Search

Background: Autopsy studies suggest that implanting stents in lipid-rich plaque (LRP) may be associated with adverse outcomes., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between LRP detected by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease treated with contemporary drug-eluting stents., Methods: In this prospective, multicenter registry, NIRS was performed in patients undergoing coronary angiography and possible percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Lipid core burden index (LCBI) was calculated as the fraction of pixels with the probability of LRP >0.6 within a region of interest. MaxLCBI 4mm was defined as the maximum LCBI within any 4-mm-long segment. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) included cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, or unplanned revascularization or rehospitalization for progressive angina or unstable angina. Events were subcategorized as culprit (treated) lesion-related, nonculprit (untreated) lesion-related, or indeterminate., Results: Among 1,999 patients who were enrolled in the COLOR (Chemometric Observations of Lipid Core Plaques of Interest in Native Coronary Arteries Registry), PCI was performed in 1,621 patients and MACE occurred in 18.0% of patients, of which 8.3% were culprit lesion-related, 10.7% were nonculprit lesion-related, and 3.1% were indeterminate during 2-year follow-up. Complications from NIRS imaging occurred in 9 patients (0.45%), which resulted in 1 peri-procedural myocardial infarction and 1 emergent coronary bypass. Pre-PCI NIRS imaging was obtained in 1,189 patients, and the 2-year rate of culprit lesion-related MACE was not significantly associated with maxLCBI 4mm (hazard ratio of maxLCBI 4mm per 100: 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.96 to 1.17; p = 0.28) after adjusting clinical and procedural factors., Conclusions: Following PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents, stent implantation in NIRS-defined LRPs was not associated with increased periprocedural or late adverse outcomes compared with those without significant lipid., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Migraine is a prevalent and disabling disorder. Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been associated with migraine, but its role in the disorder remains poorly understood., Objectives: This study examined the efficacy of percutaneous PFO closure as a therapy for migraine with or without aura., Methods: The PREMIUM (Prospective, Randomized Investigation to Evaluate Incidence of Headache Reduction in Subjects With Migraine and PFO Using the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder to Medical Management) was a double-blind study investigating migraine characteristics over 1 year in subjects randomized to medical therapy with a sham procedure (right heart catheterization) versus medical therapy and PFO closure with the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, Minnesota). Subjects had 6 to 14 days of migraine per month, had failed at least 3 migraine preventive medications, and had significant right-to-left shunt defined by transcranial Doppler. Primary endpoints were responder rate defined as 50% reduction in migraine attacks and adverse events. Secondary endpoints included reduction in migraine days and efficacy in patients with versus without aura., Results: Of 1,653 subjects consented, 230 were enrolled. There was no difference in responder rate in the PFO closure (45 of 117) versus control (33 of 103) groups. One serious adverse event (transient atrial fibrillation) occurred in 205 subjects who underwent PFO closure. Subjects in the PFO closure group had a significantly greater reduction in headache days (-3.4 vs. -2.0 days/month, p = 0.025). Complete migraine remission for 1 year occurred in 10 patients (8.5%) in the treatment group versus 1 (1%) in the control group (p = 0.01)., Conclusions: PFO closure did not meet the primary endpoint of reduction in responder rate in patients with frequent migraine. (Prospective, Randomized Investigation to Evaluate Incidence of Headache Reduction in Subjects With Migraine and PFO Using the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder to Medical Management [PREMIUM]; NCT00355056)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery, self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved 2-year survival compared with surgery., Objectives: This study sought to determine whether this clinical benefit was sustained over time., Methods: Patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed at increased risk for surgery by a multidisciplinary heart team were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or open surgical valve replacement (SAVR). Three-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were obtained in those patients with an attempted procedure., Results: A total of 797 patients underwent randomization at 45 U.S. centers; 750 patients underwent an attempted procedure. Three-year all-cause mortality or stroke was significantly lower in TAVR patients (37.3% vs. 46.7% in SAVR; p = 0.006). Adverse clinical outcome components were also reduced in TAVR patients compared with SAVR patients, including all-cause mortality (32.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively; p = 0.068), all stroke (12.6% vs. 19.0%, respectively; p = 0.034), and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (40.2% vs. 47.9%, respectively; p = 0.025). At 3 years aortic valve hemodynamics were better with TAVR patients (mean aortic valve gradient 7.62 ± 3.57 mm Hg vs. 11.40 ± 6.81 mm Hg in SAVR; p < 0.001), although moderate or severe residual aortic regurgitation was higher in TAVR patients (6.8% vs. 0.0% in SAVR; p < 0.001). There was no clinical evidence of valve thrombosis in either group., Conclusions: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery had improved 3-year clinical outcomes after TAVR compared with surgery. Aortic valve hemodynamics were more favorable in TAVR patients without differences in structural valve deterioration. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve(®) System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The U.S. pivotal trial for the self-expanding valve found that among patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery, the 1-year survival rate was 4.9 percentage points higher in patients treated with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve bioprosthesis than in those treated with a surgical bioprosthesis., Objectives: Longer-term clinical outcomes were examined to confirm if this mortality benefit is sustained., Methods: Patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] group) or to aortic valve replacement with a surgical bioprosthesis (surgical group). The 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated in these patients., Results: A total of 797 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. The rate of 2-year all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the TAVR group (22.2%) than in the surgical group (28.6%; log-rank test p < 0.05) in the as-treated cohort, with an absolute reduction in risk of 6.5 percentage points. Similar results were found in the intention-to-treat cohort (log-rank test p < 0.05). The rate of 2-year death or major stroke was significantly lower in the TAVR group (24.2%) than in the surgical group (32.5%; log-rank test p = 0.01)., Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, the higher rate of survival with a self-expanding TAVR compared with surgery was sustained at 2 years. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of carotid artery stenting with a unique distal embolic protection system in high-risk patients with severe carotid stenosis., Background: Previous studies suggest that some patients with carotid stenosis and serious comorbid conditions are at high risk for carotid endarterectomy, and may be safely treated by carotid artery stenting., Methods: A prospective non-randomized multicenter registry of 419 patients with severe carotid stenosis and high-risk features for carotid endarterectomy was conducted between April 2004 and October 2004. Carotid artery stenting was performed with the Protégé Self-Expanding Nitinol Stent and the SPIDER Embolic Protection System (ev3 Inc., Plymouth, Minnesota). Aspirin and clopidogrel were prescribed at least 24 h before and three months after revascularization. The primary outcome was the combined incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days after intervention, including death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. A secondary outcome was the technical success, defined as successful deployment of all devices, filter retrieval, and final diameter stenosis <50%., Results: Technical success was achieved in 408 of 419 patients (97.4%). The primary end point was observed in 26 patients (6.2%), including death in 8 (1.9%), nonfatal stroke in 14 (3.3%), and nonfatal myocardial infarction in 4 (1%). Independent predictors of death or stroke at 30 days included duration of filter deployment, symptomatic carotid stenosis, and baseline renal insufficiency., Conclusions: For some patients with severe carotid stenosis and high-risk features for carotid endarterectomy, carotid artery stenting with distal embolic protection is a reasonable alternative for revascularization.