Search

Background The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined. Methods This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months. Results A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 109/L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 109/L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 109/L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89–2.23; p = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06–2.66; p = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87–2.37; p = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71–1.57; p = 0.799; p for interaction [p int] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76–2.63; p = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85–2.06; p = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73–3.18; p = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40–1.14; p = 0.138, p int = 0.102). Conclusions In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count.

Aims The effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy on total (including both first and recurrent) ischaemic and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been evaluated. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the treatment effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy when both first and recurrent non-fatal ischaemic and bleeding events are taken into account. Methods and results This is a post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 randomized control trial, including all 4018 patients in the trial. The main clinical endpoints of interest included ischaemic events [myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke] and bleeding events [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding]. An additional endpoint of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. The effect of the prasugrel vs. ticagrelor based strategies on these endpoints was evaluated on both time-to-first event and total events analyses. Patients in the prasugrel group had a lower risk of MI in comparison to the ticagrelor group on both time-to-first event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.44–0.85] and total events [HR = 0.62 (0.45–0.86)] analysis. The risk of BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding was comparable between the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups on both time-to-first event [HR = 0.96 (0.75–1.25)] and total events [HR = 0.99 (0.76–1.31)] analysis. Conclusion A prasugrel based strategy was associated with a reduction in total MI events in comparison to a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing invasive assessment. Total BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding events were comparable between the two groups. Given the importance of this topic, future studies to confirm these findings would be welcome. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01944800

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of lesion preparation using rotational atherectomy (RA) with consecutive cutting balloon angioplasty (Rota-Cut).Whether the Rota-Cut combination improves stent performance in severely calcified coronary lesions is unknown.PREPARE-CALC-COMBO is a single-arm prospective trial in which 110 patients were treated with a Rota-Cut strategy before implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents and compared with patients treated with modified balloon (MB, scoring or cutting) or RA from a historical cohort (the randomized PREPARE-CALC trial). The study had two primary endpoints: in-stent acute lumen gain (ALG) by quantitative angiographic analysis and stent expansion (SE) on optical coherence tomography.In-stent ALG was significantly higher with Rota-Cut compared to RA or MB alone (1.92 ± 0.45 mm vs. 1.74 ± 0.45 mm with MB vs. 1.70 ± 0.42 mm with RA; p = 0.001 and p 0.001, respectively). SE was comparable between groups (75.1 ± 13.8% vs. 73.5 ± 13.3 with MB vs. 73.1 ± 12.2 with RA; p = 0.19 and p = 0.39, respectively). The Rota-Cut combination resulted in higher minimal stent area (MSA) (7.1 ± 2.2mmRota-Cut combination resulted in higher ALG and larger MSA compared with historical control of RA or MB alone, but was not associated with higher SE. Despite extensive lesion preparation, this strategy is safe, feasible, and associated with favorable clinical outcome at 9 months.

The comparative efficacy of percutaneous techniques for the preparation of calcified lesions before stenting remains poorly studied.This study sought to compare the performance of up-front rotational atherectomy (RA) or balloon-based techniques before drug-eluting stent implantation in severely calcified coronary lesions as assessed by angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT).Patient-level data from the PREPARE-CALC (Comparison of Strategies to Prepare Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions) and ISAR-CALC (Comparison of Strategies to Prepare Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions) randomized trials were pooled. The primary endpoint was stent expansion as assessed by OCT imaging. The secondary endpoints included stent eccentricity, stent asymmetry, angiographic acute lumen gain, strategy success and in-hospital occurrence of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.Among 274 patients originally randomized, 200 participants with available OCT data after lesion preparation with RA (n = 63), a modified balloon (MB, n = 103), or a super high-pressure balloon (n = 34) before stenting were analyzed. The use of RA versus MB or a super high-pressure balloon led to comparable stent expansion (73.2% ± 11.6% vs 70.8% ± 13.6% vs 71.8% ± 12.2%, P = 0.49) and stent asymmetry (P = 0.83). Compared with RA or MB, a super high-pressure balloon was associated with less stent eccentricity (P = 0.03) with a numerically higher acute lumen gain, albeit not significantly different (P = 0.08). Strategy success was more frequent with RA versus MB (P = 0.002) and numerically more frequent with RA versus a super high-pressure balloon (P = 0.06). Clinical outcomes did not differ between groups.In patients with severely calcified lesions undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation, lesion preparation with RA, MB, or a super high-pressure balloon was associated with comparable stent expansion. A super high-pressure balloon is associated with less stent eccentricity, whereas strategy success is more frequent with RA.

Background: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied. Methods: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization. Results: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88–1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73–1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10–1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81–1.60], P = 0.470). Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel.

Direct comparisons of latest-generation balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV) are scarce. To compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Ultra) versus Evolut R or Pro (Evolut) THVs.1612 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with either Ultra (n = 616) or Evolut (n = 996) were included. After propensity score matching (PSM), 467 and 205 matched pairs were identified in the entire cohort and with latest-generation THVs, respectively. Outcomes were investigated up to 30 days after TAVR.After PSM, baseline characteristics were comparable in the entire cohort (n = 934). Device success (92.7% vs. 87.6%; p = 0.011) and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (15.2% vs. 8.4%; p = 0.002) were higher for Evolut compared with Ultra. Elevated gradients (≥20 mm Hg) were less frequent (1.6% vs. 10.4%; p 0.001), whereas rates of ≥ moderate paravalvular leakage (PVL II+) were more frequent for Evolut compared with Ultra (3.7% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.019). With latest-generation THVs (n = 410), device success was comparable (93.2% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.216), whereas the need for PPI was higher for Evolut Pro compared with Ultra (15.6% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.075). Elevated gradients were less frequent (0% vs. 8%; p 0.001), whereas rates of PVL II+ were more frequent for Evolut compared with Ultra (5.4% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.028).Device success rates were high with both THV platforms with low rates of adverse events up to 30 days after TAVR. Compared with Ultra, Evolut was associated with higher pacemaker rates as well as PVL II+, but with less elevated gradients.

Background New-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV) were designed to overcome technical constraints of their preceding generations. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) versus Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. Methods Seven hundred nine patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with either Neo2 (n = 496) or PRO (n = 213) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups after PSM (Neo2: n = 155, Evolut Pro: n = 155). Technical success rates were high in both groups (Neo2: 94.8% vs PRO: 97.4%; p = 0.239). Need for permanent pacemaker implantation was less frequent with Neo2 compared with PRO (7.5% vs 20.6%; p = 0.002), whereas major vascular complications were more frequent with Neo2 (Neo2: 11.6% vs PRO: 4.5%; p = 0.022). Intended valve performance at discharge was high in both groups without relevant differences among groups (Neo2: 97.4% vs. 95.3%; p = 0.328). Conclusions Short-term outcomes after TAVI using latest-generation self-expanding THV were excellent, with overall low rates of adverse events. However, Neo2 was associated with lower pacemaker rates and reduced the prevalence of moderate–severe paravalvular leakage. Transprosthetic gradients after TAVI were higher with Neo2 compared with PRO. Graphical abstract

BACKGROUND Patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at higher risk of adverse outcomes, but data are scarce in the era of newer-generation coronary stents. AIM We sought to compare the clinical outcomes after complex PCI with a bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) versus a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). METHODS Patients (n���=���2350) from BIOFLOW-II, -IV, and -V randomized trials were categorized into non-complex PCI vs. complex PCI. Complex PCI had at least one of the following criteria: multi-vessel PCI,���������3 lesions treated,���������3 stents implanted, total stent length���������60��mm. Endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction [TV-MI], or target lesion revascularization [TLR]) and probable/definite stent thrombosis (ST) at three years. RESULTS Patients with complex PCI (n���=���348) were older and presented more often with acute coronary syndrome than non-complex PCI patients (n���=���2002). Complex PCI lesions were more often type B2/C and bifurcation lesions and required more pre- and post-dilatation. Complex PCI patients had higher rates of TLF (14.6% vs. 8.1%; aHR 1.89, 95% CI [1.31-2.73], p���=���0.001), TV-MI (10.2% vs. 4.4%, aHR 2.17, 95% CI [1.40-3.37], p���=���0.001), and ST (1.5% vs. 0.4%, p���=���0.025) as compared with non-complex PCI. TLF was not lower with BP-SES as compared to DP-EES in complex PCI (12.6% vs 18.2%, p���=���0.16). CONCLUSION Patients undergoing complex PCI with the newer-generation DES still sustain a higher risk of TLF, TV-MI and stent thrombosis as compared with non-complex PCI. This adverse outcome was not significantly modified by the stent platform (BP-SES vs. DP-EES). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrial.gov NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946, https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01356888 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01939249 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02389946 .

In the randomized PREPARE-CALC trial, lesion preparation of calcified lesions with upfront rotational atherectomy (RA) prior to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation resulted in higher acute success as compared to a provisional modified balloon (MB) strategy. We aimed to investigate the impact of calcified lesion complexity on the treatment effect with either MB or RA.Two hundred patients were randomized to lesion preparation with either MB or RA. The study population was stratified according to lesion complexity into at least one type-C lesion or into exclusively non-type-C lesions. Endpoints were strategy success, need for bail-out RA, acute lumen gain, and late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months.In total, 143 patients were graded as type-C (45% patients were allocated to MB), whereas 57 patients were graded as non-type-C (61% patients were allocated to MB). In patients with at least one type-C lesion, strategy success with RA was higher than with MB (97% vs 72%, p 0.001), but superiority of RA was not observed in patients with non-type-C lesions (100% vs 97%, p = 1.00; pIn patients with calcified non-type-C lesions, the treatment strategy with RA or MB before DES implantation results in comparable success rates, whereas in type-C lesions upfront RA appears to be the superior upfront strategy.

BACKGROUND Patients with atherothrombotic risk are at high hazard of ischemic events. Preventive medicine plays a major role in modifying their outcomes. Whether the choice of a BP-SES or DP-EES can contribute to the occurrence of events remains unclear. We sought to investigate the outcomes of patients with higher atherothrombotic risk (H-ATR) versus lower atherothrombotic risk (L-ATR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) or durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). METHODS Patients (n = 2361) from BIOFLOW-II, -IV, and -V randomized trials were categorized into H-ATR vs. L-ATR. L-ATR patients had ≤ 1 and H-ATR ≥ 2 of the following criteria: presentation in ACS, diabetes mellitus, previous myocardial infarction, previous PCI/CABG, or previous stroke. Endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction [TV-MI], target lesion revascularization [TLR]) and stent thrombosis (ST) at three years. RESULTS H-ATR patients (n = 1023) were more morbid than L-ATR patients (n = 1338). TLF rate was significantly higher in H-ATR patients as compared with L-ATR (11.6% vs. 7.0%; HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.27-2.20, p

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). Background The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined. Methods Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR ( Results Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding. Conclusions These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800 )

Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with ACS undergoing invasive management. Methods This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1349 smokers and 2652 nonsmokers randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary endpoint was the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding (both endpoints assessed at 12 months). Results There was no significant treatment arm-by-smoking status interaction regarding the efficacy outcome. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 patients (7.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 41 patients (6.2%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.75; P = 0.510) and in 133 patients (10.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 94 patients (7.2%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.44 [1.10–1.87]; P = 0.007; P for interaction = 0.378). The secondary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (4.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 33 patients (5.6%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (HR = 0.81 [0.49–1.35]; P = 0.412) and in 66 patients (6.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 46 patients (4.4%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.38 [0.94–2.01]; P = 0.097). Conclusions In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy, the smoking status did not significantly interact with the relative treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. Clinical trial registration NCT01944800

Background: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y 12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR. Methods: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization. Results: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79–4.57]; P P P for interaction=0.12) or secondary ( P for interaction=0.80) end points. Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of balloon-based techniques to prepare severely calcified coronary lesions before stenting remains poorly studied. AIMS: We sought to compare stent expansion following preparation of severely calcified coronary lesions with either a super high-pressure balloon or a scoring balloon. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label trial, patients with severely calcified coronary lesions were enrolled at five centres in Germany and Switzerland. After unsuccessful lesion preparation with a standard non-compliant balloon (0.99). Strategy success (91.9% vs 83.8%; p=0.48) and procedural success (100% vs 89.2%; p=0.12) were numerically more frequent with the super high-pressure balloon versus the scoring balloon. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severely calcified coronary artery lesions, preparation with a super high-pressure balloon versus a scoring balloon was associated with comparable stent expansion on intravascular imaging and a trend towards improved angiographic performance. VISUAL SUMMARY: A ComparIson of Strategies to PrepAre SeveRely CALCified Coronary Lesions: the ISAR-CALC randomised trial.

To assess the feasibility and safety of minimal-contrast percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using rotational atherectomy (RA) in patients with severe coronary calcification at high-risk of contrast-associated acute kidney injury (AKI). Twenty-six patients with advanced chronic kidney disease undergoing PCI with RA at three high-volume centres were included. Baseline intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was performed to assess lesion morphology, and to guide burr-, balloon-, and stent-selection. Final result was assessed by IVUS and angiographically. Feasibility and safety were determined by procedural and in-hospital complications, and efficacy was assessed by freedom from contrast-associated AKI after PCI. Procedural and in-hospital outcome was compared to a propensity-matched population of standard RA PCI. Mean glomerular filtration rate was 32 ± 17 ml/min/1.73 m2. In seven cases PCI was performed in the setting of acute coronary syndrome. The left main coronary artery was treated in 27.8% and a two-stent bifurcation technique in 44.4%. RA was more often performed electively compared to the standard RA cohort (92.3 vs. 50%; p = 0.0016). Angiographic success was achieved in 100% and documented with a median contrast amount of 12.5 ml [Range 4–43]. No in-hospital death or myocardial infarction was reported. Contrast-associated AKI occurred in one patient versus five patients in standard RA group (p = 0.19). Shorter fluoroscopy time and lower radiation dose were achieved as compared to standard RA. A minimal-contrast RA approach with IVUS-guidance for treatment of complex calcified coronary lesions is feasible and safe with high success rate.

An 82-year-old woman with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and a significant proximal right coronary artery (RCA) stenosis presented with decompensated heart failure and acute kidney injury. She was treated with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and trans-oesophageal echocardiography (TOE)-guided transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40119-021-00227-5.

Introduction Available data on management of atrial flutter in the early postoperative setting after cardiac surgery are scarce. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy (profile) of flutter ablation in the early postoperative phase (30 days after cardiac surgery) in a cohort of 47 consecutive patients. Methods Between 2007 and 2016, 47 patients who underwent ablation for postoperative typical atrial flutter were retrospectively identified and analyzed. Follow-up data were acquired from patients’ records in case of rehospitalization and via follow-up calls. Results The median age of patients was 69 years, 89% male and with a median LV-EF of 55%. CAD was present in 80.8% of patients. The predominant conduction of atrial flutter was 2:1 (76.6%); 85.1% of patients had either undergone CABG, SAVR, or a combination of these two. Acute procedural success could be achieved in 100% of patients with one vascular pseudoaneurysm that was managed conservatively. No other complications occurred. After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, follow-up information regarding heart rhythm was available in 87.2% of patients. One patient (2.1%) had undergone repeat ablation for typical flutter. Two patients (4.2%) had developed atrial fibrillation, while 87.2% of patients were in sinus rhythm. Conclusions In this small cohort, early postoperative ablation of typical flutter was associated with a favorable short- and long-term safety and efficacy profile and can be considered part of heart rhythm management options in this setting.

Background The HFA-PEFF score may help in predicting long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). Methods We retrieved data from 1,332 patients undergoing TAVI between 2010 and 2019 from the Prospective Segeberg TAVI Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192774). We calculated the HFA-PEFF score for 1,022 patients who had preserved EF (≥50%). To assess the prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting adverse events, we dichotomised the patients according to a cut-off score of five (score5 group: n=528 (51.6%), score ≥5 group: n=494 (48.3%)). Results The HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups were older (81.9±6.3 years vs. 80.3±6.9 years; p0.001) and had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (35.1% vs 20.8%; p0.001) and chronic kidney disease (30.1% vs 26.1%; p0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over 24 months showed increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality (12.5% vs. 7.7%, log-rank; p=0.028) and first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (7.7% vs. 4.0%, log-rank p=0.014) in the HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups compared with those of lower scores. No significant difference in all-cause mortality between both groups was observed (22.0% vs. 17.9%, log-rank p=0.127). In multivariate analysis, HFA-PEFF score ≥5 failed to predict CV mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.90-2.08, p=0.140) and time to first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (aHR 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.65, p=0.181). Conclusion The HFA-PEFF score showed limited value in predicting long-term mortality and adverse heart failure-related events in patients with preserved EF undergoing TAVI. Clinical variables specific to this population could complement the HFA-PEFF score for better risk prediction.

Aims Long-term mortality after ablation of typical atrial flutter has been found to be increased two-fold in comparison to atrial fibrillation ablations through a period of 5 years with unclear mechanism. Methods and results We analysed 189 consecutive patients who underwent ablation for typical atrial flutter (AFL), in which the incidence of AF was the first manifestation of cardiac disease. According to the clinical standards of our centre, the routine recommendation was to evaluate for coronary artery disease (CAD) by invasive angiogram or computed tomography scan. We compared the AFL patients to 141 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFIB) without known structural heart disease who underwent ablation in the same period and who had routine coronary angiograms performed. Out of 189 patients who presented with AFL, coronary status was available in 152 patients (80.4%). Both groups were balanced for mean age (64.9 years in AFL vs. 63.2 years in AFIB; P = 0.15), body mass index (BMI; 28.8 vs. 28.5 kg/m2; P = 0.15), CHA2DS2-VASc-Score (2.20 vs. 2.04; P = 0.35), smoking status (22.2% smokers vs. 28.4%; P = 0.23), and renal function (GFR >60 mL/min in 96.7% of all patients vs. 95.7%; P = 0.76). There were significantly lower values for left ventricular ejection fraction (52.5% vs. 59.7%; P 50% was found in 26.3% of all patients with available coronary status in AFL and in 7.0% in AFIB (P 75% in 16.4% in AFL whereas only in 1.4% in AFIB (P 50% in AFL as compared to AFIB [odds ratio (OR 5.26)]. A multivariate analysis was performed in the AFL group. Patients with clinically relevant stenoses (>75%) were older (70.6 years vs. 63.8 years; P = 0.001), had a higher number of risk factors (3.08 vs. 2.24; P ≤ 0.0016) and a higher CHA2DS2-VASc-Score (3.20 vs. 2.00; P Conclusion These data suggest that typical atrial flutter constitutes a manifestation of previously asymptomatic CAD. Due to the inclusion criteria, CAD has to be considered silent and chronic in most of the patients. Therefore, the presence of typical atrial flutter in formerly healthy patients should raise suspicion of otherwise silent CAD and initiate further investigations and risk stratification with particular emphasis on the individual CHA2DS2-VASc-Scores.

Aims: To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (NCS) after PCI with either a drug-coated stent (DCS) or a bare-metal stent (BMS), followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy and to explore the impact of the timing of NCS. Methods: This is a subgroup analysis of the LEADERS FREE trial. The primary safety end point was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis, and the primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Out of 2432 patients included in the LEADERS FREE trial, 278 (11.4%) underwent NCS within 1 year after PCI. Among NCS patients, the 1-year safety end point was numerically lower with DCS; however, this difference was not significant as compared to BMS (4.7% vs. 10.1%, HR: 0.459 [0.178–1.183], p = 0.099), clinically driven TLR was significantly lower after DCS (2.4% vs. 8.3%, HR: 0.281 [0.079—0.996], p = 0.036), and BARC 3–5 bleeding was similar with DCS vs. BMS (10.2% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.438). In patients treated with BMS, NCS within 3 months after PCI was associated with higher incidence of the safety end point than NCSs performed later: 14.9% vs. 4.4%, HR: 3.586 [1.012–12.709], p = 0.034. The timing of surgery had no impact on patients treated with DCS (4.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.947). Conclusions: Among patients undergoing NCS after PCI, DCS-treated patients had a lower probability of clinically driven TLR compared with BMS. However, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of the primary composite safety end point or bleeding complications. Early NCS after BMS-PCI was associated with impaired safety, while the timing of NCS had no such influence after DCS implantation. Graphic abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

Background: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization. Results: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95–1.82]; P =0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P =0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P =0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P =0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18–3.23]; P =0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80–1.87]; P =0.36). Conclusions: In patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Background Current guidelines recommend intensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI). Objectives This study sought to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and planned invasive management. Methods This post hoc analysis combines the pre-specified subgroups of UA and NSTEMI of the randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel. Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization and prasugrel after coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, or stroke during 1-year follow-up, and the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium class 3–5. Results The primary endpoint was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.90). The HR for all-cause death was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.21) and that for MI 1.43 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.19). The safety endpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.65). Landmark analysis revealed persistence of the efficacy advantage with prasugrel after the first month. Conclusions In patients with NSTE-ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death, MI, and stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. Due to the post hoc nature of the analysis, these findings need confirmation by further studies. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT01944800 )

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS)...

Objectives This analysis of pooled individual patient data (IPD) aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stent system (BP-SES; Orsiro) compared to a durable polymer everolimus eluting stent system (DP-EES; Xience) in the pooled population as well as in subgroups. Methods IPD with up to 12 months follow-up of the randomized controlled trials BIOFLOW-II (NCT01356888), -IV (NCT01939249), and -V (NCT02389946) as well as the all comers registry BIOFLOW-III (NCT01553526) were pooled. A total of 3,717 subjects (2,923 in BP-SES and 794 in DP-EES) with 5,328 lesions (4,225 lesions in BP-SES and 1,103 in DP-EES) were included in the IPD. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months follow-up. Subgroups analyzed included diabetes, age (≥65 years), gender, complex lesions (B2/C), small vessels (reference vessel diameter ≤2.75 mm), multivessel treatment, renal disease, and patients with acute coronary syndrome. Results Overall, TLF at 12 months was significantly lower with 5.2%in the BP-SES group versus 7.6% in the DP-EES group (p = .0098). Similarly, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) was 3.1 versus 5.7% (p = .0005). The rate of stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (0.004%). By regression analysis, an independent stent effect in favor of BP-SES was observed for TLF (p = .0043) and TV-MI (p = .0364) in small vessels. Conclusion Results of this IPD analysis suggest that the BP-SES with ultrathin struts is as safe as and more efficacious than DP-EES in the overall cohort and especially in small vessels.

Rotational atherectomy (RA) is an established treatment of calcified lesions, but has some inherent procedural hazards. However, predictors of in-hospital adverse outcomes after RA are poorly investigated.To explore the predictors of in-hospital adverse outcomes after RA and to introduce the target vessel SYNTAX score (tvSS) as a potential causal variable.Patients who underwent RA at our center (n = 323) were divided into two groups according to the occurrence of in-hospital adverse outcomes (a composite of residual stenosis ≥30%, persistent slow flow, dissection requiring additional stenting beyond the primary lesion, perforation, burr entrapment, and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events [MACE]).In-hospital adverse outcomes were more frequent in patients with severely-tortuous target vessels or lesions20 mm, while aorto-ostial and bifurcation lesions, as well as chronic total occlusion rates, were equally distributed among patients with and without adverse outcomes. TvSS was 18 [13-24] vs. 12 [8-17] in patients with vs. without in-hospital adverse outcomes (p 0.001). A tvSS cut-off value of 15 showed 73% sensitivity and 62% specificity for predicting in-hospital adverse outcomes. TvSS emerged as an independent predictor for in-hospital adverse outcomes along with bailout RA and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, after one year, the occurrence of in-hospital adverse outcomes was not associated with an increase in the MACE rate (log-rank p = 0.857).In-hospital adverse outcomes are higher in patients with more complex target vessel anatomies as indicated by a higher tvSS. Bailout RA and reduced LVEF emerged as additional predictors of in-hospital adverse outcomes.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess acute regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement, comparing different implanted transcatheter heart valves. Background: Regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement influences all-cause mortality. Thus far, no quantitative comparison of regurgitation among multiple commercially available transcatheter heart valves has been performed. Methods: Aortograms from a multicenter cohort of consecutive 3,976 transcatheter aortic valve replacements were evaluated in this pooled analysis. A total of 2,258 (58.3%) were considered analyzable by an independent academic core laboratory using video densitometry. Results of quantitative regurgitation are shown as percentages. The valves evaluated were the ACURATE (n = 115), Centera (n = 11), CoreValve (n = 532), Direct Flow Medical (n = 21), Evolut PRO (n = 95), Evolut R (n = 295), Inovare (n = 4), Lotus (n = 546), Lotus Edge (n = 3), SAPIEN XT (n = 239), and SAPIEN 3 (n = 397). For the main analysis, only valves with more than 50 procedures (7 types) were used. Results: The Lotus valve had the lowest mean regurgitation (3.5 ± 4.4%), followed by Evolut PRO (7.4 ± 6.5%), SAPIEN 3 (7.6 ± 7.1%), Evolut R (7.9 ± 7.4%), SAPIEN XT (8.8 ± 7.5%), ACURATE (9.6 ± 9.2%) and CoreValve (13.7 ± 10.7%) (analysis of variance p < 0.001). The only valves that statistically differed from all their counterparts were Lotus (as the lowest regurgitation) and CoreValve (the highest). The proportion of patients presenting with moderate or severe regurgitation followed the same ranking order: Lotus (2.2%), Evolut PRO (5.3%), SAPIEN 3 (8.3%), Evolut R (8.8%), SAPIEN XT (10.9%), ACURATE (11.3%), and CoreValve (30.1%) (chi-square p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this pooled analysis stemming from daily clinical practice, the Lotus valve was shown to have the best immediate sealing. This analysis reflects the objective evaluation of regurgitation by an academic core laboratory (nonsponsored) in a real-world cohort of patients using a quantitative technique.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcome data of the CHOICE (Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Medtronic CoreValve Versus Edwards SAPIEN XT) trial at 5 years. Background The CHOICE trial was designed to compare device performance of a balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) versus a self-expanding (SE) THV. Methods The CHOICE trial is an investigator-initiated trial that randomized 241 high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and an anatomy suitable for treatment with both BE and SE THVs to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device. The primary endpoint was device success. Patients were followed up to 5 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic evaluation of valve function and THV durability. Results After 5 years, there were no statistically significant differences between BE and SE valves in the cumulative incidence of death from any cause (53.4% vs. 47.6%; p = 0.38), death from cardiovascular causes (31.6% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.12), all strokes (17.5% vs. 16.5%; p = 0.73), and repeat hospitalization for heart failure (28.9% vs. 22.5%; p = 0.75). SE patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.02) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (12.2 ± 8.7 mm Hg vs. 6.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.001) at 5 years. No differences were observed in the rates of paravalvular regurgitation. Clinical valve thrombosis occurred in 7 BE patients (7.3%) and 1 SE patient (0.8%; p = 0.06), and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration in 6 BE patients (6.6%) and no SE patient (0%; p = 0.018). The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure was low and not significantly different between both groups (4.1% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.63). Conclusions Five-year follow-up of patients in the CHOICE trial revealed clinical outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early-generation BE and SE valves that were not statistically significantly different, with limited statistical power. Forward flow hemodynamics were significantly better with the SE valve. Moderate or severe structural valve deterioration was uncommon but occurred more frequently with the BE valve. (A Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The CHOICE Trial [CHOICE]; NCT01645202)

With CARTO HD COLORING, a new enhanced software-based map visualization is available to highlight among others potential areas of conduction block in complex arrhythmias (extended early meets late (EEML)). The ideal settings of thresholds are still unclear and are examined here by studying 12 left atrial arrhythmias. Ten patients with left atrial tachycardia underwent high-density activation mapping of the left atrium. Areas of local conduction block were visualized with different extended early meets late (EEML) thresholds (75/25%; 80/20%; 85/15%; 90/10%) and compared with ripple maps for verification. Settings of 80/20% or 85/15% were more accurate than the default settings of 75/25% in displaying the actual amount of conduction block as assessed by ripple maps. HD COLORING leads to further insights into complex tachycardias through a new Voxel Map Surface Concept and color-based visualization of local conduction block. It can be assumed that individual adaption of extended early meets late (EEML) thresholds should be applied for a more accurate visualization of local conduction block.

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in non-infarct-related arteries (IRAs) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Background Patients with ST-segment elevation MI often present with multivessel disease. The treatment of non-IRAs is debated. The applicability of FFR has not been widely proved. Methods Outcomes were analyzed in all patients in the Compare-Acute (Comparison Between FFR Guided Revascularization Versus Conventional Strategy in Acute STEMI Patients With MVD) trial in whom, after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention, non-IRAs were interrogated using FFR and treated medically. The treating cardiologist was blinded to the FFR value. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality, target vessel–related (non-IRA with FFR measurement at primary percutaneous coronary intervention) nonfatal MI, and target vessel revascularization: major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 24 months. Results A total of 751 patients (963 vessels) were included. Target non-IRAs with MACE had lower FFR compared with those without (0.78 vs. 0.84, respectively; p Conclusions In patients with ST-segment elevation MI with multivessel disease, FFR measured in the medically treated non-IRA immediately after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention shows a nonlinear and inverse risk continuum of MACE. Importantly, worsening prognosis is demonstrated around the cutoff of 0.80.

Device success of earlier generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (BE-THV) is lower in patients with severe landing zone calcium (LZC). We sought to explore the impact of LZC on the outcome of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the next generation Edwards Sapien 3 BE-THV. In the present study, severe LZC was defined as severe aortic valve cusp calcium (AVC) and/or left ventricular outflow tract calcium (LVOTC) on computed tomography. Patients who underwent TAVI for pure/predominant aortic regurgitation, bicuspid aortic valve disease, or failed bioprosthetic valve were excluded. Out of 350 patients who underwent TAVI with the Edwards Sapien 3 (age 80.7 ± 6.1, female: 45.1%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 4.9 ± 3.8, transfemoral: 97.4%), 106 (30.3%) had severe LZC; 78 severe AVC (22.3%) and 49 severe LVOTC (14.0%). Severe LZC was associated with lower device success (96.2% vs 100%, p = 0.008) driven by more prosthetic valve regurgitation (PVR, p = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PVR was associated with severe LVOTC (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.130 [1.092 to 4.158]) but not with severe AVC (1.529 [0.835 to 2.800]). Balloon predilatation (BPreD) was performed in 42.5% of patients with severe LZC (vs 19.3% in nonsevere LZC; p

Objectives The authors sought to estimate possible interference of the Medtronic Evolut R/Pro transcatheter heart valve (THV) frame with coronary access using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) data. Background Lower-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) endure a high cumulative risk of coronary events, but coronary access can be challenging. Methods In 101 patients who received an Evolut R/Pro THV, post-TAVR MSCT (performed at a median of 30 days after TAVR) was used to assess possible interference of the elements of the THV frame with coronary access. Results The closest cell of the THV frame vertically aligned with the coronary ostium was located opposite the ostium in 58% and 63%, below the ostium in 22% and 30%, or above the ostium in 20% and 7% of left and right coronary arteries, respectively. The free sinus of Valsalva space between the THV frame and the coronary ostium was 0.45 ± 0.17 cm and 0.44 ± 0.17 cm for the left and right coronary arteries, respectively, and showed a stepwise decrease with decreasing THV size (p Conclusions Using post-TAVR MSCT data, the main mechanism of potential interference of Evolut R/Pro frame with coronary access was an antianatomic commissural post overlapping the coronary ostium.

With the established use of crossover stenting technique in bifurcation coronary artery lesions, added clinical benefit of final kissing of the side branch remains debatable. We report a case of a stenosis and thrombus formation of an ostial side branch after crossover stenting. A 38-year-old man was admitted with acute coronary syndrome complicated by acute pulmonary oedema. He was treated with stenting of the left descending artery (LAD) into the left main coronary artery (LMCA) 12 months earlier. Coronary angiography showed a filling defect in the ostial left circumflex coronary artery (LCX). Optical coherence tomography revealed neointimal growth of the LAD stent resulting in narrowing the LCX orifice and a large thrombus behind stent struts. After treatment of the lesion and optimised implantations of drug-eluting stents, the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit and monitored closely. Given his advanced ischaemic cardiomyopathy, the patient is being evaluated for heart transplantation eligibility.Stent struts across a bifurcated major side branch after crossover stenting could risk late stenosis and thrombus formation of the side branch. The clinical usefulness of routine imaging-guided kissing techniques even with good angiographic results in these cases should be evaluated.