Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes in Chronic Versus Acute Coronary Syndromes (TARGET All Comers Trial).

In the Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal coated, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegreadable polymer coronary stent (TARGET; NCT02520180) All Comers trial the biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was noninferior to the durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 and 5 years; however, the long-term safety and efficacy in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We sought to assess the long-term outcomes in ACS versus chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) with BP sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus DP everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The TARGET AC study was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial of all comer patients randomly allocated 1:1 to BP SES or DP EES (stratified by ST-elevation myocardial infarction and study site). In this predefined substudy, the outcomes were compared based on clinical presentation (ACS vs CCS) and treatment allocation. A total of 1,653 patients were enrolled (728 with ACS and 922 with CCS), with 94% completing the 5-year follow-up. The baseline characteristics were well-matched between the 2 stent types; however, co-morbidities were more prevalent in the CCS than in the ACS population. TLF (15.5% vs 17.7%, p = 0.24), patient-oriented outcomes (32.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.31), and stent thrombosis (4.1% vs 3.3%, p = 0.40) were similar between patients with ACS and patients with CCS. In the ACS cohort, the outcomes at 5 years for BP SES versus DP EES were similar for TLF (16.0% vs 14.9%, p = 0.70), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 8.3%, p = 0.17), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.7% vs 4.6%, p = 0.18). The same was true for the CCS cohort, with 5-year outcomes for BP SES versus DP EES for TLF (18.0% vs 17.4%, p = 0.82), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.4% vs 5.0%, p = 0.37), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (3.0% vs 1.8%, p = 0.26). In conclusion, in the TARGET AC trial, 1 in 3 patients had a major adverse event at 5 years, irrespective of CCS or ACS presentation. Long-term, the BP sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was as safe and effective as the DP everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent across the spectrum of clinical presentations.

Regional Distribution of Extracellular Volume Quantified by Cardiac CT in Aortic Stenosis: Insights Into Disease Mechanisms and Impact on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Extracellular volume fraction (ECV) is a marker for myocardial fibrosis and infiltration, can be quantified using cardiac computed tomography (ECVCT), and has prognostic utility in several diseases. This study aims to map out regional differences in ECVCT to obtain greater insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of ECV expansion and its clinical implications. METHODS: Three prospective cohorts were included: patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and coexisting AS and transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis were referred for a transcatheter aortic valve replacement and had ECG-gated CT angiography and Technetium-99m-labelled 3,3-diphosphono-1,2-propanodicarboxylic acid scintigraphy to differentiate between the 2 cohorts. Controls had CT angiography and cardiac magnetic resonance demonstrating no significant coronary artery disease or infarction. Global and regional ECVCT was analyzed, and its association with mortality was assessed for patients with AS. RESULTS: In 199 patients, controls (n=65; 66% male), AS (n=115), and coexisting AS and transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (n=19) had a global ECVCT of 26.1 (25.0-27.8%) versus 29.1 (27.5-31.1%) versus 37.4 (32.5-46.6%), respectively; P<0.001. Across cohorts, ECVCT was higher at the base (versus apex), the inferoseptum (versus anterolateral wall), and the subendocardium (versus subepicardium); P<0.05 for all. Among patients with AS, epicardial ECVCT, rather than any other regional value or global ECVCT, was the strongest predictor of mortality at a median of 3.9 (max 6.3) years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.08-1.36]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Regional differences in ECVCT suggest a predilection for fibrosis and amyloid infiltration at the base, subendocardium, inferior wall, and septum more than the anterior and lateral myocardium. ECVCT can predict long-term mortality with the subepicardium demonstrating the strongest discriminatory power. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03029026 and NCT03094143.

Predictors of outcome in patients with moderate mixed aortic valve disease.

OBJECTIVES: Grading the severity of moderate mixed aortic stenosis and regurgitation (MAVD) is challenging and the disease poorly understood. Identifying markers of haemodynamic severity will improve risk stratification and potentially guide timely treatment. This study aims to identify prognostic haemodynamic markers in patients with moderate MAVD. METHODS: Moderate MAVD was defined as coexisting moderate aortic stenosis (aortic valve area (AVA) 1.0-1.5 cm2) and moderate aortic regurgitation (vena contracta (VC) 0.3-0.6 cm). Consecutive patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2019 were included from a multicentre registry. The primary composite outcome of death or heart failure hospitalisation was evaluated among these patients. Demographics, comorbidities, echocardiography and treatment data were assessed for their prognostic significance. RESULTS: 207 patients with moderate MAVD were included, aged 78 (66-84) years, 56% male sex, AVA 1.2 (1.1-1.4) cm2 and VC 0.4 (0.4-0.5) cm. Over a follow-up of 3.5 (2.5-4.7) years, the composite outcome was met in 89 patients (43%). Univariable associations with the primary outcome included older age, previous myocardial infarction, previous cerebrovascular event, atrial fibrillation, New York Heart Association >2, worse renal function, tricuspid regurgitation ≥2 and mitral regurgitation ≥2. Markers of biventricular systolic function, cardiac remodelling and transaortic valve haemodynamics demonstrated an inverse association with the primary composite outcome. In multivariable analysis, peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) was independently and inversely associated with the composite outcome (HR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; p=0.021) in an adjusted model along with age (HR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.08; p<0.001), creatinine (HR: 1.002, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.003; p=0.005), previous cerebrovascular event (85% vs 42%; HR: 3.04, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.99; p=0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99; p=0.007). Patients with Vmax ≤2.8 m/s and LVEF ≤50% (n=27) had the worst outcome compared with the rest of the population (72% vs 41%; HR: 3.87, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.80; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with truly moderate MAVD have a high incidence of death and heart failure hospitalisation (43% at 3.5 (2.5-4.7) years). Within this group, a high-risk group characterised by disproportionately low aortic Vmax (≤2.8 m/s) and adverse remodelling (LVEF ≤50%) have the worst outcomes.

Performance of Purpose-Built vs Off-Label Transcatheter Devices for Aortic Regurgitation: The PURPOSE Study.

BACKGROUND: Severe pure aortic regurgitation (AR) carries a high mortality and morbidity risk, and it is often undertreated because of the inherent surgical risk. Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have been used off-label in this setting with overall suboptimal results. The dedicated "purpose-built" Jena Valve Trilogy (JVT, JenaValve Technology) showed an encouraging performance, although it has never been compared to other THVs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the performance of the latest iteration of THVs used off-label in comparison to the purpose-built JVT in inoperable patients with severe AR. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry with 18 participating centers worldwide collecting data on inoperable patients with severe AR of the native valve. A bicuspid aortic valve was the main exclusion criterion. The primary endpoints were technical and device success, 1-year all-cause mortality, and the composite of 1-year mortality and the heart failure rehospitalization rate. RESULTS: Overall, 256 patients were enrolled. THVs used off-label were used in 168 cases (66%), whereas JVT was used in 88 (34%). JVT had higher technical (81% vs 98%; P < 0.001) and device success rates (73% vs 95%; P < 0.001), primarily driven by significantly lower incidences of THV embolization (15% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001), the need for a second valve (11% vs 1.1%; P = 0.004), and moderate residual AR (10% vs 1.1%; P = 0.007). The permanent pacemaker implantation rate was comparable and elevated for both groups (22% vs 24%; P = 0.70). Finally, no significant difference was observed at the 1-year follow-up in terms of mortality (HR: 0.99; P = 0.980) and the composite endpoint (HR: 1.5; P = 0.355). CONCLUSIONS: The JVT platform has a better acute performance than other THVs when used off-label for inoperable patients with severe AR. A longer follow-up is conceivably needed to detect a possible impact on prognosis.

Percutaneous Treatment of Severe Aortic Regurgitation After Surgical Mitral Valve Repair.

A 54-year-old woman who had recently undergone surgical mitral and tricuspid valve repair was diagnosed with severe aortic regurgitation. She was scheduled for percutaneous treatment and underwent successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a 27-mm Trilogy valve (JenaValve Technology). The case documents feasibility of percutaneous treatment in the presence of a mitral ring.

Outcomes of the Novel Supreme Drug-Eluting Stent in Complex Coronary Lesions: A PIONEER III Substudy.

Background: The Supreme healing-targeted drug-eluting stent (DES) is designed to promote endothelial healing to reduce stent-related adverse events. This may be particularly relevant among complex lesions that have a higher rate of adverse events. We sought to compare 1-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in complex lesions between the Supreme DES and contemporary durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). Methods: PIONEER III was a multicenter, prospective, single-blind clinical trial, randomizing 1629 patients with either an acute or chronic coronary syndrome in a 2:1 ratio to the Supreme DES or DP-EES. Complex lesions (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association type B2/C) were found in 1137 patients. Outcomes were also compared for specific parameters of lesion complexity: severe calcification, long length (>20 â€‹mm), and severe tortuosity. The primary end point was target lesion failure at 1 â€‹year. Results: At 1 â€‹year, there was no difference in target lesion failure between the Supreme DES and DP-EES: (5.7% vs 5.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.68, P = .99). Similarly, there were no differences in the secondary end points of lesion success (99.7% vs 99.4%, P = .41), device success (97.0% vs 98.5%, P = .14), target vessel failure (6.5% vs 7.4%, P = .50), major adverse cardiac events (7.8% vs 8.5%, P = .64), or stent thrombosis (0.7% vs 1.1%, P = .48). A trend was observed toward a higher rate of target lesion revascularization with the Supreme DES (2.5% vs 0.9%, P = .06). Conclusions: This study suggests that the Supreme DES is as effective and safe at 1 â€‹year compared with the standard DP-EES across a broad spectrum of lesion complexity.