TransCatheter aortic valve implantation and fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting for treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis and multivessel or advanced coronary disease: The transcatheter valve and vessels trial (TCW trial): Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) frequently present with concomitant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). In those, current guidelines recommend combined coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the preferred treatment option, although this surgical approach is associated with a high rate of clinical events. Combined transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without FFR have evolved as a valid alternative for cardiac surgery in patients with AS and multivessel or advanced CAD. To date, no dedicated trial has prospectively evaluated the outcomes of a percutaneous versus surgical treatment for patients with both severe AS and CAD. AIMS: To investigate whether fractional-flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI and TAVI is noninferior to combined CABG and SAVR for the treatment of severe AS and multivessel or advanced CAD. METHODS: The Transcatheter Valve and Vessels (TCW) trial (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03424941) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, open label, international trial. Patients ≥ 70 years with severe AS and multivessel (≥ 2 vessels) or advanced CAD, deemed feasible by the heart team for both; a full percutaneous or surgical treatment, will be randomised in a 1:1 fashion to either FFR-guided PCI followed by TAVI (intervention arm) vs. CABG and SAVR (control arm). The primary endpoint is a patient-oriented composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, unscheduled clinically-driven target vessel revascularization, valve reintervention, and life threatening or disabling bleeding at 1 year. The TCW trial is powered for noninferiority, and if met, superiority will be tested. Assuming a primary endpoint rate of 30% in the CABG-SAVR arm, with a significance level α of 5%, a noninferiority limit delta of 15% and a loss to follow-up of 2%, a total of 328 patients are needed to obtain a power of 90%. The primary endpoint analysis is performed on an intention-to-treat basis. SUMMARY: The TCW Trial is the first prospective randomized trial that will study if a less invasive percutaneous treatment for severe AS and concomitant advanced CAD (i.e., FFR-guided PCI-TAVI) is noninferior to the guidelines recommended approach (CABG-SAVR).

Nonprocedural bleeding after left atrial appendage closure versus direct oral anticoagulants: A subanalysis of the randomized PRAGUE-17 trial.

INTRODUCTION: Observational studies have shown low bleeding rates in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated by left atrial appendage closure (LAAC); however, data from randomized studies are lacking. This study compared bleeding events among patients with AF treated by LAAC and nonvitamin K anticoagulants (NOAC). METHODS: The Prague-17 trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial that compared LAAC to NOAC in high-risk AF patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of a cardioembolic event, cardiovascular death, and major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH). RESULTS: The trial enrolled 402 patients (201 per arm), and the median follow-up was 3.5 (IQR 2.6-4.2) years. Bleeding occurred in 24 patients (29 events) and 32 patients (40 events) in the LAAC and NOAC groups, respectively. Six of the LAAC bleeding events were procedure/device-related. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, LAAC was associated with similar rates of ISTH major or CRNMB (sHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.27, p = 0.28), but with a reduction in nonprocedural major or CRNMB (sHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.97, p = 0.039). This reduction for nonprocedural bleeding with LAAC was mainly driven by a reduced rate of CRNMB (sHR for major bleeding 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.39, p = .30; sHR for CRNMB 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.03, p = 0.059). History of bleeding was a predictor of bleeding during follow-up. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common bleeding site in both groups. CONCLUSION: During the 4-year follow-up, LAAC was associated with less nonprocedural bleeding. The reduction is mainly driven by a decrease in CRNMB.

Endovascular management of an aortic rupture following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

We report a case of aortic rupture during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) managed successfully by urgent stent-graft implantation.

Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study.

BACKGROUND: No randomized head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been published in the 7 years since the higher efficacy of these newer P2Y12 inhibitors were first demonstrated relative to clopidogrel. METHODS: This academic study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute myocardial infarction treated with primary or immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1230 patients were randomly assigned across 14 sites to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, which was initiated before percutaneous coronary intervention. Nearly 4% were in cardiogenic shock, and 5.2% were on mechanical ventilation. The primary end point was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious bleeding requiring transfusion or prolonging hospitalization at 7 days (to reflect primarily the in-hospital phase). This analysis presents data from the first 30 days (key secondary end point). The total follow-up will be 1 year for all patients and will be completed in 2017. RESULTS: The study was prematurely terminated for futility. The occurrence of the primary end point did not differ between groups receiving prasugrel and ticagrelor (4.0% and 4.1%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.73; P=0.939). No significant difference was found in any of the components of the primary end point. The occurrence of key secondary end point within 30 days, composed of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke, did not show any significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor (2.7% and 2.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.15; P=0.864). CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is more effective or safer than the other in preventing ischemic and bleeding events in the acute phase of myocardial infarction treated with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy. The observed rates of major outcomes were similar but with broad confidence intervals around the estimates. These interesting observations need to be confirmed in a larger trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02808767.

Interventional left atrial appendage closure vs novel anticoagulation agents in patients with atrial fibrillation indicated for long-term anticoagulation (PRAGUE-17 study).

Atrial fibrillation (AF), with a prevalence of 1% to 2%, is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. Without antithrombotic treatment, the annual risk of a cardioembolic event is 5% to 6%. The source of a cardioembolic event is a thrombus, which is usually formed in the left atrial appendage (LAA). Prevention of cardioembolic events involves treatment with anticoagulant drugs: either vitamin K antagonists or, recently, novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC). The other (nonpharmacologic) option for the prevention of a cardioembolic event involves interventional occlusion of the LAA. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether percutaneous LAA occlusion is noninferior to treatment with NOAC in AF patients indicated for long-term systemic anticoagulation. STUDY DESIGN: The trial will be a prospective, multicenter, randomized noninferiority trial comparing 2 treatment strategies in moderate to high-risk AF patients (ie, patients with history of significant bleeding, or history of cardiovascular event(s), or a with CHA2DS2VASc ≥3 and HAS-BLED score ≥2). Patients will be randomized into a percutaneous LAA occlusion (group A) or a NOAC treatment (group B) in a 1:1 ratio; the randomization was done using Web-based randomization software. A total of 396 study participants (198 patients in each group) will be enrolled in the study. The primary end point will be the occurrence of any of the following events within 24months after randomization: stroke or transient ischemic attack (any type), systemic cardioembolic event, clinically significant bleeding, cardiovascular death, or a significant periprocedural or device-related complications. CONCLUSION: The PRAGUE-17 trial will determine if LAA occlusion is noninferior to treatment with NOAC in moderate- to high-risk AF patients.

[Optical coherence tomography, delayed stent implantation and primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with myocardial infarction and ST segment elevation]. / Optická koherentní tomografie, oddálená implantace stentu a prímá perkutánní koronární intervence u nemocných s infarktem myokardu a elevací ST segmentu.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an effective treatment for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. However, the stent may slow (slow-flow) or even interrupt the flow (no-reflow) in the infarct-related artery with an increase in short-term and long-term mortality. Due to these limitations there is an effort to search for alternative methods or certain modifications of existing PCI. Present article introduces a modified PCI and results of trombo-aspiration technique by optical coherence tomography (OCT). The article presents the results of our clinical study and brief case report. Our pilot project involved 100 patients with STEMI in 2011-2012. 20 patients (20%) were initially treated only with trombo-aspiration without stent implantation, based on OCT. Control angiography and OCT done 9 months after event have revealed insignificant stenosis in all patients. It is plausible that universal medical procedure with stenting is not suitable for all patients with STEMI and especially patients with large thrombus may benefit from the alternative procedure performed by manually trombo-aspiration technique with intensive anticoagulant/antiaggregant therapy. Nevertheless, only randomized trials with sufficiently follow-up may confirm this hypothesis.

[The user´s reporting from the national registry of catheter aortic valve implantations (Czech TAVI Registry): the possibilities of the analytical reports based on the database system TrialDB2]. / Uzivatelské výstupy z národního registru katetrových implantací aortální chlopne (Czech TAVI Registry): moznosti analytických výstupu zalozených na databázovém systému TrialDB2.

Assessment of the treatment procedures and their results is increasingly important in current medicine. The emphasis is put on an effective use of the health technologies (HTA). Unlike randomised studies, which involve strictly selected groups of patients who meet inclusion and exclusion criterias, the multicentre clinical registries provide a real-life picture of the treatment safety and effectiveness. Well prepared registries involve both research database and a friendly user interface enabling collection of parametric and easily analyzable data. Although there are some technological aspects aiming to ensure a maximum quality of entered data, cooperation with the users and data managers is essential. Such a registry, otherwise meaningful, must provide answers to previously defined medical hypotheses. Regular feedback to users (so called benchmarking or reporting) is considered to be of key importance. The Czech TAVI Registry (CTR) is a good example of reaching all of the above defined criterias. This registry contains data of approximately 95 % of all transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) performed in the Czech Republic. It is based on a general system aimed at the design of clinical trials, namely the TrialDB2 (a database system for clinical registries developed by the Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses at the Masaryk University (IBA MU). CTR has been run as an English-language version under the auspices of the Czech Society of Cardiology and represents one of the top-quality registries maintained by IBA MU. This paper presents the currently available database systems and some reports from this particular registry.

Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI. RESULTS: Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.

Comparison of cardiac surgery with left atrial surgical ablation vs. cardiac surgery without atrial ablation in patients with coronary and/or valvular heart disease plus atrial fibrillation: final results of the PRAGUE-12 randomized multicentre study.

AIMS: Surgical ablation procedure can restore sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing cardiac surgery. However, it is not known whether it has any impact on long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicentre study randomized 224 patients with AF scheduled for valve and/or coronary surgery: group A (left atrial surgical ablation, n = 117) vs. group B (no ablation, n = 107). The primary efficacy outcome was the SR presence (without any AF episode) during a 24 h electrocardiogram (ECG) after 1 year. The primary safety outcome was the combined endpoint of death/myocardial infarction/stroke/renal failure at 30 days. A Holter-ECG after 1 year revealed SR in 60.2% of group A patients vs. 35.5% in group B (P = 0.002). The combined safety endpoint at 30 days occurred in 10.3% (group A) vs. 14.7% (group B, P = 0.411). All-cause 1-year mortality was 16.2% (A) vs. 17.4% (B, P = 0.800). Stroke occurred in 2.7% (A) vs. 4.3% (B) patients (P = 0.319). No difference (A vs. B) in SR was found among patients with paroxysmal (61.9 vs. 58.3%) or persistent (72 vs. 50%) AF, but ablation significantly increased SR prevalence in patients with longstanding persistent AF (53.2 vs. 13.9%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgical ablation improves the likelihood of SR presence post-operatively without increasing peri-operative complications. However, the higher prevalence of SR did not translate to improved clinical outcomes at 1 year. Further follow-ups (e.g. 5-year) are warranted to show any potential clinical benefit which might occur later.

Randomized comparison of 9-month stent strut coverage of biolimus and everolimus drug-eluting stents assessed by optical coherence tomography in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Long-term (5-years) clinical follow-up (ROBUST trial).

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare healing (assessed by optical coherence tomography [OCT]) of biolimus A9 (BES) and everolimus drug-eluting stents (EES) at 9-month follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Nine-month clinical and angiographic data were also compared in both groups as well as clinical data at 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: A total of 201 patients with STEMI were enrolled in the study and randomized either to pPCI with BES or EES implantation. All patients were scheduled for 9 months of angiographic and OCT follow-up. RESULTS: The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was comparable at 9 months in both groups (5% in BES vs. 6% in the EES group; p = 0.87). Angiographic data were also comparable between both groups. The main finding at 9-month OCT analysis was the greatly reduced extent of mean neointimal area at the cost of a higher proportion of uncovered struts in the BES group (1.3 mm² vs. 0.9 mm²; p = 0.0001 and 15.9% vs. 7.0%; p = 0.0001, respectively). At 5 years of clinical follow-up the rate of MACE was comparable between both groups (16.8% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates a very low rate of MACE and good 9-month stent strut coverage of second-generation BES and EES in patients with STEMI. BES showed greatly reduced extent of mean neointimal hyperplasia area at the cost of a higher proportion of uncovered struts when compared to EES. The rate of MACE was low and comparable in both groups at 5 years.

4-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Nonwarfarin Oral Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The PRAGUE-17 (Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation) trial demonstrated that left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was noninferior to nonwarfarin direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for preventing major neurological, cardiovascular, or bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who were at high risk. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the prespecified long-term (4-year) outcomes in PRAGUE-17. METHODS: PRAGUE-17 was a randomized noninferiority trial comparing percutaneous LAAC (Watchman or Amulet) with DOACs (95% apixaban) in patients with nonvalvular AF and with a history of cardioembolism, clinically-relevant bleeding, or both CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3 and HASBLED ≥2. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardioembolic events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism), cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or procedure-/device-related complications (LAAC group only). The primary analysis was modified intention-to-treat. RESULTS: This study randomized 402 patients with AF (201 per group, age 73.3 ± 7.0 years, 65.7% male, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.7 ±1.5, HASBLED 3.1 ± 0.9). After 3.5 years median follow-up (1,354 patient-years), LAAC was noninferior to DOACs for the primary endpoint by modified intention-to-treat (subdistribution HR [sHR]: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56-1.18; P = 0.27; P for noninferiority = 0.006). For the components of the composite endpoint, the corresponding sHRs were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.39-1.20; P = 0.19) for cardiovascular death, 1.14 (95% CI: 0.56-2.30; P = 0.72) for all-stroke/transient ischemic attack, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.44-1.27; P = 0.28) for clinically relevant bleeding, and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.31-0.97; P = 0.039) for nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding. The primary endpoint outcomes were similar in the per-protocol (sHR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54-1.18; P = 0.25) and on-treatment (sHR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.56-1.20; P = 0.30) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In long-term follow-up of PRAGUE-17, LAAC remains noninferior to DOACs for preventing major cardiovascular, neurological, or bleeding events. Furthermore, nonprocedural bleeding was significantly reduced with LAAC. (PRAGUE-17 [Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation]; NCT02426944).

Long-term health outcome and mortality evaluation after invasive coronary treatment using drug eluting stents with or without the IVUS guidance. Randomized control trial. HOME DES IVUS.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of the intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) on long-term outcome in patients with complex coronary artery disease and high clinical risk profile with special attention to the development of late stent thrombosis (LST). METHODS: Two hundred and ten patients were randomly assigned to receive DES either with (N = 105) or without (N = 105) the IVUS guidance. Dual antiplatelet treatment was administered for 6 months in all patients. At 18-month follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (death, myocardial infarction, and reintervention) were assessed in both groups with special attention to possible LST. Stent thrombosis was classified according to Academic Research Consortium (ARC). RESULTS: At the 18-month follow-up, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding MACE (11% vs. 12%; P = NS). Stent thrombosis has occurred in four patients (3.8%) in the group with and in 6 patients (5.7%; P = NS) in the group without the IVUS guidance. CONCLUSIONS: In our randomized trial we failed to demonstrate the superiority of the IVUS guidance during DES implantation over standard high-pressure postdilatation. However we confirmed worrisome results concerning DES thrombosis after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet-treatment with documented stent thrombosis related events in almost 5% of patients with 50% of mortality in this high-risk clinical scenario.

Randomized comparison of endothelial progenitor cells capture stent versus cobalt-chromium stent for treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Six-month clinical, angiographic, and IVUS follow-up.

PURPOSE: The aim of this trial was to assess the feasibility and safety of endothelial progenitor cells capture (EPC) stent in the treatment of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when compared with cobalt-chromium stents (CoCr). METHODS: Between July 2006 and May 2008, 100 patients with single vessel disease undergoing primary PCI for STEMI were randomly assigned to receive either EPC stent (N = 50) or CoCr stent (N = 50). High-pressure stent implantation was carried out in both groups. Dual antiplatelet treatment was administered for 30 days in both groups. All patients underwent 6-month clinical, angiographic, and IVUS follow-up. RESULTS: The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at 30 days was comparable in both groups. At 6-month follow-up, the rates of MACEs and TLR in the EPC stent group when compared with CoCr stent were 24% vs.10%; P = 0.06 and 14% vs. 4%; P = 0.08, respectively. There were three cases (6%) of stent thrombosis (ST) in the EPC stent group versus none in CoCr group. CONCLUSION: The use of EPC capture stents in the setting of STEMI is feasible and safe in terms of 30-days outcome. However, at the 6-month follow-up, we found a trend of higher rates of MACE and TLR in the EPC stent capture group compared to CoCr stents. The study does not support the use of EPC capture stents with short duration dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with STEMI. Future randomized studies with large sample sizes would be necessary to demonstrate the safety of such approach. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Author Correction: Application and Evaluation of Highly Automated Software for Comprehensive Stent Analysis in Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Application and Evaluation of Highly Automated Software for Comprehensive Stent Analysis in Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography.

Intravascular optical coherence tomography (IVOCT) is used to assess stent tissue coverage and malapposition in stent evaluation trials. We developed the OCT Image Visualization and Analysis Toolkit for Stent (OCTivat-Stent), for highly automated analysis of IVOCT pullbacks. Algorithms automatically detected the guidewire, lumen boundary, and stent struts; determined the presence of tissue coverage for each strut; and estimated the stent contour for comparison of stent and lumen area. Strut-level tissue thickness, tissue coverage area, and malapposition area were automatically quantified. The software was used to analyze 292 stent pullbacks. The concordance-correlation-coefficients of automatically measured stent and lumen areas and independent manual measurements were 0.97 and 0.99, respectively. Eleven percent of struts were missed by the software and some artifacts were miscalled as struts giving 1% false-positive strut detection. Eighty-two percent of uncovered struts and 99% of covered struts were labeled correctly, as compared to manual analysis. Using the highly automated software, analysis was harmonized, leading to a reduction of inter-observer variability by 30%. With software assistance, analysis time for a full stent analysis was reduced to less than 30 minutes. Application of this software to stent evaluation trials should enable faster, more reliable analysis with improved statistical power for comparing designs.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulants in High-Risk Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is noninferior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF)-related stroke. However, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have an improved safety profile over VKAs, and their effect on cardiovascular and neurological outcomes relative to LAAC is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare DOACs with LAAC in high-risk patients with AF. METHODS: Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs. Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation (PRAGUE-17) was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing LAAC with DOACs. Patients were eligible to be enrolled if they had nonvalvular AF; were indicated for oral anticoagulation (OAC); and had a history of bleeding requiring intervention or hospitalization, a history of a cardioembolic event while taking an OAC, and/or a CHA2DS2-VASc of ≥3 and HAS-BLED of >2. Patients were randomized to receive LAAC or DOAC. The primary composite outcome was stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding, or procedure-/device-related complications. The primary analysis was by modified intention to treat. RESULTS: A high-risk patient cohort (CHA2DS2-VASc: 4.7 ± 1.5) was randomized to receive LAAC (n = 201) or DOAC (n = 201). LAAC was successful in 181 of 201 (90.0%) patients. In the DOAC group, apixaban was most frequently used (192 of 201; 95.5%). At a median 19.9 months of follow-up, the annual rates of the primary outcome were 10.99% with LAAC and 13.42% with DOAC (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 1.31; p = 0.44; p = 0.004 for noninferiority). There were no differences between groups for the components of the composite endpoint: all-stroke/TIA (sHR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.51), clinically significant bleeding (sHR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.52), and cardiovascular death (sHR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.62). Major LAAC-related complications occurred in 9 (4.5%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for stroke and increased risk of bleeding, LAAC was noninferior to DOAC in preventing major AF-related cardiovascular, neurological, and bleeding events. (Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs. Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation [PRAGUE-17]; NCT02426944).

Five-year outcomes in cardiac surgery patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing concomitant surgical ablation versus no ablation. The long-term follow-up of the PRAGUE-12 Study.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effect of concomitant surgical ablation (SA) on clinical outcomes in an unselected population of patients has not been sufficiently reported in randomized studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes of the SA after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: The PRAGUE-12 study was a prospective, randomized clinical trial assessing cardiac surgery with ablation for AF vs cardiac surgery alone. Patients with AF who were also indicated for cardiac surgery (coronary artery disease [CAD], valve surgery) were randomized to SA or control (no ablation) group. All patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or severe bleeding. Secondary endpoint was a recurrence of AF. RESULTS: A total of 207 patients were analyzed (SA group = 108 patients, control group = 99 patients). Both groups were similar relative to important clinical characteristics except for CAD, which was more common in the control group. Cumulative incidence curves showed a higher incidence of the primary endpoint in the control group (P = .024, Gray's test). However, after adjusting for all covariables, the difference between groups was not significant (subhazard ratio [SHR] 0.69 [0.47-1.02], P = .068). The incidence of stroke and AF recurrences were significantly reduced in the SA group, and remained significant even after adjustment for all covariables, including CAD (stroke: SHR 0.32 [0.12-0.84], P = .02, AF recurrences: SHR 0.44 [0.31-0.62], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant SA of AF is associated with a greater likelihood of maintaining sinus rhythm and a decreased risk of stroke.

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents. METHODS: We searched relevant sources from inception to March, 2007, and contacted investigators and manufacturers to identify randomised controlled trials in patients with coronary artery disease that compared drug-eluting with bare-metal stents, or that compared sirolimus-eluting stents head-to-head with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Safety outcomes included mortality, myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis; the effectiveness outcome was target lesion revascularisation. We included 38 trials (18,023 patients) with a follow-up of up to 4 years. Trialists and manufacturers provided additional data on clinical outcomes for 29 trials. We did a network meta-analysis with a mixed-treatment comparison method to combine direct within-trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. FINDINGS: Mortality was similar in the three groups: hazard ratios (HR) were 1.00 (95% credibility interval 0.82-1.25) for sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents, 1.03 (0.84-1.22) for paclitaxel-eluting versus bare-metal stents, and 0.96 (0.83-1.24) for sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents. Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with the lowest risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.81, 95% credibility interval 0.66-0.97, p=0.030 vs bare-metal stents; 0.83, 0.71-1.00, p=0.045 vs paclitaxel-eluting stents). There were no significant differences in the risk of definite stent thrombosis (0 days to 4 years). However, the risk of late definite stent thrombosis (>30 days) was increased with paclitaxel-eluting stents (HR 2.11, 95% credibility interval 1.19-4.23, p=0.017 vs bare-metal stents; 1.85, 1.02-3.85, p=0.041 vs sirolimus-eluting stents). The reduction in target lesion revascularisation seen with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents was more pronounced with sirolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.70, 0.56-0.84; p=0.0021). INTERPRETATION: The risks of mortality associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents are similar. Sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than bare-metal and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

OCT guidance during stent implantation in primary PCI: A randomized multicenter study with nine months of optical coherence tomography follow-up.

AIMS: To assess the possible merits of optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: 201 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized either to pPCI alone (angio-guided group, n=96) or to pPCI with OCT guidance (OCT-guided group, n=105) and also either to biolimus A9 or to everolimus-eluting stent implantation. All patients were scheduled for nine months of follow-up angiography and OCT study. OCT guidance led to post-pPCI optimization in 29% of cases (59% malapposition and 41% dissections). No complications were found related to the OCT study. OCT analysis at nine months showed significantly less in-segment area of stenosis (6% [-11, 19] versus 18% [3, 33]; p=0.0002) in favor of the OCT-guided group. The rate major adverse cardiovascular events were comparable at nine months in both groups (3% in the OCT group versus 2% in the angio-guided group; p=0.87). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the safety of OCT guidance during pPCI. The use of OCT optimized stent deployment in 1/3 of patients in this clinical scenario and significantly reduced in-segment area of stenosis at nine months of follow-up. Whether such improvements in OCT endpoints will have a positive impact on late clinical outcomes, they demand both a larger and longer-term follow-up study.