Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for mitral regurgitation using PASCAL or MitraClip.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of Mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) using the PASCAL or MitraClip systems for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS: An electronic search was conducted for MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE, through February 2023, for studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MTEER using PASCAL versus MitraClip systems among patients with severe MR. The primary study outcome was residual MR ≤ 2 at discharge. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The final analysis included six studies with a total of 1581 patients, with a weighted follow-up period of 3.5 months. Two studies only included patients with degenerative MR, while the remaining studies included both degenerative and functional MR. There was no significant difference in procedure duration between MTEER with the PASCAL or MitraClip systems. There was no difference in residual MR ≤ 2 at discharge (94.7% vs. 91.9%; odds ratio [OR]: 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.27) or residual MR ≤ 2 at the mid-term follow-up (94.6% vs. 91.0%, p = 0.05) among the PASCAL versus MitraClip systems. There was no difference between both groups in residual MR ≤ 1 at discharge (73.1% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.12), while there was greater incidence of residual MR ≤ 1 at midterm follow-up with the PASCAL system (71.3% vs. 56.2%, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the PASCAL and MitraClip MTEER systems in technical success (97.0% vs. 97.9%, p = 0.15), procedural success (89.1% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.78), single leaflet detachment (1.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.55), or all-cause mortality (3.6% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, we demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety between the PASCAL and MitraClip MTEER systems at short- and mid-term assessments. Randomized trials are warranted to evaluate the comparative long-term outcomes between both MTEER systems.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for In-Stent Restenosis Versus De Novo Lesions: A Meta-Analysis.

Background In-stent restenosis (ISR) is commonly encountered even in the era of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a paucity of data on the comparative outcomes of PCI for ISR lesions versus de novo lesions. Methods and Results An electronic search was conducted for MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase through August 2022 for studies comparing the clinical outcomes after PCI for ISR versus de novo lesions. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The final analysis included 12 studies, with a total of 708 391 patients, of whom 71 353 (10.3%) underwent PCI for ISR. The weighted follow-up duration was 29.1 months. Compared with de novo lesions, PCI for ISR was associated with a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.18-1.46]). There was no difference on a subgroup analysis of chronic total occlusion lesions versus none (Pinteraction=0.69). PCI for ISR was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality (OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.02-1.04]), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.11-1.29]), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.29-1.55]), and stent thrombosis (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.11-1.87]), but no difference in cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]). Conclusions PCI for ISR is associated with higher incidence of adverse cardiac events compared with PCI for de novo lesions. Future efforts should be directed toward prevention of ISR and exploring novel treatment strategies for ISR lesions.

Outcomes with plug-based versus suture-based vascular closure device after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing plug-based (i.e., MANTA) with suture-based (i.e., ProStar XL and ProGlide) vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore access closure after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have yielded mixed results. AIMS: To examine the comparative safety and efficacy of both types of VCDs among TAVR recipients. METHODS: An electronic database search was performed through March 2022 for studies comparing access-site related vascular complications with plug-based versus suture-based VCDs for large-bore access site closure after transfemoral (TF) TAVR. RESULTS: Ten studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 8 observational studies) with 3113 patients (MANTA = 1358, ProGlide/ProStar XL = 1755) were included. There was no difference between plug-based and suture-based VCD in the incidence of access-site major vascular complications (3.1% vs. 3.3%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.53). The incidence of VCD failure was lower in plug-based VCD (5.2% vs. 7.1%, OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.91). There was a trend toward a higher incidence of unplanned vascular intervention in plug-based VCD (8.2% vs. 5.9%, OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.97-1.89). Length of stay was shorter with MANTA. Subgroup analyses suggested significant interaction based on study designs such that there was higher incidence of access-site vascular complications and bleeding events with plug-based versus suture-based VCD among RCTs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing TF-TAVR, large-bore access site closure with plug-based VCD was associated with a similar safety profile as suture-based VCD. However, subgroup analysis showed that plug-based VCD was associated with higher incidence of vascular and bleeding complications in RCTs.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography alone in guiding myocardial revascularisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) have yielded mixed results. AIMS: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive CAD. METHODS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases without language restrictions was performed through November 2021 for randomised controlled trials that evaluated the outcomes of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The final analysis included seven trials with 5094 patients. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 38 months. Compared with angiography guidance, FFR guidance was associated with fewer number of stents during revascularisation (standardised mean difference=-0.80; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.27), but no difference in total hospital cost. There was no difference between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in long-term MACE (13.6% vs 13.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11). Meta-regression analyses did not reveal any evidence of effect modification for MACE with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.36), proportion of three-vessel disease (p=0.88) or left main disease (p=0.50). There were no differences between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in the outcomes all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.68), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.26), repeat revascularisation (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21), recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14) or stent thrombosis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.21). CONCLUSION: Among patients with obstructive CAD, FFR-guided revascularisation did not reduce the risk of long-term adverse cardiac events or the individual outcomes. However, FFR-guided revascularisation was associated with fewer number of stents. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021291596.

FFR- Versus Angiography-Guided Revascularization for Nonculprit Stenosis in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided approaches for nonculprit stenosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy to guide revascularization of nonculprit stenosis among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains uncertain. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating the outcomes of culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), or FFR-guided CR. A pairwise meta-analysis comparing CR versus culprit-only revascularization and a network meta-analysis comparing the different revascularization techniques were conducted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: The analysis included 11 trials with 8,195 patients. CR (ie, angiography-guided or FFR-guided CR) was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.98), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.95), and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.35). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of MACE was lower with both angiography-guided CR (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.58) and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78) compared with a culprit-only approach, while there was no difference in risk for MACE between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, CR, with angiographic or FFR guidance for nonculprit stenosis, was associated with lower incidence of adverse events compared with culprit-only revascularization. FFR-guided CR was not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing the incidence of adverse events. Future studies investigating other tools to risk-stratify nonculprit stenoses are encouraged.

Trends in utilization, outcomes, and readmissions after transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of real-world data regarding the temporal trends and outcomes of trans-septal transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TS-TMVR) in the United States (US). METHODS: We queried the Nationwide Readmissions Database (October 2015 to December 2018) for patients undergoing TS-TMVR procedures. We reported the temporal trends in the utilization, in-hospital outcomes and 30-day readmissions after TS-TMVR. The main study outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: There was an increase in the number of TS-TMVR procedures over time (48 in 2015 vs. 978 in 2018, Ptrend < 0.001), with a notable increase in the proportion of women (Ptrend  = 0.04) and the prevalence of diabetes (Ptrend  = 0.03). There was an increase in the number of centers performing TS-TMVR (21 in 2015 vs. 164 in 2018, Ptrend < 0.001). The overall in-hospital mortality was 7.2% with no change over time (6.3% in 2015 vs. to 5.2% in 2018, Ptrend  = 0.67). There was no change in the frequency of in-hospital complications after TS-TMVR; however, the median length of stay has decreased over time. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 17.8%, with no change during the study years. The most frequent cause for 30-day readmission after TS-TMVR was acute heart failure followed by bleeding and infection-related complications. Prior coagulopathy and small-sized hospitals were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: This nationwide observational analysis of real-world data showed an increase in the number of TS-TMVR procedures over time, which is now performed at a greater number of centers. There was no change in the rate of in-hospital mortality, complications or 30-day readmissions; but a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay over time was noted. As the number of TS-TMVR continue to expand, these data provide a perspective on the early experience with this procedure.