Antiplatelet therapy guided by CYP2C19 point-of-care pharmacogenetics plus multidimensional treatment decisions.

Aim: Implementation of CYP2C19 point-of-care (POC) pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing with personalized treatment recommendations. Methods: POC CYP2C19 genotyping plus expert evaluation of risk factors for ischemic and bleeding events. Results: 167 patients underwent PGx testing, 54 (32.3%) were CYP2C19 loss of function carriers, and POC versus standard PGx analysis results for *2 and *3 variants matched in 100%. Antiplatelet therapy was adjusted in 44 patients (26.3%), but always required consideration of patient-specific factors. Conclusion: CYP2C19 POC-PGx is reliable and offers clinically relevant advantages for immediate evidence-based adaptations of antiplatelet therapy, whereas in less acute cases conventional PGx testing can also have advantages. Antiplatelet therapy has become more complex, and implementation of PGx-based personalized antiplatelet therapy requires complementary expert knowledge.

Clinical Outcomes in High-Gradient, Classical Low-Flow, Low-Gradient, and Paradoxical Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Report From the SwissTAVI Registry.

Background In view of the rising global burden of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, its early recognition and treatment is key. Although patients with classical low-flow, low-gradient (C-LFLG) aortic stenosis have higher rates of death after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) when compared with patients with high-gradient (HG) aortic stenosis, there is conflicting evidence on the death rate in patients with severe paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient (P-LFLG) aortic stenosis. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes in real-world patients with severe HG, C-LFLG, and P-LFLG aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI. Methods and Results Clinical outcomes up to 5 years were addressed in the 3 groups of patients enrolled in the prospective, national, multicenter SwissTAVI registry. A total of 8914 patients undergoing TAVI at 15 heart valve centers in Switzerland were analyzed for the purpose of this study. We observed a significant difference in time to death at 1 year after TAVI, with the lowest observed in HG (8.8%) aortic stenosis, followed by P-LFLG (11.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.56]; P<0.001) and C-LFLG (19.8%; HR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.64-2.26]; P<0.001) aortic stenosis. Cardiovascular death showed similar differences between the groups. At 5 years, the all-cause death rate was 44.4% in HG, 52.1% in P-LFLG (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.23-1.48]; P<0.001), and 62.8% in C-LFLG aortic stenosis (HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.54-1.88]; P<0.001). Conclusions Up to 5 years after TAVI, patients with P-LFLG have higher death rates than patients with HG aortic stenosis but lower death rates than patients with C-LFLG aortic stenosis.

Assessment of Retinal Capillary Dropout after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation by Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative to open heart surgery in the treatment of symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, which is often the treatment of choice in elderly and frail patients. It carries a risk of embolic complications in the whole cerebral vascular bed, which includes the retinal vasculature. The main objective was the evaluation of retinal emboli visible on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) following TAVI. This is a prospective, single center, observational study enrolling consecutive patients over two years. Patients were assessed pre- and post-TAVI. Twenty-eight patients were included in the final analysis, 82.1% were male, median age was 79.5 (range 52-88), median BCVA was 82.5 letters (range 75-93). Eight patients (28.6%) presented new capillary dropout lesions in their post-TAVI OCTA scans. There was no statistically significant change in BCVA. Quantitative analysis of macular or peripapillary OCTA parameters did not show any statistically significant difference in pre- and post-intervention. In conclusion, capillary dropout lesions could frequently be found in patients after TAVI. Quantitative measurements of macular and peripapillary flow remained stable, possibly indicating effective ocular blood flow regulation within the range of left ventricular ejection fraction in our cohort.

Biodegradable- Versus Durable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents for STEMI: Final 2-Year Outcomes of the BIOSTEMI Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) compared with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an effective treatment for patients with STEMI, and long-term outcomes are determined by the safety and efficacy profile of the newest generation drug-eluting stents. METHODS: BIOSTEMI (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized superiority trial using Bayesian methods. Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI within 24 h of symptom onset were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive BP-SES (n = 649) or DP-EES (n = 651). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years. RESULTS: Between April 2016 and March 2018, 1,300 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. Follow-up through 2 years was complete in 1,221 patients (94%). At 2 years, TLF occurred in 33 patients (5.1%) treated with BP-SES and in 53 patients (8.1%) treated with DP-EES (rate ratio: 0.58; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.40 to 0.84; posterior probability of superiority = 0.998). The difference was driven by a lower incidence of clinically indicated TLR in patients treated with BP-SES compared with DP-EES (2.5% vs. 5.1%; rate ratio: 0.52; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.30 to 0.87; posterior probability of superiority = 0.993). There were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and definite stent thrombosis between the 2 treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, BP-SES were superior to DP-EES with respect to TLF at 2 years. The difference was driven by lower rates of ischemia-driven TLR. (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [BIOSTEMI]; NCT02579031).

Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents.

Background The choice of optimal drug-eluting stent therapy for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with DM. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization) trial (NCT01443104), patients randomly assigned to ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES were stratified according to diabetic status. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, at 5 years. Among 2119 patients, 486 (22.9%) presented with DM. Compared with individuals without DM, patients with DM were older and had a greater baseline cardiac risk profile. In patients with DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 74 patients (cumulative incidence, 31.0%) treated with BP-SES and 57 patients (25.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87-1.73 [P=0.24]). In individuals without DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 124 patients (16.8%) treated with BP-SES and 132 patients (16.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77-1.26 [P=0.90; P for interaction=0.31]). Cumulative 5-year incidence rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis were similar among patients with DM treated with BP-SES or DP-EES. There was no interaction between diabetic status and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES. Conclusions In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, we found no difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with DM treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Long-Term Effect of Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials evaluating the Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES; 60 and 80 µm strut thickness for stent diameters ≤3 and >3 mm, respectively) did not stratify according to vessel size and failed to specify the impact of ultrathin-strut thickness on long-term clinical outcomes compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). We sought to assess the long-term effect of ultrathin-strut (60 µm) BP-SES versus thin-strut (81 µm) DP-EES on long-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization for small vessel disease. METHODS: In a subgroup analysis of the randomized, multicenter, noninferiority BIOSCIENCE trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES were stratified according to vessel size (≤3 mm versus >3 mm) as a surrogate to compare patients treated with ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut drug-eluting stent. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, within 5 years. RESULTS: Among 2109 patients, 1234 (59%) were treated for small vessel disease. At 5 years, target lesion failure occurred in 124 patients (cumulative incidence, 22.3%) treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES and 109 patients (18.3%) treated with thin-strut DP-EES (rate ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.94-1.58; P=0.13). Cumulative incidences of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization and definite stent thrombosis at 5 years were similar in patients treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES. After adjustment for potential confounders, there was no significant interaction between vessel size and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with small vessel disease treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES versus thin-strut DP-EES. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (BIOSTEMI): a single-blind, prospective, randomised superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that combine ultrathin strut metallic platforms with biodegradable polymers might facilitate vascular healing and improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with contemporary thin strut second-generation drug-eluting stents. We did a randomised clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI. METHODS: The BIOSTEMI trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective, single-blind, randomised superiority trial at ten hospitals in Switzerland. Patients aged 18 years or older with acute STEMI who were referred for primary PCI were eligible to participate. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Central randomisation was done based on a computer-generated allocation sequence with variable block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, which was stratified by centre, diabetes status, and presence or absence of multivessel coronary artery disease, and concealed using a secure web-based system. Patients and treating physicians were aware of group allocations, whereas outcome assessors were masked to the allocated stent. The experimental stent (Orsiro; Biotronik; Bülach, Switzerland) consisted of an ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium metallic stent platform releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer. The control stent (Xience Xpedition/Alpine; Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL, USA) consisted of a thin strut cobalt-chromium stent platform that releases everolimus from a durable polymer. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction (Q-wave and non-Q-wave), and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation, within 12 months of the index procedure. All analyses were done with the individual participant as the unit of analysis and according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02579031. FINDINGS: Between April 26, 2016, and March 9, 2018, we randomly assigned 1300 patients (1623 lesions) with acute myocardial infarction to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (649 patients and 816 lesions) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (651 patients and 806 lesions). At 12 months, follow-up data were available for 614 (95%) patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and 626 (96%) patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. The primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure occurred in 25 (4%) of 649 patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and 36 (6%) of 651 patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (difference -1·6 percentage points; rate ratio 0·59, 95% Bayesian credibility interval 0·37-0·94; posterior probability of superiority 0·986). Cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation, and definite stent thrombosis were similar between the two treatment groups in the 12 months of follow-up. INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were superior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. This difference was driven by reduced ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation in patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. FUNDING: Biotronik.

Ultrathin-strut, biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin-strut, durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularisation: 5-year outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents combining an ultrathin cobalt-chromium stent platform with a biodegradable polymer eluting sirolimus have been shown to be non-inferior or superior to thin-strut, durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents in terms of 1 year safety and efficacy outcomes. METHODS: In the randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority BIOSCIENCE trial, we compared biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. Here, we assess the final 5-year clinical outcomes of BIOSCIENCE with regards to the primary clinical outcome of target lesion failure, which was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation. The primary analysis was done by intention to treat. The BIOSCIENCE trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS: 2008 (95%) of 2119 patients recruited between March 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013, completed 5 years of follow-up. Target lesion failure occurred in 198 patients (cumulative incidence 20·2%) treated with biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and in 189 patients (18·8%) treated with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (rate ratio [RR] 1·07, 95% CI 0·88-1·31; p=0·487). All-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients treated with biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents than in those treated with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (14·1% vs 10·3%; RR 1·36, 95% CI 1·06-1·75; p=0·017), driven by a difference in non-cardiovascular deaths. We observed no difference between groups in cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis at 5 years (1·6% in both groups; 1·02, 0·51-2·05; p=0·950). INTERPRETATION: 5-year risk of target lesion failure among all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is similar after implantation of ultrathin-strut, biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting stents or thin-strut, durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents. Higher incidences of all-cause and non-cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with biodegradable-polymer stents eluting sirolimus than in those treated with durable-polymer stents eluting everolimus warrant careful observation in ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: Clinical Trials Unit of the University of Bern and Biotronik.

Left atrial appendage occlusion.

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a first-line therapy for stroke prevention in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation (AF). While patients at high risk for bleeding or patients with previous bleeding have the highest relative risk reduction from LAAO, it is the younger patients with a high lifetime bleeding risk who benefit from the highest absolute risk reduction after LAAO. Therefore, LAAO should be discussed with every AF patient, as an alternative to lifelong oral anticoagulation. The patient needs to be informed about the risks and benefits of each treatment strategy in order to take an informed treatment decision.

Midregional Proadrenomedullin Improves Risk Stratification beyond Surgical Risk Scores in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Conventional surgical risk scores lack accuracy in risk stratification of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Elevated levels of midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) levels are associated with adverse outcome not only in patients with manifest chronic disease states, but also in the general population. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the predictive value of MR-proADM for mortality in an unselected contemporary TAVR population. METHODS: We prospectively included 153 patients suffering from severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR from September 2013 to August 2014. This population was compared to an external validation cohort of 205 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. The primary endpoint was all cause mortality. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 258 days, 17 out of 153 patients who underwent TAVR died (11%). Patients with MR-proADM levels above the 75th percentile (≥ 1.3 nmol/l) had higher mortality (31% vs. 4%, HR 8.9, 95% CI 3.0-26.0, P < 0.01), whereas patients with EuroSCORE II scores above the 75th percentile (> 6.8) only showed a trend towards higher mortality (18% vs. 9%, HR 2.1, 95% CI 0.8-5.6, P = 0.13). The Harrell's C-statistic was 0.58 (95% CI 0.45-0.82) for the EuroSCORE II, and consideration of baseline MR-proADM levels significantly improved discrimination (AUC = 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, P = 0.01). In bivariate analysis adjusted for EuroSCORE II, MR-proADM levels ≥1.3 nmol/l persisted as an independent predictor of mortality (HR 9.9, 95% CI (3.1-31.3), P <0.01) and improved the model's net reclassification index (0.89, 95% CI (0.28-1.59). These results were confirmed in the independent validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified MR-proADM as a novel predictor of mortality in patients undergoing TAVR. In the future, MR-proADM should be added to the commonly used EuroSCORE II for better risk stratification of patients suffering from severe aortic stenosis.

Device-less patent foramen ovale closure by radiofrequency thermal energy.

UNLABELLED: The goal of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety and success of a system which uses radiofrequency energy (RFE) rather than a device for percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO). METHODS: Sixteen patients (10 men, 6 women, mean age 50 years) were included in the study. All of them had a proven PFO with documented right-to-left shunt (RLS) after Valsalva manoeuvre (VM) during transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The patients had an average PFO diameter of 6 +/- 2 mm at TEE and an average of 23 +/- 4 microembolic signals (MES) in power M-mode transcranial Doppler sonography (pm-TCD), measured over the middle cerebral artery. An atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) was present in 7 patients (44%). Balloon measurement, performed in all patients, revealed a stretched PFO diameter of 8 +/- 3 mm. In 2 patients (stretched diameter 11 and 14 mm respectively, both with ASA >10 mm), radiofrequency was not applied (PFO too large) and the PFO was closed with an Amplatzer PFO occluder instead. A 6-month follow-up TEE was performed in all patients. RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events during the procedure or at follow-up (12 months average). TEE 6 months after the first RFE procedure showed complete closure of the PFO in 50% of the patients (7/14). Closure appeared to be influenced by PFO diameter, complete closure being achieved in 89% (7/8) with a balloon-stretched diameter < or =7 mm but in none of the patients >7 mm. Only one of the complete closure patients had an ASA. Of the remainder, 4 (29%) had an ASA. Although the PFO was not completely closed in this group, some reduction in the diameter of the PFO and in MES was documented by TEE and pm-TCD with VM. Five of the 7 residual shunt patients received an Amplatzer PFO occluder. Except for one patient with a minimal residual shunt, all showed complete closure of PFO at 6-month follow-up TEE and pm-TCD with VM. The other two refused a closure device. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that radiofrequency closure of the PFO is safe albeit less efficacious and more complex than device closure. The technique in its current state should not be attempted in patients with a balloon-stretched PFO diameter >7 mm and an ASA.