Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased risk for death from surgery; less is known about TAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic stenosis and were at low surgical risk. When 850 patients had reached 12-month follow-up, we analyzed data regarding the primary end point, a composite of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, using Bayesian methods. RESULTS: Of the 1468 patients who underwent randomization, an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure was performed in 1403. The patients' mean age was 74 years. The 24-month estimated incidence of the primary end point was 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999). At 30 days, patients who had undergone TAVR, as compared with surgery, had a lower incidence of disabling stroke (0.5% vs. 1.7%), bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 7.5%), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 2.8%), and atrial fibrillation (7.7% vs. 35.4%) and a higher incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 0.5%) and pacemaker implantation (17.4% vs. 6.1%). At 12 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (8.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2 mm Hg) and larger effective orifice areas (2.3 cm2 vs. 2.0 cm2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02701283.).

Improved outcomes in patients with severely depressed LVEF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary practices.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary practices for hemodynamically supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have evolved over the last decade. This study sought to compare outcomes of the prospective, multicenter, PROTECT III study to historic patients treated with Impella in the PROTECT II randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Of 1,134 patients enrolled in PROTECT III from March 2017 to March 2020, 504 were "PROTECT II-like" (met eligibility for PROTECT II randomized controlled trial) and are referred to as PROTECT III for comparative analysis. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), comprising all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, were compared at hospital discharge and 90 days. RESULTS: Compared with PROTECT II (N = 216), PROTECT III patients were less often Caucasian (77.1% vs 83.8%, P = .045), with less prior CABG (13.7% vs 39.4%; P < .001) and prior myocardial infarction (40.7% vs 69.3%; P < .001). More PROTECT III patients underwent rotational atherectomy (37.1% vs 14.8%, P < .001) and duration of support was longer (median 1.6 vs 1.3 hours; p<0.001), with greater improvement achieved in myocardial ischemia jeopardy scores (7.0±2.4 vs 4.4±2.9; P < .001) and SYNTAX scores (21.4±10.8 vs 15.7±9.5; P < .001). In-hospital bleeding requiring transfusion was significantly lower in PROTECT III (1.8% vs 9.3%; P < .001), as was procedural hypotension (2.2% vs 10.1%; P < .001) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation or ventricular arrhythmia (1.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001). At 90 days, MACCE was 15.1% and 21.9% in PROTECT III and PROTECT II, respectively (p=0.037). Following propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 90-day MACCE rates in PROTECT III (10.4% vs 16.9%, P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: The PROTECT III study demonstrates improved completeness of revascularization, less bleeding, and improved 90-day clinical outcomes compared to PROTECT II for Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with severely depressed LVEF.

Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research.

AIMS: The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research. METHODS AND RESULTS: Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.

Use of Administrative Claims to Assess Outcomes and Treatment Effect in Randomized Clinical Trials for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings From the EXTEND Study.

BACKGROUND: Whether passively collected data can substitute for adjudicated outcomes to reproduce the magnitude and direction of treatment effect observed in cardiovascular clinical trials is not well known. METHODS: We linked adults ≥65 years of age in the HiR (US CoreValve Pivotal High Risk) and SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to 100% Medicare inpatient claims, January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016. Primary (eg, death and stroke) and secondary trial end points were compared across treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) using trial-adjudicated outcomes versus outcomes derived from claims at 1 year (HiR) or 2 years (SURTAVI). RESULTS: Among 600 linked HiR participants (linkage rate, 80.0%), the rate of the trial's primary end point of all-cause mortality occurred in 13.7% of patients receiving TAVR and 16.4% of patients receiving SAVR at 1 year by using both trial data (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.09]; P=0.33) and claims data (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.66-1.11]; P=0.34; interaction P value=0.80). Noninferiority of TAVR relative to SAVR was seen by using both trial- and claims-based outcomes (Pnoninferiority<0.001 for both). Among 1005 linked SURTAVI trial participants (linkage rate, 60.5%), the trial's primary end point was 12.9% for TAVR and 13.1% for SAVR using trial data (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.90), and 11.3% for TAVR and 12.5% for SAVR patients using claims data (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73-1.41]; P=0.58; interaction P value=0.89). TAVR was noninferior to SAVR when compared using both trial and claims (Pnoninferiority<0.001 for both). Rates of procedural secondary outcomes (eg, aortic valve reintervention, pacemaker rates) were more closely concordant between trial and claims data than nonprocedural outcomes (eg, stroke, bleeding, cardiogenic shock). CONCLUSIONS: In the HiR and SURTAVI trials, ascertainment of trial primary end points using claims reproduced both the magnitude and direction of treatment effect in comparison with adjudicated event data, but nonfatal and nonprocedural secondary outcomes were not as well reproduced. Use of claims to substitute for adjudicated outcomes in traditional trial treatment comparisons may be valid and feasible for all-cause mortality and certain procedural outcomes but may be less suitable for other end points.

Comparison of a Complete Percutaneous Versus Surgical Approach to Aortic Valve Replacement and Revascularization in Patients at Intermediate Surgical Risk: Results From the Randomized SURTAVI Trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, the completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not been compared with the standard surgical approach. METHODS: The prospective SURTAVI trial (Safety and Efficiency Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement) enrolled intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis from 87 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe between June 2012 and June 2016. Complex coronary artery disease with SYNTAX score (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial) >22 was an exclusion criterion. Patients were stratified according to the need for revascularization and then randomly assigned to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Patients assigned to revascularization in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas those in the SAVR group had coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. RESULTS: Of 1660 subjects with attempted aortic valve implants, 332 (20%) were assigned to revascularization. They had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality (4.8±1.7% versus 4.4±1.5%; P<0.01) and were more likely to be male (65.1% versus 54.2%; P<0.01) than the 1328 patients not assigned to revascularization. After randomization to treatment, there were 169 patients undergoing TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention, 163 patients undergoing SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting, 695 patients undergoing TAVR, and 633 patients undergoing SAVR. No significant difference in the rate of the primary end point was found between TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention and SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting (16.0%; 95% CI, 11.1-22.9 versus 14.0%; 95% CI, 9.2-21.1; P=0.62), or between TAVR and SAVR (11.9%; 95% CI, 9.5-14.7 versus 12.3%; 95% CI, 9.8-15.4; P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: For patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and noncomplex coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score ≤22), a complete percutaneous approach of TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention is a reasonable alternative to SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT01586910.

Clinical Outcomes Before and After Complete Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Resorption: Five-Year Follow-Up From the ABSORB III Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) provides early drug delivery and mechanical support similar to those of metallic drug-eluting stents, followed by complete resorption in ≈3 years with recovery of vascular structure and function. The ABSORB III trial demonstrated noninferior rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year with BVS compared with cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents. Between 1 and 3 years and cumulative to 3 years, adverse event rates (particularly target vessel myocardial infarction and scaffold thrombosis) were increased after BVS. We sought to assess clinical outcomes after BVS through 5 years, including beyond the 3-year time point of complete scaffold resorption. METHODS: Clinical outcomes from ABSORB III were analyzed by randomized device (intention to treat) cumulative to 5 years and between 3 and 5 years. RESULTS: Rates of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, and scaffold thrombosis were increased through the 5-year follow-up with BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents. However, between 3 and 5 years, reductions in the relative hazards of the BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents were observed, particularly for target lesion failure (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.55-1.24] versus 1.35 [95% CI, 1.02-1.78]; Pint=0.052) and scaffold thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.02-2.87] versus 3.23 [95% CI, 1.25-8.30]; Pint=0.056) compared with the 0- to 3-year time period. CONCLUSIONS: In the ABSORB III trial, cumulative 5-year adverse event rates were increased after BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents. However, the period of excess risk for BVS ended at 3 years, coincident with complete scaffold resorption. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01751906.

Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement. RESULTS: A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 79.8±6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5±1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval [Bayesian analysis] for difference, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910 .).

Improvement in left ventricular function following higher-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical revascularization is associated with improved ventricular function and clinical outcomes among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. There are less extensive data on changes in ventricular function among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Accordingly, we sought to assess the extent and predictors of change in left ventricular ejection fraction (ΔLVEF) among patients undergoing hemodynamically-supported PCI. METHODS: We assessed ΔLVEF following hemodynamically-supported PCI (with Impella or intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation) among patients enrolled in the PROTECT II trial and cVAD registry. The ΔLVEF was compared among patients with paired echocardiography at baseline and at least 30 days of follow-up. Independent correlates of ΔLVEF (modeled continuously and with an absolute ΔLVEF≥5%) were assessed using multivariable models. RESULTS: Among the 689 patients with paired echocardiographic data included in the analysis, the mean LVEF improved from 24.8 ± 9.9% to 31.4 ± 13.3% after PCI, for a net increase of 6.5 ± 10.8% (p < .001). A total of 395 (57%) patients had ΔLVEF ≥ 5% following hemodynamically-supported PCI. The number of vessels treated was associated with ΔLVEF (ΔLVEF 5.5% with 1 vessel, 6.6% with 2 vessels, and 8.3% with 3 vessels, p for trend = .046). A lower baseline LVEF, absence of a history of congestive heart failure or aldosterone receptor antagonist use, and a greater number of vessels treated were independent correlates of LVEF improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction and paired echocardiographic assessments, an improvement in LVEF was observed following hemodynamically-supported PCI.

Three-Year Efficacy and Safety of the Misago Peripheral Stent for Superficial Femoral Artery Disease: Final Results from the OSPREY Trial.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the long-term outcomes of the Misago peripheral stent trial (Terumo) for atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery (SFA) in patients with claudication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter, single-arm, clinical trial of primary stent placement for de novo cases of SFA disease conducted in the United States and Asia. The primary endpoint was freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) at 36 months. Secondary outcomes were ankle-brachial index (ABI), Rutherford score, Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), a quality of life survey, and rate of device fracture. RESULTS: A total of 276 patients (64.4% male; mean age, 69.3 ± 10.1 years) were enrolled. Freedom from CD-TLR was 78.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.0%-83.0%) at 24 months and 75.4% (95% CI, 69.6%-80.2%) at 36 months. Baseline ABI was 0.7 ± 0.1 and 0.98 ± 0.20 (P < .001) at 30 days after the procedure. Baseline Rutherford score was 3.6 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 1.0 30 at 30 days after the procedure (P < .001). Mean (and changed) ABI and Rutherford score at 36 months compared to day 30 after the procedure were, respectively, 0.91 (-0.1 ± 0.2) and 1.5 (-0.2 ± 1.1). WIQ score at baseline was 21.49 ± 26.30 and 50.51 ± 38.49 at 30 days after the procedure ( P < .001). The mean WIQ score at 2 years was 46.65 ± 37.31 (P = .12). Stent fracture rate at 36 months was 2.0% (4 of 202 patients). CONCLUSIONS: OSPREY (Occlusive-Stenotic Peripheral Artery Revascularization Study) 36-month data demonstrated persistent freedom from CD-TLR and sustained improvement in ABI and Rutherford score with primary stent placement for SFA lesions.

Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend considering life expectancy before aortic valve replacement (AVR). We compared the performance of a general mortality index, the Lee index, to a frailty index. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 246 older adults undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at a single academic medical center. We compared performance of the Lee index to a deficit accumulation frailty index (FI). Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Lee index or FI with poor outcome, defined as death or functional decline with severe symptoms at 12 months. Discrimination was assessed using C-statistics. RESULTS: In the overall cohort, 44 experienced poor outcome (31 deaths, 13 functional decline with severe symptoms). The risk of poor outcome by Lee index quartiles was 6.8% (reference), 17.9% (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% confidence interval, [0.9-10.2]), 20.0% (OR 3.4; [1.0-11.4]), and 34.0% (OR 7.1; [2.2-22.6]) (p-for-trend = 0.001). Risk of poor outcome by FI quartiles was 3.6% (reference), 10.3% (OR 3.1; [0.6-15.8]), 25.0% (OR 8.8; [1.9-41.0]), and 37.3% (OR 15.8; [3.5-71.1]) (p-for-trend< 0.001). The Lee index predicted the risk of poor outcome in the SAVR cohort Lee index (quartiles 1-4: 2.1, 4.0, 15.4, and 20.0%; p-for-trend = 0.04), but not in the TAVR cohort (quartiles 1-4: 27.3, 29.0, 21.3, 35.4%; p-for-trend = 0.42). In contrast, the FI did not predict the risk of poor outcome well in the SAVR cohort (quartiles 1-4: 2.3, 4.4, 15.8, and 0%; p-for-trend = 0.24), however in the TAVR cohort (quartiles 1-4: 9.1, 14.3, 29.7, and 40.7%; p-for-trend = 0.004). Compared to the Lee index, an FI demonstrated higher C-statistics in the overall (Lee index versus FI: 0.680 versus 0.735; p = 0.03) and TAVR (0.560 versus 0.644; p = 0.03) cohorts, but not SAVR cohort (0.724 versus 0.766; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: While a general mortality index Lee index predicted death or functional decline with severe symptoms at 12 months well among SAVR patients, the FI derived from a multi-domain geriatric assessment better informs risk-stratification for high-risk TAVR patients.

Frailty and related outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter valve therapies in a nationwide cohort.

AIMS: We sought to identify the prevalence and related outcomes of frail individuals undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients aged 65 and older were included in the study if they had at least one procedural code for transcatheter mitral valve repair or TAVR between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016 in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Provider and Review database. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score, an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) claims-based score, was used to identify frailty and the primary outcome was all-cause 1-year mortality. A total of 3746 (11.6%) patients underwent transcatheter mitral valve repair and 28 531 (88.4%) underwent TAVR. In the transcatheter mitral valve repair and TAVR populations, respectively, there were 1903 (50.8%) and 14 938 (52.4%) patients defined as low risk for frailty (score <5), 1476 (39.4%) and 11 268 (39.5%) defined as intermediate risk (score 5-15), and 367 (9.8%) and 2325 (8.1%) defined as high risk (score >15). One-year mortality was 12.8% in low-risk patients, 29.7% in intermediate-risk patients, and 40.9% in high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair (log rank P < 0.001). In patients undergoing TAVR, 1-year mortality rates were 7.6% in low-risk patients, 17.6% in intermediate-risk patients, and 30.1% in high-risk patients (log rank P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully identified individuals at greater risk of short- and long-term mortality after undergoing transcatheter valve therapies in an elderly population in the USA using the ICD-10 claims-based Hospital Frailty Risk Score.

Malnutrition and Mortality in Frail and Non-Frail Older Adults Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Older adults undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) are at risk for malnutrition. The association between preprocedural nutritional status and midterm mortality has yet to be determined. METHODS: The FRAILTY-AVR (Frailty in Aortic Valve Replacement) prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted between 2012 and 2017 in 14 centers in 3 countries. Patients ≥70 years of age who underwent transcatheter or surgical AVR were eligible. The Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form was assessed by trained observers preprocedure, with scores ≤7 of 14 considered malnourished and 8 to 11 of 14 considered at risk for malnutrition. The Short Performance Physical Battery was simultaneously assessed to measure physical frailty, with scores ≤5 of 12 considered severely frail and 6 to 8 of 12 considered mildly frail. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was 30-day composite mortality or major morbidity. Multivariable regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: There were 1158 patients (727 transcatheter AVR and 431 surgical AVR), with 41.5% females, a mean age of 81.3 years, a mean body mass index of 27.5 kg/m2, and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality of 5.1%. Overall, 8.7% of patients were classified as malnourished and 32.8% were at risk for malnutrition. Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form scores were modestly correlated with Short Performance Physical Battery scores (Spearman R=0.31, P<0.001). There were 126 deaths in the transcatheter AVR group (19.1 per 100 patient-years) and 30 deaths in the surgical AVR group (7.5 per 100 patient-years). Malnourished patients had a nearly 3-fold higher crude risk of 1-year mortality compared with those with normal nutritional status (28% versus 10%, P<0.001). After adjustment for frailty, Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality, and procedure type, preprocedural nutritional status was a significant predictor of 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 1.08 per Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form point; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16) and of the 30-day composite safety end point (odds ratio, 1.06 per Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form point; 95% CI, 1.001-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Preprocedural nutritional status is associated with mortality in older adults undergoing AVR. Clinical trials are needed to determine whether pre- and postprocedural nutritional interventions can improve clinical outcomes in these vulnerable patients.

Validating the use of registries and claims data to support randomized trials: Rationale and design of the Extending Trial-Based Evaluations of Medical Therapies Using Novel Sources of Data (EXTEND) Study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials are the "gold standard" for comparing the safety and efficacy of therapies but may be limited due to high costs, lack of feasibility, and difficulty enrolling "real-world" patient populations. The Extending Trial-Based Evaluations of Medical Therapies Using Novel Sources of Data (EXTEND) Study seeks to evaluate whether data collected within procedural registries and claims databases can reproduce trial results by substituting surrogate non-trial-based variables for exposures and outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient-level data from 2 clinical trial programs-the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study and the United States CoreValve Studies-will be linked to a combination of national registry, administrative claims, and health system data. The concordance between baseline and outcomes data collected within nontrial data sets and trial information, including adjudicated end point events, will be assessed. We will compare the study results obtained using these alternative data sources to those derived using trial-ascertained variables and end points using trial-adjudicated end points and covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Linkage of trials to registries and claims data represents an opportunity to use alternative data sources in place of and as adjuncts to randomized clinical trial data but requires further validation. The results of this research will help determine how these data sources can be used to improve our present and future understanding of new medical treatments.

Opportunities for enhancing the care of older patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and design of the SAFE-STEMI for Seniors trial.

Advanced age is directly related to worse outcomes following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and higher complication rates from antithrombotic therapies and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Often excluded from clinical trials, seniors presenting with STEMI remain an understudied population despite contributing to 140,000 hospital admissions annually. The SAFE-STEMI for Seniors study is a prospective, multicenter, unblinded, randomized clinical trial designed to examine the efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided complete revascularization in multivessel disease, while also investigating other components of STEMI care for patients ≥60 years including the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents for primary PCI and transradial PCI with the Glidesheath Slender and TR band. The SAFE-STEMI trial represents North America's first and only prospective randomized investigational device exemption study to use a Coordinated Registry Network infrastructure with collaborative partnering across industry manufacturers, promoting both efficiency and reduced cost of evidence development for regulatory decisions related to both diagnostic and therapeutic technologies in a single study design. The study has been powered to evaluate 2 independent co-primary end points in a population of older patients with STEMI: (1) third-generation drug-eluting stents for primary PCI and (2) instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided complete revascularization versus infarct-related artery-only revascularization.

Impact of calcification on percutaneous coronary intervention: MACE-Trial 1-year results.

OBJECTIVES: The Multi-center Prospective Study to Evaluate Outcomes of Moderate to Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions (MACE-Trial) was designed to provide further insight on the impact of calcification on procedural and long-term percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes. BACKGROUND: Prior studies evaluating the impact of lesion calcification on percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes are limited by: retrospective nature, pooled data from multiple studies, or lack of specificity around calcification with only operator assessment and without core lab evaluation. METHODS: The MACE-Trial was a prospective, multicenter, observational clinical study that enrolled 350 subjects at 33 sites from September 2013 to September 2015. Core lab assessed subject stratification by lesion calcification (none/mild [N = 133], moderate [N = 99], and severe [N = 114]). Endpoints were lesion success, procedural success, and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). RESULTS: Presence of severe calcification had significant impact on lesion success ([83.3%] versus none/mild calcification [94.7%, P = 0.006]) and procedural success ([86.8%] versus moderate [95.0%, P = 0.028], and none/mild [97.7%, P = 0.001]). 1-year MACE rates were associated with presence of calcification in subjects with none/mild (4.7%), moderate (8.7%), and severe (24.4%) (P < 0.001) calcification; however, no difference was noted between none/mild and moderate (P = 0.237). The risk adjusted multivariable model identified severe calcification and decreasing eGFR as predictors of 30-day and 1-year MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, patients with severe calcification had significantly worse outcomes compared to those without; however, unlike previous retrospective studies, moderate calcium resulted in similar outcomes as none/mild calcium. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01930214. Unique Identifier: NCT01930214.

Clinical impact of baseline chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the treatment effect of TAVR versus SAVR on clinical outcomes to 3 years in patients stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) by retrospectively studying patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR. BACKGROUND: The impact of CKD on mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR is unclear. METHODS: Patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial were retrospectively stratified by eGFR: none/mild or moderate/severe CKD. To evaluate the impact of baseline CKD in TAVR patients only, all patients undergoing an attempted TAVR implant in the US Pivotal Trial and CAS were stratified by baseline eGFR into none/mild, moderate, and severe CKD. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and renal events (MACRE), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke/TIA, and new requirement of dialysis. RESULTS: Moderate/severe CKD was present in 62.7% and 60.7% of high-risk patients randomized to TAVR or SAVR, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVR and SAVR patients in both CKD subgroups, except for higher rates of diabetes and higher serum creatinine in SAVR patients. Among high-risk patients with moderate/severe CKD, TAVR provided a lower 3-year MACRE rate compared with SAVR: 42.1% vs. 51.0, P = .04. Of 3,733 extreme- and high-risk TAVR patients, 39.9% had none/mild, 53.8% moderate, and 6.4% severe CKD. Worsening baseline CKD was associated with increased 3-year MACRE rates [none/mild 51.5%, moderate 54.5%, severe 63.1%, P = .001]. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR results in lower 3-year MACRE versus SAVR in high-risk patients with moderate/severe CKD. In patients undergoing TAVR, worsening CKD increases mid-term mortality and MACRE. Randomized trials of TAVR vs. SAVR in patients with moderate-severe CKD would help elucidate the best treatment for these complex patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CoreValve US Pivotal Trial: NCT01240902. CoreValve Continued Access Study: NCT01531374.

Late-term safety and effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents in chronic total coronary occlusion revascularization: Final 4-year results from the evaluation of the XIENCE coronary stent, Performance, and Technique in Chronic Total Occlusions (EXPERT CTO) multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited study has detailed the late-term safety and efficacy of chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) revascularization among multiple centers applying modern techniques and with newer-generation drug-eluting stents. METHODS: Among 20 centers, 222 patients enrolled in the XIENCE coronary stent, performance, and technique (EXPERT) CTO trial underwent CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Through planned 4-year follow-up, the primary composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction [MI] and target lesion revascularization) and rates of individual component endpoints and stent thrombosis were determined. RESULTS: Demographic, lesion, and procedural characteristics included prior bypass surgery, 9.9%; diabetes, 40.1%; lesion length, 36.1 ± 18.5 mm; and stent length, 51.7 ± 27.2 mm. By 4 years, MACE rates were 31.6 and 22.4% by the pre-specified ARC and per-protocol definitions, respectively. Clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization at 4 years was 11.3%. In landmark analyses of events beyond the first year of revascularization, the annualized rates of target vessel-related MI and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization were 0.53 and 1.3%, respectively. Through 4 years, the cumulative definite/probable stent thrombosis rate was 1.7% with no events occurring beyond the initial year of index revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter registration trial representing contemporary technique and EES, these results demonstrate sustained long-term safety and effectiveness of EES in CTO percutaneous revascularization and can be used to inform shared decision making with patients being considered for CTO PCI relative to late safety and vessel patency.

IN.PACT SFA Clinical Study Using the IN.PACT Admiral Drug-Coated Balloon in a Chinese Patient Population.

Purpose: To confirm the safety and effectiveness of the IN.PACT Admiral drug-coated balloon (DCB) as a treatment for de novo and native artery restenotic lesions in the superficial femoral artery (SFA) and/or proximal popliteal artery in Chinese subjects. Materials and Methods: IN.PACT SFA China (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02118532) was a single-arm, independently adjudicated, prospective, premarket study that enrolled 143 subjects (mean age 66.8±7.7 years; 107 men) at 15 centers. The predominant risk factors were hypertension (104, 72.7%) and diabetes mellitus (66, 46.2%). The majority of subjects were classified as Rutherford category 2 or 3 [69 (48.3%) and 55 (38.5%), respectively]; 19 (13.3%) subjects had critical limb ischemia (Rutherford category 4). The mean lesion length was 10.4±6.51 cm; more than half of the lesions (75, 52.4%) were chronic total occlusions. Calcification was found in 66 (46.2%) lesions. Outcomes at 12 months were compared with DCB safety and effectiveness performance goals derived from the literature. The 30-day primary safety outcome was a composite of freedom from device- and procedure-related mortality, major target limb amputation, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Results: The primary safety outcome was 99.3% at 30 days. Follow-up compliance at 12 months was 92.6%. Estimated 1-year primary patency using Kaplan-Meier analysis was 90.9% and freedom from CD-TLR was 97.1%. The rate of CD-TLR at 12 months was 2.9%. The Rutherford category status improved significantly (p<0.001) between baseline and 12 months. Conclusion: Results from IN.PACT SFA China demonstrated high rates of patency and low rates of CD-TLR in Chinese subjects through 12 months despite patient and lesion complexity. These data are consistent with the results of other IN.PACT DCB trials.

iCAST Balloon-Expandable Covered Stent for Iliac Artery Lesions: 3-Year Results from the iCARUS Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of the iCAST Covered Stent for treatment of iliac artery atherosclerotic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The iCARUS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00593385) was a single-arm, prospective, multicenter study that enrolled 152 per protocol subjects at 25 sites in the United States and Germany. Subjects with multiple lesions and/or stents were eligible. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of death within 30 days, target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 9 months, or restenosis at 9 months after procedure. Secondary endpoints included major adverse vascular events (MAVEs), primary patency, freedom from TLR, and clinical success. RESULTS: Device and acute procedural success were achieved in 98.7% and 92.7% of cases, respectively. MAVE rate was 4.6% at 30 days. The 9-month primary composite endpoint rate was 8.1% (10/123), which was below the performance goal of 16.57%. Nine-month primary patency, defined as continuous flow without revascularization, bypass, or target limb amputation, was 96.4%. Freedom from TLR at 9 months and 3 years was 97.2% and 86.6%, respectively. Early clinical success was seen in 88.7% of subjects at 30 days with sustained clinical benefit in 72.4% of subjects at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The iCARUS study demonstrated that the iCAST Covered Stent was safe and effective for treatment of atherosclerotic iliac artery lesions with sustained clinical benefit out to 3 years.

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary artery disease who receive metallic drug-eluting coronary stents, adverse events such as late target-lesion failure may be related in part to the persistent presence of the metallic stent frame in the coronary-vessel wall. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds have been developed to attempt to improve long-term outcomes. METHODS: In this large, multicenter, randomized trial, 2008 patients with stable or unstable angina were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular (Absorb) scaffold (1322 patients) or an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium (Xience) stent (686 patients). The primary end point, which was tested for both noninferiority (margin, 4.5 percentage points for the risk difference) and superiority, was target-lesion failure (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) at 1 year. RESULTS: Target-lesion failure at 1 year occurred in 7.8% of patients in the Absorb group and in 6.1% of patients in the Xience group (difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 3.9; P=0.007 for noninferiority and P=0.16 for superiority). There was no significant difference between the Absorb group and the Xience group in rates of cardiac death (0.6% and 0.1%, respectively; P=0.29), target-vessel myocardial infarction (6.0% and 4.6%, respectively; P=0.18), or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (3.0% and 2.5%, respectively; P=0.50). Device thrombosis within 1 year occurred in 1.5% of patients in the Absorb group and in 0.7% of patients in the Xience group (P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, randomized trial, treatment of noncomplex obstructive coronary artery disease with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold, as compared with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent, was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with respect to target-lesion failure at 1 year. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; ABSORB III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01751906.).