did not show a benefit of renal-artery stenting with respect to kidney function, the usefulness of stenting for the prevention of major adverse renal and cardiovascular events is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 947 participants who had atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis and either systolic hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive drugs or chronic kidney disease to medical therapy plus renal-artery stenting or medical therapy alone. Participants were followed for the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular and renal events (a composite end point of death from cardiovascular or renal causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progressive renal insufficiency, or the need for renal-replacement therapy). RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 43 months (interquartile range, 31 to 55), the rate of the primary composite end point did not differ significantly between participants who underwent stenting in addition to receiving medical therapy and those who received medical therapy alone (35.1% and 35.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.17; P=0.58). There were also no significant differences between the treatment groups in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. During follow-up, there was a consistent modest difference in systolic blood pressure favoring the stent group (-2.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.4 to -0.2; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Renal-artery stenting did not confer a significant benefit with respect to the prevention of clinical events when added to comprehensive, multifactorial medical therapy in people with atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis and hypertension or chronic kidney disease. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00081731.).

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.).

Use of endpoint adjudication to improve the quality and validity of endpoint assessment for medical device development and post marketing evaluation: Rationale and best practices. A report from the cardiac safety research consortium.

This white paper provides a summary of presentations, discussions and conclusions of a Thinktank entitled "The Role of Endpoint Adjudication in Medical Device Clinical Trials". The think tank was cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Committee, MDEpiNet and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and was convened at the FDA's White Oak headquarters on March 11, 2016. Attention was focused on tailoring best practices for evaluation of endpoints in medical device clinical trials, practical issues in endpoint adjudication of therapeutic, diagnostic, biomarker and drug-device combinations, and the role of adjudication in regulatory and reimbursement issues throughout the device lifecycle. Attendees included representatives from medical device companies, the FDA, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), end point adjudication specialist groups, clinical research organizations, and active, academically based adjudicators. The manuscript presents recommendations from the think tank regarding (1) rationale for when adjudication is appropriate, (2) best practices establishment and operation of a medical device adjudication committee and (3) the role of endpoint adjudication for post market evaluation in the emerging era of real world evidence.