Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a VARC-HBR consensus document.

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main coronary artery disease: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Significant unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease is encountered in approximately 5 % of patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) overcomes many of the known limitations of angiography and improves outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in stable or complex coronary artery disease. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence on IVUS-guidance versus angiography-guidance in ULMCA PCI, highlighting the chronological frequencies of event rates in line with the maturation of PCI technique and devices over time. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search in Medline was performed to identify all studies that had assessed the effect of IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided ULMCA PCI on various primary and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (2 randomized, 10 non-randomized and 5 meta-analyses) were included in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review on IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided PCI in patients with significant ULMCA disease strongly supports the hypothesis that IVUS-guided PCI is associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events composites, all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. Ongoing, adequately powered trials will contribute significantly to the level of evidence.

Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium Definitions for Tricuspid Regurgitation and Trial Endpoints.

Interest in the pathophysiology, etiology, management, and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has grown in the wake of multiple natural history studies showing progressively worse outcomes associated with increasing TR severity, even after adjusting for multiple comorbidities. Historically, isolated tricuspid valve surgery has been associated with high in-hospital mortality rates, leading to the development of transcatheter treatment options. The aim of this first Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document is to standardize definitions of disease etiology and severity, as well as endpoints for trials that aim to address the gaps in our knowledge related to identification and management of patients with TR. Standardizing endpoints for trials should provide consistency and enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. A second Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document will focus on further defining trial endpoints and will discuss trial design options.

Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium Definitions for Tricuspid Regurgitation and Trial Endpoints.

Interest in the pathophysiology, etiology, management, and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has grown in the wake of multiple natural history studies showing progressively worse outcomes associated with increasing TR severity, even after adjusting for multiple comorbidities. Historically, isolated tricuspid valve surgery has been associated with high in-hospital mortality rates, leading to the development of transcatheter treatment options. The aim of this first Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document is to standardize definitions of disease etiology and severity, as well as endpoints for trials that aim to address the gaps in our knowledge related to identification and management of patients with TR. Standardizing endpoints for trials should provide consistency and enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. A second Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document will focus on further defining trial endpoints and will discuss trial design options.

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium Definitions for Tricuspid Regurgitation and Trial Endpoints.

Interest in the pathophysiology, etiology, management, and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has grown in the wake of multiple natural history studies showing progressively worse outcomes associated with increasing TR severity, even after adjusting for multiple comorbidities. Historically, isolated tricuspid valve surgery has been associated with high in-hospital mortality rates, leading to the development of transcatheter treatment options. The aim of this first Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document is to standardize definitions of disease etiology and severity, as well as endpoints for trials that aim to address the gaps in our knowledge related to identification and management of patients with TR. Standardizing endpoints for trials should provide consistency and enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. A second Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document will focus on further defining trial endpoints and will discuss trial design options.

Echocardiography Core Laboratory Validation of a Novel Vendor-Independent Web-Based Software for the Assessment of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain.

BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an accurate and reproducible parameter of left ventricular (LV) systolic function which has shown meaningful prognostic value. Fast, user-friendly, and accurate tools are required for its widespread implementation. We aim to compare a novel web-based tool with two established algorithms for strain analysis and test its reproducibility. METHODS: Thirty echocardiographic datasets with focused LV acquisitions were analyzed using three different semi-automated endocardial GLS algorithms by two readers. Analyses were repeated by one reader for the purpose of intra-observer variability. CAAS Qardia (Pie Medical Imaging) was compared with 2DCPA and AutoLV (TomTec). RESULTS: Mean GLS values were -15.0 ± 3.5% from Qardia, -15.3 ± 4.0% from 2DCPA, and -15.2 ± 3.8% from AutoLV. Mean GLS between Qardia and 2DCPA were not statistically different (p = 0.359), with a bias of -0.3%, limits of agreement (LOA) of 3.7%, and an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88. Mean GLS between Qardia and AutoLV were not statistically different (p = 0.637), with a bias of -0.2%, LOA of 3.4%, and an ICC of 0.89. The coefficient of variation (CV) for intra-observer variability was 4.4% for Qardia, 8.4% 2DCPA, and 7.7% AutoLV. The CV for inter-observer variability was 4.5%, 8.1%, and 8.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In echocardiographic datasets of good image quality analyzed at an independent core laboratory using a standardized annotation method, a novel web-based tool for GLS analysis showed consistent results when compared with two algorithms of an established platform. Moreover, inter- and intra-observer reproducibility results were excellent.

Fractional flow reserve or 3D-quantitative-coronary-angiography based vessel-FFR guided revascularization. Rationale and study design of the prospective randomized fast III trial.

BACKGROUND: Physiological assessment of intermediate coronary lesions to guide coronary revascularization is currently recommended by international guidelines. Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has emerged as a new approach to derive fractional flow reserve (FFR) from 3D-quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) without the need for hyperemic agents or pressure wires. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: The FAST III is an investigator-initiated, open label, multicenter randomized trial comparing vFFR guided versus FFR guided coronary revascularization in approximately 2228 patients with intermediate coronary lesions (defined as 30%-80% stenosis by visual assessment or QCA). Intermediate lesions are physiologically assessed using on-line vFFR or FFR and treated if vFFR or FFR ≤0.80. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 1-year post-randomization. Secondary end points include the individual components of the primary end point and cost-effectiveness will be investigated. CONCLUSIONS: FAST III is the first randomized trial to explore whether a vFFR guided revascularization strategy is non-inferior to an FFR guided strategy in terms of clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up in patients with intermediate coronary artery lesions.

Validation of a simplified intravascular ultrasound core lab analysis method in stented coronary arteries.

OBJECTIVES: To validate a simplified core laboratory intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) analysis method based on frames with visually determined minimal lumen areas (MLAs) as compared with a comprehensive (per frame) analysis method. BACKGROUND: IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention has proven to be superior to angiography-guided stenting. In clinical practice, cross-sections with visually determined MLA are measured to determine lesion severity or minimal stent area (MSA), however, its accuracy has not been compared with a comprehensive per frame analysis method. METHODS: A total of 50 stented coronary segments of anonymized core lab datasets were analyzed using a comprehensive analysis method and reanalyzed by two core lab analysts using the simplified method including a maximum of seven frames to be analyzed (the visually determined MSA, the first and last frame, and the MLA of each reference segment). The main parameters of interest were MSA, MLA in the reference segments, and plaque burden. RESULTS: The simplified method showed moderate agreement for measurement of the proximal MLA (7.51 ± 2.52 vs. 6.32 ± 1.88 mm2 , intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.73), good agreement for the distal MLA (5.41 ± 1.85 vs. 5.11 ± 1.38 mm2 , ICC = 0.84) and plaque burden proximal (0.49 ± 0.12 vs. 0.50 ± 0.11, ICC = 0.88), and excellent agreement for the MSA (5.35 ± 1.05 vs. 5.32 ± 0.99 mm2 , ICC = 0.94) and plaque burden distal (0.47 ± 0.14 vs. 0.47 ± 0.12, ICC = 0.92), when compared with the comprehensive analysis method. Inter- and intraobserver analysis revealed good-to-excellent agreement for all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring poststenting IVUS cross-sections with visually determined MLAs by experienced core lab analysts is an accurate and reproducible method to identify MLAs.

Correlation of 3D Quantitative Coronary-Angiography Based Vessel FFR With Diastolic Pressure Ratio: A Single-Center Pooled Analysis of the FAST EXTEND and FAST II Studies.

BACKGROUND: Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has a high diagnostic accuracy in assessing functional lesion significance compared with FFR. Nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) were noninferior to FFR to guide revascularization of intermediate lesions. Therefore, the diagnostic performance of vFFR compared with NHPR warrants interest. AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of vFFR with a generic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) as a reference. METHODS: The study population was derived from the FAST EXTEND and FAST II studies. Between January 2016 and September 2020, a total of 475 patients were enrolled. RESULTS: Median dPR was 0.92 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.87-0.95), median vFFR was 0.86 (IQR, 0.80-0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy of vFFR ≤0.80 for dPR ≤0.89 were 66%, 92%, 79%, 85%, and 84%, respectively. Vessel FFR showed a good agreement with dPR (r=0.68), consistent among specific clinical lesion subsets and a high diagnostic accuracy for dPR ≤0.89 (area under the curve=0.89). Discordance between vFFR and dPR was observed in 78/492 cases (15.6%) and logistic regression analysis did not reveal any clinical, angiographic, or hemodynamic variables associated with vFFR and dPR discordance. CONCLUSION: Vessel FFR shows a good agreement with dPR and a high diagnostic accuracy for dPR ≤0.89.

Clinical Trial Design Principles and Outcomes Definitions for Device-Based Therapies for Hypertension: A Consensus Document From the Hypertension Academic Research Consortium.

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world's leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies.

Independence of clinical events committees: A consensus statement from clinical research organizations.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging. METHODS: This consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance. RESULTS: An independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.

A multi-center, international, randomized, 2-year, parallel-group study to assess the superiority of IVUS-guided PCI versus qualitative angio-guided PCI in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease: Study protocol for OPTIMAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used increasingly for revascularization of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. Observational studies and subgroup analyses from clinical trials, have suggested a possible benefit from the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance when performing unprotected LMCA PCI. However, the value of imaging with IVUS has never been proven in an appropriately powered randomized clinical trial. The OPtimizaTIon of Left MAin PCI With IntravascuLar Ultrasound (OPTIMAL) trial has been designed to establish whether IVUS-guided PCI optimization on LMCA is associated with superior clinical outcomes when compared with standard qualitative angiography-guided PCI. METHODS: The OPTIMAL trial is a randomized, multicenter, international study designed to enroll a total of 800 patients undergoing PCI for unprotected LMCA disease. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to IVUS-guided PCI versus angiogram-guided PCI. In patients allocated to the angiogram-guided arm, use of IVUS is discouraged, unless there are safety concerns. In patients allocated to the IVUS guidance arm, pre-procedural IVUS assessment is highly recommended, whilst post-procedural IVUS assessment is mandatory to confirm appropriate stenting result and/or to guide stent result optimization, according to predefined criteria. Patients will be followed up to 2 years after the index procedure. The primary outcome measure is the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) patient-oriented composite endpoint (PoCE) which includes all-cause death, any stroke, any myocardial infarction and any repeat revascularization at 2 years follow-up. DISCUSSION: The OPTIMAL trial aims to provide definitive evidence about the clinical impact of IVUS-guidance during PCI to an unprotected LMCA. It is anticipated by the investigators, that an IVUS-guided strategy will be associated with less clinical events compared to a strategy guided by angiogram alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04111770. Registered on October 1, 2019.

Clinical events classification (CEC) in clinical trials: Report on the current landscape and future directions - proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation. OBSERVATIONS: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: (1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; (2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; (3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and (4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.

Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) for the assessment of stenosis severity: the FAST II study.

BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to angiography-guided PCI. The clinical uptake of FFR has been limited, however, by the need to advance a wire in the coronary artery, the additional time required and the need for hyperaemic agents which can cause patient discomfort. FFR derived from routine coronary angiography eliminates these issues. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance and accuracy of three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA)-based vessel FFR (vFFR) compared to pressure wire-based FFR (≤0.80). METHODS: The FAST II (Fast Assessment of STenosis severity) study was a prospective observational multicentre study designed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of vFFR compared to the reference standard (pressure wire-based FFR ≤0.80). A total of 334 patients from six centres were enrolled. Both site-determined and blinded independent core lab vFFR measurements were compared to FFR. RESULTS: The core lab vFFR was 0.83±0.09 and pressure wire-based FFR 0.83±0.08. A good correlation was found between core lab vFFR and pressure wire-based FFR (R=0.74; p<0.001; mean bias 0.0029±0.0642). vFFR had an excellent diagnostic accuracy in identifying lesions with an invasive wire-based FFR ≤0.80 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.96; p<0.001). Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of vFFR were 90%, 90%, 90%, 81% and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-QCA-based vFFR has excellent diagnostic performance to detect FFR ≤0.80. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT03791320.

Five-year outcomes after state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three-vessel disease: final results of the SYNTAX II study.

AIMS: The SYNTAX II study evaluated the impact of advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), integrated into a single revascularization strategy, on outcomes of patients with de novo three-vessel disease. The study employed decision-making utilizing the SYNTAX score II, use of coronary physiology, thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents, intravascular ultrasound, enhanced treatments of chronic total occlusions, and optimized medical therapy. Patients treated with this approach were compared with predefined patients from the SYNTAX I trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: SYNTAX II was a multicentre, single-arm, open-label study of patients requiring revascularization who demonstrated clinical equipoise for treatment with either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or PCI, predicted by the SYNTAX score II. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which included any revascularization. The comparators were a matched PCI cohort trial and a matched CABG cohort, both from the SYNTAX I trial. At 5 years, MACCE rate in SYNTAX II was significantly lower than in the SYNTAX I PCI cohort (21.5% vs. 36.4%, P < 0.001). This reflected lower rates of revascularization (13.8% vs. 23.8%, P < 0.001), and myocardial infarction (MI) (2.7% vs. 10.4%, P < 0.001), consisting of both procedural MI (0.2% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001) and spontaneous MI (2.3% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.004). All-cause mortality was lower in SYNTAX II (8.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.013) reflecting a lower rate of cardiac death (2.8% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.001). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events' outcomes at 5 years among patients in SYNTAX II and predefined patients in the SYNTAX I CABG cohort were similar (21.5% vs. 24.6%, P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the SYNTAX II PCI strategy in patients with de novo three-vessel disease led to improved and durable clinical results when compared to predefined patients treated with PCI in the original SYNTAX I trial. A predefined exploratory analysis found no significant difference in MACCE between SYNTAX II PCI and matched SYNTAX I CABG patients at 5-year follow-up.