Search

Background: In patients with multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the FLOWER-MI trial (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) showed that a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy was not superior to an angiography-guided strategy for treatment of noninfarct-related artery lesions regarding the 1-year risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. The extension phase of the trial was planned using the same primary outcome to determine whether a difference in outcomes would be observed with a longer follow-up., Methods: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease with successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR (n=586) or angiography (n=577)., Results: After 3 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 52 of 498 patients (9.40%) in the FFR-guided group and in 44 of 502 patients (8.17%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.79-1.77]; P =0.4). Death occurred in 22 patients (4.00%) in the FFR-guided group and in 23 (4.32%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.71]); nonfatal myocardial infarction in 23 (4.13%) and 14 (2.56%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.84-3.16]); and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 21 (3.83%) and 18 (3.36%; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.61-2.16]), respectively., Conclusions: Although event rates in the trial were lower than expected, in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization up to 3 years., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Background: Limited information is available on the comparative efficacy and safety of different stent platforms in patients at high bleeding risk undergoing an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy duration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent in patients at high bleeding risk receiving 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI., Methods: The Bioflow-DAPT Study is an international, randomized, open-label trial conducted at 52 interventional cardiology hospitals in 18 countries from February 24, 2020, through September 20, 2021. Patients with a clinical indication to PCI because of acute or chronic coronary syndrome who fulfilled 1 or more criteria for high bleeding risk were eligible for enrollment. Patients were randomized to receive either biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable-polymer, slow-release zotarolimus-eluting stents after successful lesion preparation, followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy and thereafter single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was the composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year, and was powered for noninferiority, with an absolute margin of 4.1% at 1-sided 5% alpha., Results: A total of 1948 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (969 patients) or durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (979 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 33 of 969 patients (3.6%) in the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 32 of 979 patients (3.4%) in the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the 1-sided 95% CI, 1.8; upper boundary of the 1-sided 97.5% CI, 2.1; P <0.0001 for noninferiority for both tests)., Conclusions: Among patients at high risk for bleeding who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, the use of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to the use of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents with regard to the composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04137510., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Valgimigli reports grants and personal fees from Terumo and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, IDORSIA Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Universität Basel, Department Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squibb SA, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, and PhaseBio. Dr Wlodarczak has no conflicts of interest to report. Dr Tölg reports personal fees for lectures from Biotronik. Dr Merkely reports personal fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Medtronic, and Novartis, and institutional grants from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke Clinical Institute, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novartis, Terumo, and VIFOR Pharma. Dr Kelbæk has no conflicts of interest to report. Dr Legutko reports lecture fees from Abiomed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie-Menarini, Abbott, Bayer AG, Ely Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Philips-Volcano, Procardia, Sanofi, and Novartis; meeting or travel fees from Abbott, Boston, Medtronic, and Abiomed; and data safety monitoring board or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie-Menarini, Abbott, Sanofi, Gedeon Richte, Hemolens Diagnostics, Novartis, and Ferrer. Dr Galli reports consulting fees from BIOACADEMY and lecture fees from PCR. Dr Godin reports lecture fees from B. Braun, Medtronic, and Edwards, and data safety monitoring board or advisory board fees from Terumo and Microport. Dr Toth reports grants and personal fees from Terumo, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr Lhermusier reports consulting fees from Abbott and meeting or travel fees from Medtronic. Dr Honton reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Shockwave, Terumo, and Microport; lecture fees from Shockwave, Medtronic, and Boston; and data safety monitoring board or advisory board fees from Microport, Terumo, and Medtronic. Dr Dietrich reports educational event fees to his institution from Cordis. Drs. Stammen and Ferdinande have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr Silvain reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care SAS, CSL Behring SA, Sanofi-Aventis France, and Zoll, and stock options without payment at 4P-Pharma. Dr Capodanno reports honoraria fees from Biotronik and honoraria fees to his institution from Medtronic. Dr Cayla reports personal consulting fees from Edwards, Medtronic, and Microport CRM, and personal honoraria fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bayer, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Edwards, Microport, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Background: No randomized study powered to compare balloon expandable (BE) with self expanding (SE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) on individual end points after transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been conducted to date., Methods: From January 2013 to December 2015, the FRANCE-TAVI nationwide registry (Registry of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses Established by Catheter) included 12 141 patients undergoing BE-THV (Edwards, n=8038) or SE-THV (Medtronic, n=4103) for treatment of native aortic stenosis. Long term mortality status was available in all patients (median 20 months; interquartile range, 14 to 30). Patients treated with BE-THV (n=3910) were successfully matched 1:1 with 3910 patients treated with SE-THV by using propensity score (25 clinical, anatomical, and procedural variables) and by date of the procedure (within 3 months). The first coprimary outcome was ≥ moderate occurrence of paravalvular regurgitation or in-hospital mortality, or both. The second coprimary outcome was 2-year all-cause mortality., Results: In propensity-matched analyses, the incidence of the first coprimary outcome was higher with SE-THV (19.8%) compared with BE-THV (11.9%; relative risk, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.46-1.91]; P <0.0001). Each component of the outcome was also higher in patients receiving SE-THV: ≥ moderate paravalvular regurgitation (15.5% versus 8.3%; relative risk, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.63-2.22]; P <0.0001) and in hospital mortality (5.6% versus 4.2%; relative risk, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.07-1.66]; P =0.01). During follow up, all cause mortality occurred in 899 patients treated with SE-THV (2-year mortality, 29.8%) and in 801 patients treated with BE-THV (2-year mortality, 26.6%; hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.06-1.29]; P =0.003). Similar results were found using inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score analysis., Conclusion: The present study suggests that use of SE-THV was associated with a higher risk of paravalvular regurgitation and higher in-hospital and 2-year mortality compared with use of BE-THV. These data strongly support the need for a randomized trial sufficiently powered to compare the latest generation of SE-THV and BE-THV., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01777828.

Background: In the ARCTIC trial (Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting), treatment adjustment following platelet function testing failed to improve clinical outcomes. However, high-on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) is considered as a predictor of poor ischemic outcome. This prespecified substudy evaluated clinical outcomes according to the residual platelet reactivity status after antiplatelet therapy adjustment., Methods: We analyzed the 1213 patients assigned to the monitoring arm of the ARCTIC trial in whom platelet reactivity was evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y 12 test before percutaneous coronary intervention and during the maintenance phase (at 14 days). HPR was defined as platelet reaction unit≥235U. The primary ischemic end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization and the safety end point of major bleeding were assessed according to the platelet reactivity status., Results: Before percutaneous coronary intervention, 35.7% of patients displayed HPR (n=419). During the acute phase, between percutaneous coronary intervention and the 14-day platelet function testing, ischemic (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.74-1.18]; P =0.58) and safety outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.22-7.59]; P =0.78) were similar in HPR and non-HPR patients. During the maintenance phase, the proportion of HPR patients (n=186, 17.4%) decreased by 56%. At 1-year, there was no difference for the ischemic end point (5.9% versus 6.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.40-1.58]; P =0.51) and a nonsignificant higher rate of major bleedings (2.7% versus 1.0%, hazard ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 0.96-8.41]; P =0.06) in HPR versus non-HPR patients., Conclusions: The proportion of HPR was halved after platelet function testing and treatment adjustment but without significant ischemic benefit at 1 year. HPR seems more as a modifiable risk marker than a risk factor of ischemic outcome., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.

Background: Chronic liver disease is a known risk factor for perioperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Very little data exist about such patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Our objective was to evaluate early and late clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients with liver disease undergoing TAVR and to determine predictive factors of mortality among these patients., Methods and Results: This multicenter study collected data from 114 patients with chronic liver disease who underwent TAVR in 12 institutions. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared with a cohort of 1118 patients without liver disease after a propensity score-matching analysis (114 matched pairs). In-hospital mortality and vascular and bleeding complications were similar between matched groups. Acute kidney injury was more common in liver disease group (30.8% versus 13.5%; P =0.010). Although cardiovascular mortality was similar between groups (9.4% versus 6.5%; P =0.433) at 2-year follow-up, noncardiac mortality was higher in the liver group (26.4% versus 14.8%; P =0.034). Lower glomerular filtration rate (hazard ratio, 1.10, for each decrease of 5 mL/min in estimated glomerular filtration rate; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; P =0.005) and Child-Pugh class B or C (hazard ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-6.56; P =0.003) were the predictors of mortality in patients with chronic liver disease, with a mortality rate of 83.2% at 2-year follow-up in patients with both factors (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min and Child-Pugh B or C)., Conclusions: These findings suggested that TAVR is a feasible treatment for severe aortic stenosis in patients with early-stage liver disease or as bridge therapy before a curative treatment of the hepatic condition. Patients with Child-Pugh class B-C, especially in combination with renal impairment, had a very low survival rate, and TAVR should be carefully considered to avoid a futile treatment. These results may contribute to improve the clinical decision-making process and management in patients with liver disease., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)