Temporal trends and outcomes of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia with and without history of coronary artery disease: insights from the us national inpatient sample database.

BACKGROUND: The burden and prognostic significance of coronary artery disease (CAD) in adults with peripheral artery disease and chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is unknown. METHODS: Temporal trends in prevalence of significant CAD (history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularizations) in hospitalizations for CLTI were determined using the 2000 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. A multivariable regression analysis of outcomes was performed based on presence or absence of CAD. RESULTS: Among 13 575 099 hospitalizations for CLTI (41% female, 69% white, mean age 69 years), 23% had concomitant CAD, of which 11% underwent lower extremity arterial revascularization (43.6% endovascular and 56.4% surgical). The prevalence of concomitant CAD with CLTI increased from 15.3% in 2000 to 23.1% in 2018. Furthermore, the frequency of endovascular revascularization in adults with CAD and CLTI increased from 15.1% to 48.3%, while there was a decreasing trend of surgical revascularization, from 84.9% to 51.7%. After multivariate adjustments, CLTI with CAD was associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.32-1.47; P less than .0001) and bleeding requiring transfusion (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12; P less than .0001) compared with patients with CLTI without CAD. As compared with surgical revascularization, endovascular revascularization was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality in both patients with CLTI with CAD (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.76; P less than .001) and CLTI without CAD (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.76; P less than .001). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of CAD has increased in adults presenting with CLTI and is associated with poor outcomes, warranting the need for effective interventions and secondary prevention in this high-risk population.

Long-term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Lotus Valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR: A Secondary Analysis of the REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is of interest given that longitudinal data on mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves are limited. The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) randomized clinical trial compared the mechanically expanded Lotus valve with the self-expanding CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Objective: To describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis assessed the final 5-year clinical, functional, and echocardiographic outcomes of 912 patients from the REPRISE III trial, which was conducted at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015. Patients had high risk for aortic stenosis or severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2014, to May 21, 2021. Intervention: Lotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up. Results: A total of 912 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.8 [7.3] years; 463 women [50.8%]) were randomized to either the Lotus valve group (n = 607) or CoreValve/EvolutR group (n = 305), with a baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 6.8%. Clinical follow-up data from the REPRISE III trial were available for 581 patients (95.7%) in the Lotus valve group and 285 patients (93.4%) in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. At 5 years, the cumulative event rate for all-cause mortality was 50.9% in the Lotus valve group vs 52.8% in the CoreValve/EvolutR group (P = .59). Disabling stroke was less frequent with the Lotus valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR (cumulative event rates, 8.3% vs 12.2%; P = .04), whereas the cumulative event rates for overall stroke were similar in both groups (14.1% vs 15.3%; P = .38). Insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (38.9% vs 27.3%; P < .001) and detection of prosthetic aortic valve thrombosis (5.8% vs 1.8%; P = .007) were more common in the Lotus valve group than in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. A smaller proportion of patients who received the Lotus valve experienced valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and required the use of a second valve (1.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001) during the procedure compared with those who received the CoreValve/EvolutR. Compared with the Lotus valve group, the CoreValve/EvolutR group had a significantly lower mean (SD) aortic gradient (7.8 [4.2] mm Hg vs 12.6 [6.7] mm Hg; P < .001) and larger valve areas (1.57 [0.56] cm2 vs 1.42 [0.42] cm2; P = .10). After 5 years, the proportion of patients with moderate or greater paravalvular leak was not significantly higher with the CoreValve/EvolutR than with the Lotus valve (1.9% vs 0%; P = .31); however, the proportion of patients with mild paravalvular leak was higher in the CoreValve/EvolutR group compared with the Lotus valve group (23.1% vs 7.8%; P = .006). Long-term, similar improvements in New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score were observed in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: The REPRISE III trial found that, at 5 years, the clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve were comparable to those of the CoreValve/EvolutR and that the Lotus valve was safe and effective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

P2Y12 inhibitor versus aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitor or aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods and results: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched to identify randomized trials comparing monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor versus aspirin for secondary prevention in patients with ASCVD (cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. A random-effects model was used to calculate risk ratios (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the Higgins I2 value. A total of 9 eligible trials (5 with clopidogrel and 4 with ticagrelor) with 61 623 patients were included in our analyses. Monotherapy with P2Y12 inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of MACE by 11% (0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.95, I2 = 0%) and MI by 19% (0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, I2 = 0%) compared with aspirin monotherapy. There was no significant difference in the risk of stroke (0.85, 95% CI 0.73-1.01), or all-cause mortality (1.01, 95% CI 0.92-1.11). There was also no significant difference in the risk of major bleeding with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with aspirin (0.94, 95% CI 0.72-1.22, I2 = 42.6%). Results were consistent irrespective of the P2Y12 inhibitor used. Conclusion: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy for secondary prevention is associated with a significant reduction in atherothrombotic events compared with aspirin alone without an increased risk of major bleeding.

Pacemaker Implantation and Dependency After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the REPRISE III Trial.

Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement expands to younger and/or lower risk patients, the long-term consequences of permanent pacemaker implantation are a concern. Pacemaker dependency and impact have not been methodically assessed in transcatheter aortic valve replacement trials. We report the incidence and predictors of pacemaker implantation and pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Lotus valve. Methods and Results A total of 912 patients with high/extreme surgical risk and symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomized 2:1 (Lotus:CoreValve) in REPRISE III (The Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) trial. Systematic assessment of pacemaker dependency was pre-specified in the trial design. Pacemaker implantation within 30 days was more frequent with Lotus than CoreValve. By multivariable analysis, predictors of pacemaker implantation included baseline right bundle branch block and depth of implantation; diabetes mellitus was also a predictor with Lotus. No association between new pacemaker implantation and clinical outcomes was found. Pacemaker dependency was dynamic (30 days: 43%; 1 year: 50%) and not consistent for individual patients over time. Predictors of pacemaker dependency at 30 days included baseline right bundle branch block, female sex, and depth of implantation. No differences in mortality or stroke were found between patients who were pacemaker dependent or not at 30 days. Rehospitalization was higher in patients who were not pacemaker dependent versus patients without a pacemaker or those who were dependent. Conclusions Pacemaker implantation was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Most patients with a new pacemaker at 30 days were not dependent at 1 year. Mortality and stroke were similar between patients with or without pacemaker dependency and patients without a pacemaker. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier NCT02202434.

Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical vs Self-expanding Valves: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To our knowledge, REPRISE III is the first large randomized comparison of 2 different transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms: the mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific) and self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic). Objective: To evaluate outcomes of Lotus vs CoreValve after 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 912 patients with high/extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, were randomized 2:1 to receive Lotus (607 [66.6%]) or CoreValve (305 [33.4%] at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia. The first 2-year visit occurred on October 17, 2016, and the last was conducted on April 12, 2018. Clinical and echocardiographic assessments are complete through 2 years and will continue annually through 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Other clinical factors included overall stroke, disabling stroke, repeated procedures, rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation. Echocardiographic analyses included effective orifice area, mean gradient, and paravalvular leaks (PVLs). Results: Of 912 participants, the mean (SD) age was 82.8 (7.3) years, 465 (51%) were women, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 6.8% (4.0%). At 2 years, all-cause death was 21.3% with Lotus vs 22.5% with CoreValve (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26; P = .67) and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 22.8% with Lotus and 27.0% with CoreValve (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07; P = .14). Overall stroke was 8.4% vs 11.4% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; P = .21); disabling stroke was more frequent with CoreValve vs Lotus (4.7% Lotus vs 8.6% CoreValve; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.93; P = .02). More Lotus patients received a new permanent pacemaker (41.7% vs 26.1%; HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.41-2.49; P < .01) or had a valve thrombosis (3.0% vs 0.0%; P < .01) compared with CoreValve. More patients who received CoreValve experienced a repeated procedure (0.6% Lotus vs 2.9% CoreValve; HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.70; P < .01), valve migration (0.0% vs 0.7%; P = .05), or embolization (0.0% vs 2.0%; P < .01) than Lotus. Valve areas remained significantly larger and the mean gradient was lower with CoreValve than Lotus (valve area, mean [SD]: Lotus, 1.53 [0.49] cm2 vs CoreValve, 1.76 [0.51] cm2; P < .01; valve gradient, mean [SD]: Lotus, 13.0 [6.7] mm Hg vs 8.1 [3.7] mm Hg; P < .01). Moderate or greater PVL was more frequent with CoreValve (0.3% Lotus vs 3.8% CoreValve; P < .01) at 2 years. Larger improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were observed with Lotus compared with CoreValve (improved by ≥1 NYHA class: Lotus, 338 of 402 [84.1%] vs CoreValve, 143 of 189 [75.7%]; P = .01; improved by ≥2 NYHA classes: 122 of 402 [37.3%] vs 65 of 305 [21.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: After 2 years, all-cause mortality rates, mortality or disabling stroke were similar between Lotus and CoreValve. Disabling stroke, functional class, valve migration, and PVL favored the Lotus arm whereas valve hemodynamics, thrombosis, and new pacemaker implantation favored the CoreValve arm. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

1-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Mitral Annular Calcification.

BACKGROUND: The risk of surgical mitral valve replacement in patients with severe mitral annular calcification (MAC) is high. Several patients worldwide with severe MAC have been treated successfully with transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter valves. The TMVR in MAC Global Registry is a multicenter registry that collects data on outcomes of these procedures. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate 1-year outcomes in this registry. METHODS: This study was a multicenter retrospective review of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 116 extreme surgical risk patients with severe MAC underwent TMVR; 106 had a procedure date >1 year before data-lock and were included in the analysis. Their mean age was 73 ± 12 years, and 68% were female. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 15.3 ± 11.6%, and 90% were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Thirty-day and 1-year all-cause mortality was 25% and 53.7%, respectively. Most patients who survived 30 days were alive at 1 year (49 of 77 [63.6%]), and the majority (71.8%) were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II. Echocardiography data at 1 year were available in 34 patients. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 58.6 ± 11.2%, mean mitral valve area was 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2, mean mitral gradient was 5.8 ± 2.2 mm Hg, and 75% had zero or trace mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: TMVR with balloon-expandable aortic valves in extreme surgical risk patients with severe MAC is feasible but associated with high 30-day and 1-year mortality. Most patients who survive the 30-day post-procedural period are alive at 1 year and have sustained improvement of symptoms and transcatheter valve performance. The role of TMVR in patients with MAC requires further evaluation in clinical trials.

Effect of Mechanically Expanded vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Mortality and Major Adverse Clinical Events in High-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is established for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leak occur. Objective: To evaluate if a mechanically expanded valve (MEV) is noninferior to an approved self-expanding valve (SEV) in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: The REPRISE III trial was conducted in 912 patients with high or extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, with final follow-up on March 8, 2017. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either an MEV (n = 607) or an SEV (n = 305). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety end point was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, life-threatening or major bleeding, stage 2/3 acute kidney injury, and major vascular complications tested for noninferiority (margin, 10.5%). The primary effectiveness end point was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, and moderate or greater paravalvular leak tested for noninferiority (margin, 9.5%). If noninferiority criteria were met, the secondary end point of 1-year moderate or greater paravalvular leak was tested for superiority in the full analysis data set. Results: Among 912 randomized patients (mean age, 82.8 [SD, 7.3] years; 463 [51%] women; predicted risk of mortality, 6.8%), 874 (96%) were evaluable at 1 year. The primary safety composite end point at 30 days occurred in 20.3% of MEV patients and 17.2% of SEV patients (difference, 3.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to 8.3%; P = .003 for noninferiority). At 1 year, the primary effectiveness composite end point occurred in 15.4% with the MEV and 25.5% with the SEV (difference, -10.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to -4.4%; P<.001 for noninferiority). The 1-year rates of moderate or severe paravalvular leak were 0.9% for the MEV and 6.8% for the SEV (difference, -6.1%; 95% CI, -9.6% to -2.6%; P < .001). The superiority analysis for primary effectiveness was statistically significant (difference, -10.2%; 95% CI, -16.3% to -4.0%; P < .001). The MEV had higher rates of new pacemaker implants (35.5% vs 19.6%; P < .001) and valve thrombosis (1.5% vs 0%) but lower rates of repeat procedures (0.2% vs 2.0%), valve-in-valve deployments (0% vs 3.7%), and valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, use of the MEV compared with the SEV did not result in inferior outcomes for the primary safety end point or the primary effectiveness end point. These findings suggest that the MEV may be a useful addition for TAVR in high-risk patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

Percutaneous exclusion of a rapidly enlarging left main coronary artery aneurysm using coils and an Amplatzer™ septal occluder.

Coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs) are often an incidental finding amongst patients undergoing coronary angiography. Most CAAs are managed conservatively; rarely a larger CAA can lead to intramural thrombus formation and coronary artery embolization/obstruction even without the presence of significant stenosis. Despite these clinical implications, therapeutic options are limited to case reports and no clearly defined guidelines have been established for treatment. In this article, we present a unique case of a rapidly enlarging left main CAA, with no identifiable etiology that was treated with percutaneous exclusion via coil embolization and an Amplatzer™ septal occluder device. We also discuss existing literature, pathophysiology, and management options for CAAs. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Recurrent spontaneous coronary artery dissection: First case report in men with three episodes of spontaneous coronary dissection in separate vascular territories.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a rare cause of acute coronary syndrome. In the literature, more than 1,200 cases of SCAD have been reported, with a low rate of recurrent spontaneous coronary artery dissection (r-SCAD) described in only 63 cases. Among these patients with r-SCAD, just three cases had three separate episodes of dissection and all were in women. We report the first case of r-SCAD in men, with three episodes of dissection in different coronary arteries and review the published literature on predisposing factors for r-SCAD and its management.

Management of drug eluting stent in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management for coronary drug eluting stent in-stent restenosis (DES ISR) is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies to compare the outcomes of management of DES ISR using DES, drug eluting balloon (DEB), or balloon angioplasty (BA). METHODS: Eligible studies (25 single arm and 13 comparative, including 4 randomized studies with a total of 7,474 patients with DES ISR) were identified using MEDLINE search and proceedings of international meetings. Outcomes studied include major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and mortality. Follow-up ranged from 0.5 to 3.5 years (mean 1.4 years). RESULTS: The rate of TLR was significantly lower in the DES (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.69) and DEB (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.55) groups compared to BA. Similarly, TVR rate was significantly lower in the DES (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.77) and DEB (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.58) groups compared to BA. All other outcomes were similar between the DES/BA and DEB/BA comparisons. TLR was significantly lower in the DES group compared to BA for vessels < or > 2.75 mm. CONCLUSION: Treatment of coronary DES ISR with DES or DEB is associated with a reduction in the risk of TLR and TVR compared to BA alone. The relative risk reduction for TLR with DES is similar to DEB. DEBs have a potential role in the treatment of DES ISR by avoiding placement of another layer of stent. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Prospective Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio to Assess Coronary Stenosis Relevance: Results of ADVISE II International, Multicenter Study (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II).

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to characterize, outside of a pre-specified range of values, stenosis severity, as defined by fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.80, in a prospective, independent, controlled, core laboratory-based environment. BACKGROUND: Studies with methodological heterogeneity have reported some discrepancies in the classification agreement between iFR and FFR. The ADVISE II (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II) study was designed to overcome limitations of previous iFR versus FFR comparisons. METHODS: A total of 919 intermediate coronary stenoses were investigated during baseline and hyperemia. From these, 690 pressure recordings (n = 598 patients) met core laboratory physiology criteria and are included in this report. RESULTS: The pre-specified iFR cut-off of 0.89 was optimal for the study and correctly classified 82.5% of the stenoses, with a sensitivity of 73.0% and specificity of 87.8% (C statistic: 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88 to 0.92, p < 0.001]). The proportion of stenoses properly classified by iFR outside of the pre-specified treatment (≤0.85) and deferral (≥0.94) values was 91.6% (95% CI: 88.8% to 93.9%). When combined with FFR use within these cut-offs, the percent of stenoses properly classified by such a pre-specified hybrid iFR-FFR approach was 94.2% (95% CI: 92.2% to 95.8%). The hybrid iFR-FFR approach obviated vasodilators from 65.1% (95% CI: 61.1% to 68.9%) of patients and 69.1% (95% CI: 65.5% to 72.6%) of stenoses. CONCLUSIONS: The ADVISE II study supports, on the basis rigorous methodology, the diagnostic value of iFR in establishing the functional significance of coronary stenoses, and highlights its complementariness with FFR when used in a hybrid iFR-FFR approach. (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II-ADVISE II; NCT01740895).

Endovascular management of splenic artery aneurysms: case series using telescoping guide and cage/coil technique.

Splenic artery aneurysms are rare, but still the third most common abdominal aneurysm. Rupture is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, cardiologists have rarely been involved in the management of this entity. We present a series of four patients managed percutaneously by interventional cardiology using a combined telescoping guide and cage/coil technique.

One-year outcomes from an international study of the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System for endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated 1-year safety and effectiveness outcomes of the United States regulatory trial for the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System (TriVascular Inc, Santa Rosa, Calif) for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial was conducted at 36 sites in the United States, Germany, and Chile to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Ovation stent graft. From November 2009 to May 2011, 161 patients (88% males; mean age, 73 ± 8 years) with AAAs (mean diameter, 54 ± 9 mm) were treated with the Ovation stent graft. The main body is a modular two-docking limb device with a 14F outer diameter delivery system, active suprarenal fixation, and polymer-filled proximal rings that accommodate the aortic neck for seal. Main inclusion criteria included proximal aortic neck length ≥ 7 mm, inner neck diameter between 16 and 30 mm, distal iliac landing zones length ≥ 10 mm, and diameter between 8 and 20 mm. Patients were treated under a common protocol, including clinical and imaging follow-up at discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and annually through 5 years. A Clinical Events Committee adjudicated adverse events, an independent imaging core laboratory analyzed imaging, and a Data Safety and Monitoring Board provided study oversight. Complete 1-year follow-up data were available for this report. RESULTS: The Ovation stent graft was implanted successfully in 161 patients (100%), including 69 (42.9%) by percutaneous access. General anesthesia was used in 106 patients (65.8%). Technical success was 100%, and mean procedure time was 110 minutes. Median procedural blood loss was 150 mL, and median hospital stay was 1 day. The 30-day major adverse event rate was 2.5%. At 1 year, AAA-related and all-cause mortality were 0.6% and 2.5%, respectively. Major adverse event and serious adverse event rates through 1 year were 6.2% and 38.5%, respectively. The 1-year treatment success rate was 99.3%. The imaging core laboratory reported no stent graft migration or type I, III, or IV endoleaks. At 1 year, type II endoleaks were identified in 34% of patients, and AAA enlargement was identified in one patient (0.7%). No AAA rupture or conversion to open surgery was reported. AAA-related secondary procedures were performed in 10 patients (6.2%) for 12 findings, including endoleak (six), aortic main body stenosis (three), and iliac limb stenosis or occlusion (three). CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year results of the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System demonstrate excellent safety and effectiveness in treatment of patients with AAAs, particularly in patients with challenging anatomic characteristics, including short aortic necks and narrow iliac arteries. Longer-term follow-up is needed.

Rare complication of ventricular septal defect in three patients following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a highly-effective but technically challenging procedure. Despite improvement in device technology and operator techniques, complications are common and previously unknown procedural-related complications continue to arise. In this report, we present a case series of three patients with acquired perimembranous ventricular septal defects following transfemoral TAVR with an Edwards SAPIEN prosthesis.

Gender differences in long-term survival of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing mitral valve operations.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in outcomes have been documented in cardiac surgery. Gender differences in long-term survival after mitral valve operations, especially in the elderly, are less well studied. METHODS: Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, we identified 183,792 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older who underwent mitral valve repair or replacement from 2000 through 2009. The final study population included 47,602 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing isolated mitral valve operations. The outcomes studied were gender-specific operative mortality and long-term survival. RESULTS: Women were less likely to receive mitral valve repair (31.9% vs 44.0%, p < 0.0001). The hospital mortality rate was 7.7% for women vs 6.1% for men (p < 0.0001), reflective of a worse preoperative profile. Women undergoing repair had worse long-term survival than men (p = 0.0020) but survival was similar after risk adjustment (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.02, p = 0.2106). Compared with the United States population matched for age and sex, mitral repair restored life expectancy for men but not for women. Unadjusted and adjusted long-term survival was similar for men and women undergoing mitral valve replacement (p = 0.3653; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.02; p = 0.4847). CONCLUSIONS: In this large comparative study of gender differences in mitral valve operations, elderly women had higher operative mortality and lower long-term survival. These differences appeared to be driven largely because women present for mitral valve operations later in the disease process. Mitral repair appeared to restore normal life expectancy for men but not for women. Future studies should examine the factors that influence physician referral to mitral valve operations for men and women.

Long-term survival of patients undergoing mitral valve repair and replacement: a longitudinal analysis of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Despite the established superiority of mitral repair over replacement, its adoption in the treatment of elderly patients has not been uniform, partly because of a lack of robust long-term survival data. We present the long-term survival of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing mitral valve repair and replacement over a 10-year period. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the Medicare database to identify 47 279 fee-for-service beneficiaries ≥65 years of age undergoing primary isolated mitral valve repair or replacement from 2000 to 2009. Operative mortality and long-term survival are presented for repair and replacement. Operative mortality was 3.9% for patients undergoing repair and 8.9% for patients undergoing replacement. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for patients undergoing repair were 90.9%, 77.1%, and 53.6%. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for patients undergoing replacement were 82.6%, 64.7%, and 37.2%. Important predictors of mitral repair included younger age (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), elective admission status (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.41), and annual mitral procedure volume >40 cases per year (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.81). Female sex and the presence of comorbidities were associated with a lower likelihood of repair. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral valve surgery in the Medicare population carries less risk than previously reported. Given the favorable outcomes of elderly patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, especially mitral valve repair, an approach of earlier identification and surgical referral appears justified regardless of age.

Final 5-year results of the TAXUS ATLAS, TAXUS ATLAS Small Vessel, and TAXUS ATLAS Long Lesion clinical trials of the TAXUS Liberté paclitaxel-eluting stent in de-novo coronary artery lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To report the final, cumulative, 5-year outcomes from the TAXUS ATLAS program, which studied the use of the TAXUS Liberté paclitaxel-eluting stent in de-novo coronary artery lesions. METHODS: TAXUS ATLAS Workhorse, Small Vessel, and Long Lesion are nonrandomized studies comparing TAXUS Liberté (N=871), TAXUS Liberté 2.25 mm (N=261), and TAXUS Liberté 38 mm (N=150) stents, respectively, with case-matched TAXUS Express historical controls. RESULTS: In the unadjusted analysis, TAXUS Liberté showed comparable 5-year rates of major adverse cardiac events (27.1% TAXUS Express vs. 26.2% TAXUS Liberté, P=0.70) in workhorse lesions and greater 5-year cumulative freedom from target lesion revascularization (78.4 vs. 87.3%, P=0.03) in small vessels. In addition, a lower periprocedural myocardial infarction rate (MI, 4.1 vs. 0.0%; P=0.01) was observed in long lesions versus TAXUS Express. After propensity score adjustment, no statistically significant effect of TAXUS Liberté on the 5-year rates of TLR in small vessels (17.9 vs. 13.3%, P=0.36) or MI in long lesions (9.1 vs. 7.0%, P=0.53) was found, although the rates remained numerically lower with TAXUS Liberté. CONCLUSION: Cumulative 5-year results of the TAXUS ATLAS studies suggest that the TAXUS Liberté stent provides similar safety and effectiveness in workhorse lesions, and may provide lower revascularization rates in small vessels and lower periprocedural MI rates in long lesions compared with the TAXUS Express stent, although no statistically significant differences were found following propensity adjustment.

Propensity-matched patient-level comparison of the TAXUS Liberté and TAXUS element (ION) paclitaxel-eluting stents.

Stent design, metal alloy composition, and strut thickness may influence late lumen loss and clinical outcomes after bare metal stent deployment; however, their impact on outcomes after drug-eluting stent deployment is unknown. Although the TAXUS Liberté and ION paclitaxel-eluting stents use similar polymer and drug, the ION stent incorporates a novel thin-strut platinum chromium metal alloy and cell design. We therefore compared patient-level data from 2,298 subjects enrolled into the TAXUS ATLAS (TAXUS Liberté) and PERSEUS (ION) clinical trials. Propensity-score (1:1) matching was performed to adjust for covariate imbalance between stent types. Twelve-month major adverse cardiac events were less frequent after use of the ION compared to the TAXUS Liberté (12.7% vs 8.3%, p <0.001, unadjusted; 12.0% vs 7.5%, p = 0.007, propensity matched) largely because of decreased non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI; 2.9% vs 1.4%, p = 0.01, unadjusted; 3.2% vs 0.9%, p = 0.004, propensity matched). The MI difference was predominantly periprocedural and in patients treated with a single stent. In conclusion, this exploratory post hoc analysis demonstrated that the ION was associated with fewer adverse clinical events than the TAXUS Liberté because of decreased non-Q-wave MI. Stent platform-related variables may influence clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent use despite similar polymer and drug elution. Differences in adjunctive pharmacotherapy and/or stenting technique may also be contributory.

A prospective evaluation of the safety and efficacy of TAXUS Element paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent implantation for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions in small vessels: the PERSEUS Small Vessel trial.

AIMS: Small reference vessel diameter predicts adverse outcomes following coronary stenting. TAXUS Express and TAXUS Liberté paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) reduce restenosis compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in small diameter vessels. TAXUS Element is a novel thin-strut, platinum chromium stent designed to enhance visibility, conformability, and drug delivery in small diameter vessels. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PERSEUS Small Vessel (SV) prospective, single-arm, superiority trial evaluates the TAXUS Element PES in 224 subjects with target lesion length≤20 mm and vessel diameter≥2.25 to <2.75 mm, compared to 125 lesion-matched historical Express BMS control subjects from the TAXUS V trial. The primary endpoint was nine-month in-stent late loss. The secondary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure (TLF) compared to a pre-specified performance goal (PG). Outcomes were analysed with and without propensity-score adjustment. TAXUS Element was superior to the Express BMS for late loss (0.38±0.51 versus 0.80±0.53 mm respectively; P<0.001), and TLF (7.3%) was significantly less than the 19.5% PG (P<0.001). No differences in mortality, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis were observed through 12 months. Results were similar after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: PERSEUS SV supports the efficacy and safety of the platinum chromium, thin-strut TAXUS Element stent in small coronary vessels.