COMPARE LAAO: Rationale and design of the randomized controlled trial "COMPARing Effectiveness and safety of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion to standard of care for atrial fibrillation patients at high stroke risk and ineligible to use oral anticoagulation therapy".

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In patients with a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC randomized controlled trial (RCT) data is lacking. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of LAAO in AF patients who are ineligible to use OAC. The co-primary efficacy endpoint is (1) time to first occurrence of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined) and (2) time to first occurrence of the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety endpoint is the 30-day rate of peri-procedural complications. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE), superiority-driven RCT. Patients with AF, a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women and a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to the device- or control arm. Patients in the device arm will undergo percutaneous LAAO and will receive post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) per protocol, while those in the control arm will continue their current treatment consisting of no antithrombotic therapy or (D)APT as deemed appropriate by the primary responsible physician. In this endpoint-driven trial design, assuming a 50% lower stroke risk of LAAO compared to conservative treatment, 609 patients will be followed for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 years. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses will be performed to allow decision-making on reimbursement of LAAO for the target population in the Netherlands. SUMMARY: The COMPARE LAAO trial will investigate the clinical superiority in preventing thromboembolic events and cost-effectiveness of LAAO in AF patients with a high thromboembolic risk and a contraindication for OAC use. NCT TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04676880.

Safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with ultra-thin strut for treatment of atherosclerotic lesions (TALENT): a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts. We aimed to compare Supraflex with the standard of care, Xience, an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating, regarding clinical outcomes with a randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre study (TALENT) across 23 centres in Europe (the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Italy). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had one or more coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater in a native coronary artery, saphenous venous graft, or arterial bypass conduit, and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·25-4·50 mm. Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manner. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts (Supraflex) or an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators by use of a web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between groups at 12 months after the procedure, assessed in an intention-to-treat population. On assumption of 1-year composite endpoint prevalence of 8·3%, a margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the Xience group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02870140. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2016, and July 3, 2017, 1435 patients with 1046 lesions were randomly assigned to Supraflex, of whom 720 received the index procedure, and 715 patients with 1030 lesions were assigned to Xience, all receiving the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 35 patients (4·9 %) in the Supraflex group and in 37 patients (5·3%) in the Xience group (absolute difference -0·3% [one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1·6%], pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis prevalence, a safety indicator, was low in both groups and did not differ between them. INTERPRETATION: The Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. Supraflex seems a safe and effective alternative drug-eluting stent to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: European Cardiovascular Research Institute.

Assessing the Novel Myval Balloon-Expandable Valve with the Evolut Valve: A Propensity-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The Myval balloon-expandable (BE) valve has shown encouraging early clinical data in terms of safety and efficacy. Comparative data with other well-established contemporary valves are nonetheless still scarce. This study aims to compare the performance of the Myval BE valve with the Evolut self-expanding (SE) valve. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, 223 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) were included and treated with the Myval BE valve (n = 120) or with the Evolut SE valve (n = 103). Then, 91 pairs were compared after matching. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Echocardiographic follow-up was performed at 30 days. RESULTS: Procedural complications were rare in both groups. At the 30-day follow-up, no significant difference in cardiac death (Myval: 1% vs. Evolut: 2%, p = 0.56), stroke (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.41) and myocardial infarction (1% vs. 3%, p = 0.31) was observed. A permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly less needed in the Myval group (4% vs. 15%, p = 0.01). At 1 year, cardiac death (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.41) and the stroke rate (7% vs. 5%, p = 0.76) were similar. Moderate-severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) was also comparable in both groups (1% vs. 4%, p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Safety and efficacy outcomes were comparable between the two valves, except for a higher PPI rate for the Evolut SE valve. Up to 1-year follow-up, clinical outcomes showed acceptable rates of stroke and cardiac death with both valves. Valve hemodynamics were excellent with a low rate of moderate-severe PVL in both groups.

Comparison of Supraflex Cruz 60 µm Versus Ultimaster Tansei 80 µm Stent Struts in High Bleeding Risk PCI Patients: Study design and Rational of Compare 60/80 HBR trial.

Up to 45% of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may have a high bleeding risk (HBR), depending on the bleeding risk definition.1 This condition is often associated with an enhanced risk of thrombotic events with a negative impact on short- and long-term outcomes,2-8 making the choice of an appropriate antithrombotic regimen after PCI particularly challenging. Advances in stent technologies, in which the introduction of newer generations of thinner strut drug-eluting stents (DES), have significantly reduced the rate of thrombotic complications and may justify a shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration. Both in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that local hemodynamic factors may critically affect the natural history of atherosclerosis. Strut thickness correlates with flow disturbances and endothelial shear stress. Flow separation within struts determines areas of recirculation with low endothelial shear stress which promotes local concentration of activated platelets.9 By mitigating inflammation, vessel injury, and neointimal proliferation, thin and streamlined struts have been associated with faster vascular healing and re-endothelization and have resulted in lower rates of thrombotic events after PCI.10,11 The use of thin strut and ultra-thin strut stents may lead to a favorable trade-off in bleeding and ischemic events in patients with HBR. However, dedicated studies evaluating the performance of thin strut versus ultrathin strut stents in patients with HBR are lacking.

Prognostic Value of Histopathological Thrombus Age in Large Vessel Occlusion-Related Stroke.

INTRODUCTION: Acute mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the preferred treatment for large vessel occlusion-related stroke. Histopathological research on the obtained occlusive embolic thrombus may provide information regarding the aetiology and pathology of the lesion to predict prognosis and propose possible future acute ischaemic stroke therapy. METHODS: A total of 75 consecutive patients who presented to the Amphia Hospital with acute large vessel occlusion-related stroke and underwent MT were included in the study. The obtained thrombus materials were subjected to standard histopathological examination. Based on histological criteria, they were considered fresh (<1 day old) or old (>1 day old). Patients were followed for 2 years for documentation of all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Thrombi were classified as fresh in 40 patients (53%) and as older in 35 patients (47%). Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that thrombus age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at hospital admission, and patient age were associated with long-term mortality (p < 0.1). Multivariable Cox hazards and Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that after extensive adjustment for clinical and procedural variables, thrombus age persisted in being independently associated with higher long-term mortality (hazard ratio: 3.34; p = 0.038, log-rank p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: In this study, older thromboemboli are responsible for almost half of acute large ischaemic strokes. Moreover, the presence of an old thrombus is an independent predictor of mortality in acute large vessel occlusion-related stroke. More research is warranted regarding future therapies based on thrombus composition.

Early clinical and haemodynamic matched comparison of balloon-expandable valves.

OBJECTIVES: The balloon-expandable Sapien-3 valve demonstrated superior results in terms of residual aortic regurgitation when compared with self-expandable devices. We aimed to compare for the first-time early outcomes of Sapien-3 transcatheter heart valve (THV) with the balloon-expandable Myval device. METHODS: Consecutive real-world patients from nine European institutions with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis treated either with Sapien-3 or Myval THV devices after June 2018 were compared. Early clinical outcomes were prospectively gathered and blinded analysis of 30-day echocardiography was conducted. Matching for the following variables was performed: age, body surface area, Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score, left ventricular function, mean gradient, transfemoral approach, aortic valvular calcium, aortic annulus mean diameter, area and eccentricity index. RESULTS: A total of 416 patients treated either with the Sapien-3 (n=286, 68.7%) or with Myval THV (n=130, 31.3%) were included and 103 pairs compared after matching. Baseline characteristics were similar. Procedural success rate (Sapien-3: 94.2%; Myval: 93.2%, p=0.219), 30-day mortality (Sapien-3: 2.9%; Myval: 0.97%, p=0.625), clinical efficacy (12.6 vs 4.9%, p=0.057) and early safety (12.6 vs 4.9%, p=0.096) were comparable. There was a lower need for new permanent pacemaker (15.5 vs 5.8% p=0.020) with Myval. No significant differences were found in terms of ≥moderate aortic regurgitation (1% for Sapien-3, 0% for Myval, p=0.314), but mean gradients were higher following Sapien-3 than after Myval (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The new Myval balloon-expandable THV was favourable in terms of safety, with low rate of permanent pacemaker and with favourable residual gradients and paravalvular leak rate according to blinded echocardiographic analysis.

Non-invasive assessment of the collateral circulation in the hand: validation of the Nexfin system and relation to clinical outcome after transradial catheterisation.

AIMS: This study aims primarily to assess the extent of the collateral circulation of the hand in a combined population of healthy individuals and patients who underwent transradial catheterisation, using both the Nexfin system and laser Doppler perfusion imaging. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 85 adults were included in the study (18 healthy volunteers; 67 patients who underwent transradial catheterisation). The perfusion of the thumb was assessed prior to and during complete radial artery compression using laser Doppler perfusion imaging (LDPI) and the Nexfin system. The palmar collateral flow index (PCFI) was compared between both devices and PCFINEXFIN was related to hand angiography and the upper limb function, using the QuickDASH questionnaire. Mean PCFILDPI was 0.77±0.15 and mean PCFINEXFIN was 0.88±0.08. Both were significantly related (Pearson correlation=0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.64, p<0.001, agreement -0.11±0.13). PCFINEXFIN correlated with the maximal diameter of the superficial palmar arch (R=0.49, p=0.04) and total minimal arch diameter (R=0.51, p<0.02). High PCFINEXFIN, measured at baseline, was correlated with a lower QuickDASH score for pain, activity and total at one month post transradial catheterisation (p=0.02, p<0.01, p<0.01), but not with discomfort or disability. CONCLUSIONS: The Nexfin monitoring system is comparable with laser Doppler perfusion imaging in the quantification of the collateral perfusion in the hand. In patients, the Nexfin-derived collateral flow index measured at baseline is associated with clinical outcome at 30 days post transradial catheterisation.

Impact of operator volume on overall major adverse cardiac events following direct coronary stent implantation versus stenting after predilatation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of operator experience on procedural, clinical and angiographic outcome after (direct) coronary stent implantation. BACKGROUND: Although for other forms of percutaneous coronary interventions an inverse relationship between operator volume and patient outcomes has been shown, the impact of operator volume on outcome after direct stenting has never been investigated. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on data from a prospective randomized trial comparing direct stenting with that after predilatation. The trial consisted of 400 patients with stable and unstable angina pectoris and/or myocardial ischemia due to a coronary stenosis of a single native vessel eligible in 1999-2001 for direct stenting. For a single-center high-volume clinic (>1500 cases/year), the authors compared the most experienced operators (case load: >4000) with well trained practitioners (case load: 175). One hundred and fifteen patients were identified who were treated by high-volume and 180 who were treated by medium-volume operators. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were evenly distributed among groups. High-volume, compared with medium-volume operators, were faster (30.8 versus 42.2 minutes, p < 0.001), needed less frequent postdilatation (15% versus 24%, p = 0.06) and had lower fluoroscopy times (7.5 versus 11.2 minutes, p < 0.001), lower contrast usage (180 versus 228 ml, p < 0.001), lower procedural costs (euro1982 versus euro2164, p = 0.05) and reduced rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE) at six months (12.2 versus 21.1%, p = 0.03). The medium-volume operator group experienced higher angiographic binary restenosis rates after direct stenting compared with stenting after predilatation (31.5 versus 14.9%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Stenting performed by high-volume operators resulted in a 50% reduction in MACCE as compared with medium-volume physicians, which also had twice as much restenosis when using direct stenting. Hence, the more demanding technique of direct stenting should not be performed by unsupervised operators who have not yet completed their training. Furthermore, prolonged training periods and even more intensive supervision by experienced operators seems mandatory.

Direct stenting with the Bx VELOCITY balloon-expandable stent mounted on the Raptor rapid exchange delivery system versus predilatation in a European randomized Trial: the VELVET trial.

AIMS: This study examined the six-month angiographic results of direct coronary stenting, and compared the nine-month safety, efficacy and cost of this strategy versus stenting after balloon predilatation. METHODS: In phase I of VELVET, 122 patients (mean age = 62.3 +/- 10.1 years, 77% male, 11% with diabetes) with angina pectoris or myocardial ischemia resulting from a single de novo 51% to 95% coronary stenosis underwent direct stenting. The endpoints of phase I included angiographic findings and rates of major adverse cardiac events up to six months of follow-up. In phase II, 401 patients (mean age = 61.3 +/- 10.8 years, 79% male, 16% with diabetes) with angina pectoris or documented myocardial ischemia resulting from single or multiple, de novo or restenotic, coronary lesions were randomized between direct stenting and stenting after predilatation. The immediate angiographic results, and clinical outcomes and costs associated with the two treatment strategies up to nine months of follow-up were compared. RESULTS: In phase I the mean diameter stenosis immediately before and after the procedure, and at six months was 61.7+/-9.4%, 13.5+/-6.3%, and 33.6+/-16.2%, respectively. The six-month binary restenosis rate was 11%. The overall rate of major adverse cardiac events, including two non-cardiac deaths, was 9.8%. In phase II, the success rates of the intended delivery strategies were 87.9% and 97.9% for direct stenting and predilatation, respectively (p < 0.001), while the procedural success rates were similar (93.9% vs 96.5%). Over a follow-up period of nine months, major adverse cardiac events rates were 12.0% and 10.9% in patients randomized to direct stenting and predilatation, respectively (non-significant). Analyses of the costs incurred up to nine months in each treatment group revealed a mean saving of e362 per patient in favor of the direct stenting strategy (non-significant). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a strategy of stenting preceded by balloon dilatation, direct stenting was associated with an equivalent procedural success rate, equivalent clinical results up to nine months of follow-up, and a reduction in procedural and in-hospital costs (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.001, respectively), that was no longer significant after nine months.