BAlloon expandable vs. SElf expanding transcatheter vaLve for degenerated bioprosthesIs: design and rationale of the BASELINE trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve bioprostheses may degenerate over time and require redo intervention. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive alternative to redo surgery. The BAlloon Expandable vs. SElf Expanding Transcatheter VaLve for Degenerated BioprosthesIs (BASELINE) trial was designed to compare the performance of the balloon-expandable SAPIEN-3 Ultra and the self-expanding EVOLUT PRO+ valve systems in symptomatic patients with a failing surgical bioprosthesis. METHODS: The BASELINE trial is an investigator-initiated, non-funded, prospective, randomized, open-label, superiority trial enrolling a total of 440 patients in up to 50 sites in 12 countries in Europe and North-America. The primary endpoint is device success at 30-days defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 Criteria as the composite of technical success, freedom from mortality, freedom for surgery or intervention related to the device or to a major vascular or access-related or cardiac structural complication with an intended performance of the valve (mean gradient <20 mmHg and less than moderate aortic regurgitation). The co-primary endpoint at 1 year is defined as the composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure or valve related problems. Independent Core Laboratories will conduct uniform analyses of echocardiography (pre-, post-, 1-year post-procedure), multi-sliced computed tomography (pre-, and if available post-procedure) and cine-fluoroscopy studies. CONCLUSIONS: The BASELINE trial is a head-to-head comparative trial investigating the 2 most used contemporary transcatheter heart valves for the treatment of a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04843072).

Uninterrupted direct-acting oral anticoagulation in patients undergoing transradial percutaneous coronary procedures: The DOAC-NOSTOP study rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) under treatment with chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) often require coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Deciding the management of OAC during this periprocedural period requires balancing the risks of hemorrhage and thrombotic complications. Guidelines recommend an uninterrupted strategy in patients receiving Vitamin-K Antagonists (VKA). However, for patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI while on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), withdrawal 12-24 h prior to the procedure is still recommended. This is based on expert opinions given the lack of evidence. Therefore, whether DOAC discontinuation prior to trans-radial coronary procedures should be the strategy of choice is a matter of debate and solid evidence is needed to guide clinical decision making. METHODS: The DOAC-NOSTOP study is a prospective, single-arm, open-label study evaluating the safety of DOACs continuation in 200 patients undergoing transradial percutaneous coronary procedures. DOAC treatment will not be interrupted throughout the periprocedural period. Primary outcome will be Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 events, assessed at a 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The DOAC-NOSTOP is the first study prospectively assessing the risk of bleeding with uninterrupted DOAC in patients undergoing trans-radial percutaneous coronary procedures.

Complete vs Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With Myocardial Infarction and High Bleeding Risk: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) have a poor prognosis, and it is not known if they may benefit from complete revascularization after myocardial infarction (MI). Objective: To investigate the benefit of physiology-guided complete revascularization vs a culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR, MI, and multivessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified analysis of the Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease (FIRE) randomized clinical trial data. FIRE was an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients 75 years or older with MI and multivessel disease were enrolled at 34 European centers from July 2019 through October 2021. Physiology treatment was performed either by angiography- or wire-based assessment. Patients were divided into HBR or non-HBR categories in accordance with the Academic Research Consortium HBR document. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either physiology-guided complete revascularization or culprit-only strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome comprised a composite of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular death or MI and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3 to 5. Results: Among 1445 patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [5] years; 917 male [63%]), 1025 (71%) met HBR criteria. Patients with HBR were at higher risk for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.76), cardiovascular death or MI (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.83), and BARC types 3 to 5 (HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.40-7.64). The primary end point was significantly reduced with physiology-guided complete revascularization as compared with culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96). No indication of interaction was noted between revascularization strategy and HBR status for primary and secondary end points. Conclusions and Relevance: HBR status is prevalent among older patients with MI, significantly increasing the likelihood of adverse events. Physiology-guided complete revascularization emerges as an effective strategy, in comparison with culprit-only revascularization, for mitigating ischemic adverse events, including cardiovascular death and MI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03772743.

Impact of pre-admission physical activity on benefits of physiology-guided complete revascularization in older patients with myocardial infarction: insights from the FIRE trial.

AIMS: The present analysis from the Functional Assessment in Elderly Myocardial Infarction Patients with Multivessel Disease (FIRE) trial aims to explore the significance of pre-admission physical activity and assess whether the benefits of physiology-guided complete revascularization apply consistently to sedentary and active older patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients aged 75 years or more with myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel disease were randomized to receive physiology-guided complete revascularization or culprit-only strategy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, stroke, or any revascularization within a year. Secondary endpoints included the composite of cardiovascular death or MI, as well as single components of the primary endpoint. Pre-admission physical activity was categorized into three groups: (i) absent (sedentary), (ii) light, and (iii) vigorous. Among 1445 patients, 692 (48%) were sedentary, whereas 560 (39%) and 193 (13%) performed light and vigorous physical activity, respectively. Patients engaging in light or vigorous pre-admission physical activity exhibited a reduced risk of the primary outcome compared with sedentary individuals [light hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.91 and vigorous HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07-0.91, respectively]. These trends were also observed for death, cardiovascular death, or MI. When comparing physiology-guided complete revascularization vs. culprit-only strategy, no significant interaction was observed for primary and secondary endpoints when stratified by sedentary or active status. CONCLUSION: In older patients with MI, pre-admission physical activity emerges as a robust and independent prognostic determinant. Physiology-guided complete revascularization stands out an effective strategy in reducing ischaemic adverse events, irrespective of pre-admission physical activity status. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772743.

The Functional Assessment in Elderly Myocardial Infarction Patients with Multivessel Disease (FIRE) trial has shown that physiology-guided complete revascularization reduces ischaemic adverse events in older patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel disease. Older patients who engage in light or vigorous physical activity before hospitalization for MI have a reduced risk of the primary composite outcome of death, MI, stroke, or ischaemia-driven revascularization. These benefits extend to all secondary cardiovascular outcomes as well. In the present subanalysis of the FIRE trial, we find that the positive prognosis associated with physiology-guided complete revascularization holds true even for patients with a sedentary lifestyle. This means that this type of revascularization can effectively reduce ischaemic adverse events in older patients with MI and multivessel disease, regardless of their physical activity levels.

Sex-Related Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: Insights from the OPERA-TAVI Registry.

Evidence regarding gender-related differences in response to transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to the valve type is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gender on the treatment effect of Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices on clinical outcomes. The Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OPERA-TAVI) is a multicenter, multinational registry including patients who underwent the latest-iteration PRO or ULTRA implantation. Overall, 1,174 of 1,897 patients were matched based on valve type and compared according to gender, whereas 470 men and 630 women were matched and compared according to valve type. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. In the PRO and ULTRA groups, men had a higher co-morbidity burden, whereas women had smaller aortic root. The 30-day (device success [DS], early safety outcome, permanent pacemaker implantation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular regurgitation, bleedings, vascular complications, and all-cause death) and 1-year outcomes (all-cause death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization) did not differ according to gender in both valve groups. However, the male gender decreased the likelihood of 30-day DS with ULTRA versus PRO (p for interaction = 0.047). A higher risk of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation and 1-year stroke and a lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed in PRO versus ULTRA, regardless of gender. In conclusion, gender did not modify the treatment effect of PRO versus ULTRA on clinical outcomes, except for 30-day DS, which was decreased in men (vs women) who received ULTRA (vs PRO).

Evolut PRO and SAPIEN ULTRA Performance in Small Aortic Annuli: The OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli. METHODS: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Latest-Iteration Self-Expanding or Balloon-Expandable Valves: The Multicenter OPERA-TAVI Registry.

BACKGROUND: The latest iterations of devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have brought refinements to further improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic, Inc) or balloon-expandable (BE) Sapien 3 ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) devices. METHODS: The OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs Sapien 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry collected data from 14 high-volume centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVR with SE or BE devices. After excluding patients who were not eligible for both devices, patients were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success and early safety, respectively. RESULTS: Among 2,241 patients eligible for the present analysis, 683 pairs of patients were matched. The primary efficacy outcome did not differ between patients receiving SE or BE transcatheter aortic valves (SE: 87.4% vs BE: 85.9%; P = 0.47), but the BE device recipients showed a higher rate of the primary safety outcome (SE: 69.1% vs BE: 82.6%; P < 0.01). This finding was driven by the higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (SE: 17.9% vs BE: 10.1%; P < 0.01) and disabling stroke (SE: 2.3% vs BE: 0.7%; P = 0.03) in SE device recipients. On post-TAVR echocardiography, the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation was similar between groups (SE: 3.2% vs BE: 2.3%; P = 0.41), whereas lower mean transvalvular gradients were observed in the SE cohort (median SE: 7.0 vs BE: 12.0 mm Hg; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The OPERA-TAVI registry showed that SE and BE devices had comparable Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 device success rates, but the BE device had a higher rate of early safety. The higher permanent pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke rates in SE device recipients drove this composite endpoint.