User login
Another FDA class I recall of Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to [email protected] or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to [email protected] or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to [email protected] or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Encouraging 3-year data for TAVR in low-risk patients: EVOLUT
Three-year results from the Evolut trial seem to provide more reassurance on the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients.
The 3-year results show that low-surgical-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement continue to show lower rates of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke with TAVR, compared with surgery.
The rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (the primary endpoint) at 3 years were 7.4% with TAVR and 10.4% with surgery.
Rates of new pacemaker implantation continued to be higher after TAVR and the frequency of new onset atrial fibrillation was more common after surgery.
“At 3 years, the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke after TAVR with the Evolut valve compared very favorably to surgery. The absolute difference between treatment arms remained consistent with a 30% relative reduction in the hazard of death or disabling stroke, with a P value that just missed statistical significance,” said Evolut investigator John Forrest, MD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
“The Kaplan-Meier curves show what we’ve come to expect – an early separation of the curves – but what’s unique here, and seen for the first time, is that the early separation is maintained at year 1 and year 2, and between years 2 and 3 the curve didn’t start to come together, but, if anything, separated a little,” Dr. Forrest commented.
“Both components of the primary endpoint – all cause mortality and disabling stroke – numerically favor TAVR. The separation of the curves for stroke are maintained, and if anything, we see a further slight separation of the curves as we go forward out to 3 years in terms of all-cause mortality,” he added.
Dr. Forrest presented the 3-year results from the Evolut trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. They were simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Dr. Forrest also reported that TAVR patients continued to have better valve hemodynamics at 3 years and very low rates of valve thrombosis; moreover, rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation and paravalvular leak (factors that can affect valve durability) were also low, although mild paravalvular regurgitation was higher with TAVR.
“In these low-risk patients, the durability of the valve is going to be critically important,” Dr. Forrest commented. “The excellent valve performance and durable outcomes out to 3 years in low-risk patients affirms the role of TAVR in this population,” he concluded.
On how these results may affect clinical practice, Dr. Forrest said: “I think in the U.S. these results reaffirm what we are doing. It gives us confidence to continue treating low-risk patients and being comfortable with that.”
He added: “Outside the U.S., the guidelines are a little different. Maybe we should reconsider some of these guidelines based on these data.”
David Moliterno, MD, Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, Lexington, Ky., who is not involved in the TAVR studies, said: “The results provide a little more reassurance ... that will go a little way further.”
“Uncertainty remains regarding long-term durability of the transcatheter valve in low-risk patients who are generally younger and likely more active than higher-risk cohorts,” he added. “The current 3-year results provide more confidence as the outcome curves for death and disabling stroke are trending in the right direction for TAVR versus surgery.”
Dr. Moliterno pointed out that while rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker placement are decreasing with newer generation Evolut devices and implantation techniques, he noted that according to the U.S. Social Security Administration, patients aged 74 years as enrolled in this low-risk cohort have an additional life expectancy of approximately 12 years. “So, we have more device durability (and coronary access feasibility) to prove.”
In his presentation, Dr. Forrest explained that TAVR is now approved in the United States for all patients with aortic stenosis regardless of surgical risk and has become the dominant form of aortic valve replacement. Current ACC/AHA guidelines recommend that heart teams utilize a shared decision-making process when discussing aortic valve replacement with patients aged 65-80 years. In younger, lower-risk patients, the faster recovery and short-term benefits after TAVR must be balanced with long-term durability; however, only limited intermediate and long-term data exist to guide such discussions in this patient population.
The Evolut Low Risk trial randomly assigned 1,414 patients in need of aortic valve replacement to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. Results at 1 and 2 years have shown a similar benefit in the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality/disabling stroke for the less invasive TAVR procedure.
The current 3-year results suggest the benefit appears to be maintained out for another year.
The main results show that the rate of death or disabling stroke was 7.4% in the TAVR group versus 10.4% in the surgery group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.70 (P = .051).
In the JACC paper, the authors report that the absolute difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: –1.8% at year 1; –2.0% at year 2; and –2.9% at year 3.
Other key results on valve durability show that mild paravalvular regurgitation was increased in the TAVR group (20.3%) versus 2.5% with surgery. However, rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were below 1% and not significantly different between groups.
Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < .001) at 3 years.
However, pacemaker placement was much higher in the TAVR group (23.2%), compared with 9.1% in the surgery group.
On the other hand, the surgery group had a greater incidence of atrial fibrillation (40%) versus 13% with TAVR.
Quality-of-life results looked good in both groups.
“As we’ve come to expect, patients recover more quickly after TAVR, so at 30 days their quality of life is better than those who have undergone surgery,” Dr. Forrest commented. “But by 1 year, both groups are doing exceptionally well and, remarkably, here by 3 years both groups have greater than a 20-point increase in their KCCQ score, showing a very large improvement in quality of life.”
Discussant of these latest results at the ACC late-breaking trials session, James Hermiller, MD, St. Vincent Ascension Heart Center, Indianapolis, said: “This 3-year data continues to demonstrate that the gift of TAVR keeps giving.”
Noting that the divergence in the effect curves was primarily driven by mortality rather than stroke, he asked whether this was cardiac or noncardiac mortality that was reduced.
Dr. Forrest responded: “It was a fairly equal contribution – a little bit more cardiac death. We have to remember that although the average age in this study was 74, there were some patients over 80 who were still low-surgical-risk included so we are going to see noncardiac death as well.”
Dr. Hermiller drew attention to the high pacemaker rate in the TAVR group and asked how these patients fared in comparison to those who didn’t need a pacemaker.
Dr. Forrest replied: “I think it’s fair to say that putting in a pacemaker is not a benign procedure. Patients who got a pacemaker did slightly worse than those who didn’t get a pacemaker, so we need to try to drive that rate down.”
He added that the number of patients needing a pacemaker after TAVR has come down with new implantation techniques and new generation valves.
“We realize that using a cusp overlap technique can significantly reduce the need for a pacemaker, and we see from registry data that with the use of this new technique the need for a pacemaker has dropped down to 8%-9%, significantly less than seen in this study,” Dr. Forrest commented.
Dr. Hermiller also asked about how TAVR affects future access for catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention.
Dr. Forrest noted that 24 patients in the TAVR group required PCI in first 3 years, and all the PCI procedures had been successful. He noted that operators reported the procedure to be easy or moderately easy in about 75%-80% of cases and difficult in about 20% of patients. “So, it is slightly more challenging to engage the coronaries and have to go through the frame, but it is very feasible.”
Dr. Forrest concluded that: “These results provide patients and heart teams important data to aid in the shared decision-making process.”
But he acknowledged that longer term data are still needed. “And the potential impact that hemodynamics, valve design, new pacemakers, and other secondary endpoints have on long-term outcomes will be important to follow in this group of low-risk patients.”
The Evolut Low Risk trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Three-year results from the Evolut trial seem to provide more reassurance on the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients.
The 3-year results show that low-surgical-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement continue to show lower rates of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke with TAVR, compared with surgery.
The rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (the primary endpoint) at 3 years were 7.4% with TAVR and 10.4% with surgery.
Rates of new pacemaker implantation continued to be higher after TAVR and the frequency of new onset atrial fibrillation was more common after surgery.
“At 3 years, the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke after TAVR with the Evolut valve compared very favorably to surgery. The absolute difference between treatment arms remained consistent with a 30% relative reduction in the hazard of death or disabling stroke, with a P value that just missed statistical significance,” said Evolut investigator John Forrest, MD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
“The Kaplan-Meier curves show what we’ve come to expect – an early separation of the curves – but what’s unique here, and seen for the first time, is that the early separation is maintained at year 1 and year 2, and between years 2 and 3 the curve didn’t start to come together, but, if anything, separated a little,” Dr. Forrest commented.
“Both components of the primary endpoint – all cause mortality and disabling stroke – numerically favor TAVR. The separation of the curves for stroke are maintained, and if anything, we see a further slight separation of the curves as we go forward out to 3 years in terms of all-cause mortality,” he added.
Dr. Forrest presented the 3-year results from the Evolut trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. They were simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Dr. Forrest also reported that TAVR patients continued to have better valve hemodynamics at 3 years and very low rates of valve thrombosis; moreover, rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation and paravalvular leak (factors that can affect valve durability) were also low, although mild paravalvular regurgitation was higher with TAVR.
“In these low-risk patients, the durability of the valve is going to be critically important,” Dr. Forrest commented. “The excellent valve performance and durable outcomes out to 3 years in low-risk patients affirms the role of TAVR in this population,” he concluded.
On how these results may affect clinical practice, Dr. Forrest said: “I think in the U.S. these results reaffirm what we are doing. It gives us confidence to continue treating low-risk patients and being comfortable with that.”
He added: “Outside the U.S., the guidelines are a little different. Maybe we should reconsider some of these guidelines based on these data.”
David Moliterno, MD, Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, Lexington, Ky., who is not involved in the TAVR studies, said: “The results provide a little more reassurance ... that will go a little way further.”
“Uncertainty remains regarding long-term durability of the transcatheter valve in low-risk patients who are generally younger and likely more active than higher-risk cohorts,” he added. “The current 3-year results provide more confidence as the outcome curves for death and disabling stroke are trending in the right direction for TAVR versus surgery.”
Dr. Moliterno pointed out that while rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker placement are decreasing with newer generation Evolut devices and implantation techniques, he noted that according to the U.S. Social Security Administration, patients aged 74 years as enrolled in this low-risk cohort have an additional life expectancy of approximately 12 years. “So, we have more device durability (and coronary access feasibility) to prove.”
In his presentation, Dr. Forrest explained that TAVR is now approved in the United States for all patients with aortic stenosis regardless of surgical risk and has become the dominant form of aortic valve replacement. Current ACC/AHA guidelines recommend that heart teams utilize a shared decision-making process when discussing aortic valve replacement with patients aged 65-80 years. In younger, lower-risk patients, the faster recovery and short-term benefits after TAVR must be balanced with long-term durability; however, only limited intermediate and long-term data exist to guide such discussions in this patient population.
The Evolut Low Risk trial randomly assigned 1,414 patients in need of aortic valve replacement to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. Results at 1 and 2 years have shown a similar benefit in the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality/disabling stroke for the less invasive TAVR procedure.
The current 3-year results suggest the benefit appears to be maintained out for another year.
The main results show that the rate of death or disabling stroke was 7.4% in the TAVR group versus 10.4% in the surgery group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.70 (P = .051).
In the JACC paper, the authors report that the absolute difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: –1.8% at year 1; –2.0% at year 2; and –2.9% at year 3.
Other key results on valve durability show that mild paravalvular regurgitation was increased in the TAVR group (20.3%) versus 2.5% with surgery. However, rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were below 1% and not significantly different between groups.
Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < .001) at 3 years.
However, pacemaker placement was much higher in the TAVR group (23.2%), compared with 9.1% in the surgery group.
On the other hand, the surgery group had a greater incidence of atrial fibrillation (40%) versus 13% with TAVR.
Quality-of-life results looked good in both groups.
“As we’ve come to expect, patients recover more quickly after TAVR, so at 30 days their quality of life is better than those who have undergone surgery,” Dr. Forrest commented. “But by 1 year, both groups are doing exceptionally well and, remarkably, here by 3 years both groups have greater than a 20-point increase in their KCCQ score, showing a very large improvement in quality of life.”
Discussant of these latest results at the ACC late-breaking trials session, James Hermiller, MD, St. Vincent Ascension Heart Center, Indianapolis, said: “This 3-year data continues to demonstrate that the gift of TAVR keeps giving.”
Noting that the divergence in the effect curves was primarily driven by mortality rather than stroke, he asked whether this was cardiac or noncardiac mortality that was reduced.
Dr. Forrest responded: “It was a fairly equal contribution – a little bit more cardiac death. We have to remember that although the average age in this study was 74, there were some patients over 80 who were still low-surgical-risk included so we are going to see noncardiac death as well.”
Dr. Hermiller drew attention to the high pacemaker rate in the TAVR group and asked how these patients fared in comparison to those who didn’t need a pacemaker.
Dr. Forrest replied: “I think it’s fair to say that putting in a pacemaker is not a benign procedure. Patients who got a pacemaker did slightly worse than those who didn’t get a pacemaker, so we need to try to drive that rate down.”
He added that the number of patients needing a pacemaker after TAVR has come down with new implantation techniques and new generation valves.
“We realize that using a cusp overlap technique can significantly reduce the need for a pacemaker, and we see from registry data that with the use of this new technique the need for a pacemaker has dropped down to 8%-9%, significantly less than seen in this study,” Dr. Forrest commented.
Dr. Hermiller also asked about how TAVR affects future access for catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention.
Dr. Forrest noted that 24 patients in the TAVR group required PCI in first 3 years, and all the PCI procedures had been successful. He noted that operators reported the procedure to be easy or moderately easy in about 75%-80% of cases and difficult in about 20% of patients. “So, it is slightly more challenging to engage the coronaries and have to go through the frame, but it is very feasible.”
Dr. Forrest concluded that: “These results provide patients and heart teams important data to aid in the shared decision-making process.”
But he acknowledged that longer term data are still needed. “And the potential impact that hemodynamics, valve design, new pacemakers, and other secondary endpoints have on long-term outcomes will be important to follow in this group of low-risk patients.”
The Evolut Low Risk trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Three-year results from the Evolut trial seem to provide more reassurance on the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients.
The 3-year results show that low-surgical-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement continue to show lower rates of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke with TAVR, compared with surgery.
The rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (the primary endpoint) at 3 years were 7.4% with TAVR and 10.4% with surgery.
Rates of new pacemaker implantation continued to be higher after TAVR and the frequency of new onset atrial fibrillation was more common after surgery.
“At 3 years, the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke after TAVR with the Evolut valve compared very favorably to surgery. The absolute difference between treatment arms remained consistent with a 30% relative reduction in the hazard of death or disabling stroke, with a P value that just missed statistical significance,” said Evolut investigator John Forrest, MD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
“The Kaplan-Meier curves show what we’ve come to expect – an early separation of the curves – but what’s unique here, and seen for the first time, is that the early separation is maintained at year 1 and year 2, and between years 2 and 3 the curve didn’t start to come together, but, if anything, separated a little,” Dr. Forrest commented.
“Both components of the primary endpoint – all cause mortality and disabling stroke – numerically favor TAVR. The separation of the curves for stroke are maintained, and if anything, we see a further slight separation of the curves as we go forward out to 3 years in terms of all-cause mortality,” he added.
Dr. Forrest presented the 3-year results from the Evolut trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. They were simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Dr. Forrest also reported that TAVR patients continued to have better valve hemodynamics at 3 years and very low rates of valve thrombosis; moreover, rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation and paravalvular leak (factors that can affect valve durability) were also low, although mild paravalvular regurgitation was higher with TAVR.
“In these low-risk patients, the durability of the valve is going to be critically important,” Dr. Forrest commented. “The excellent valve performance and durable outcomes out to 3 years in low-risk patients affirms the role of TAVR in this population,” he concluded.
On how these results may affect clinical practice, Dr. Forrest said: “I think in the U.S. these results reaffirm what we are doing. It gives us confidence to continue treating low-risk patients and being comfortable with that.”
He added: “Outside the U.S., the guidelines are a little different. Maybe we should reconsider some of these guidelines based on these data.”
David Moliterno, MD, Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, Lexington, Ky., who is not involved in the TAVR studies, said: “The results provide a little more reassurance ... that will go a little way further.”
“Uncertainty remains regarding long-term durability of the transcatheter valve in low-risk patients who are generally younger and likely more active than higher-risk cohorts,” he added. “The current 3-year results provide more confidence as the outcome curves for death and disabling stroke are trending in the right direction for TAVR versus surgery.”
Dr. Moliterno pointed out that while rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker placement are decreasing with newer generation Evolut devices and implantation techniques, he noted that according to the U.S. Social Security Administration, patients aged 74 years as enrolled in this low-risk cohort have an additional life expectancy of approximately 12 years. “So, we have more device durability (and coronary access feasibility) to prove.”
In his presentation, Dr. Forrest explained that TAVR is now approved in the United States for all patients with aortic stenosis regardless of surgical risk and has become the dominant form of aortic valve replacement. Current ACC/AHA guidelines recommend that heart teams utilize a shared decision-making process when discussing aortic valve replacement with patients aged 65-80 years. In younger, lower-risk patients, the faster recovery and short-term benefits after TAVR must be balanced with long-term durability; however, only limited intermediate and long-term data exist to guide such discussions in this patient population.
The Evolut Low Risk trial randomly assigned 1,414 patients in need of aortic valve replacement to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. Results at 1 and 2 years have shown a similar benefit in the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality/disabling stroke for the less invasive TAVR procedure.
The current 3-year results suggest the benefit appears to be maintained out for another year.
The main results show that the rate of death or disabling stroke was 7.4% in the TAVR group versus 10.4% in the surgery group, giving a hazard ratio of 0.70 (P = .051).
In the JACC paper, the authors report that the absolute difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: –1.8% at year 1; –2.0% at year 2; and –2.9% at year 3.
Other key results on valve durability show that mild paravalvular regurgitation was increased in the TAVR group (20.3%) versus 2.5% with surgery. However, rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were below 1% and not significantly different between groups.
Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery; P < .001) at 3 years.
However, pacemaker placement was much higher in the TAVR group (23.2%), compared with 9.1% in the surgery group.
On the other hand, the surgery group had a greater incidence of atrial fibrillation (40%) versus 13% with TAVR.
Quality-of-life results looked good in both groups.
“As we’ve come to expect, patients recover more quickly after TAVR, so at 30 days their quality of life is better than those who have undergone surgery,” Dr. Forrest commented. “But by 1 year, both groups are doing exceptionally well and, remarkably, here by 3 years both groups have greater than a 20-point increase in their KCCQ score, showing a very large improvement in quality of life.”
Discussant of these latest results at the ACC late-breaking trials session, James Hermiller, MD, St. Vincent Ascension Heart Center, Indianapolis, said: “This 3-year data continues to demonstrate that the gift of TAVR keeps giving.”
Noting that the divergence in the effect curves was primarily driven by mortality rather than stroke, he asked whether this was cardiac or noncardiac mortality that was reduced.
Dr. Forrest responded: “It was a fairly equal contribution – a little bit more cardiac death. We have to remember that although the average age in this study was 74, there were some patients over 80 who were still low-surgical-risk included so we are going to see noncardiac death as well.”
Dr. Hermiller drew attention to the high pacemaker rate in the TAVR group and asked how these patients fared in comparison to those who didn’t need a pacemaker.
Dr. Forrest replied: “I think it’s fair to say that putting in a pacemaker is not a benign procedure. Patients who got a pacemaker did slightly worse than those who didn’t get a pacemaker, so we need to try to drive that rate down.”
He added that the number of patients needing a pacemaker after TAVR has come down with new implantation techniques and new generation valves.
“We realize that using a cusp overlap technique can significantly reduce the need for a pacemaker, and we see from registry data that with the use of this new technique the need for a pacemaker has dropped down to 8%-9%, significantly less than seen in this study,” Dr. Forrest commented.
Dr. Hermiller also asked about how TAVR affects future access for catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention.
Dr. Forrest noted that 24 patients in the TAVR group required PCI in first 3 years, and all the PCI procedures had been successful. He noted that operators reported the procedure to be easy or moderately easy in about 75%-80% of cases and difficult in about 20% of patients. “So, it is slightly more challenging to engage the coronaries and have to go through the frame, but it is very feasible.”
Dr. Forrest concluded that: “These results provide patients and heart teams important data to aid in the shared decision-making process.”
But he acknowledged that longer term data are still needed. “And the potential impact that hemodynamics, valve design, new pacemakers, and other secondary endpoints have on long-term outcomes will be important to follow in this group of low-risk patients.”
The Evolut Low Risk trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023
‘Keto-like’ diet linked to doubling of heart disease risk
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023
In early days, bioabsorbable stent rivals nonabsorbable devices
At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.
Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.
The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.
The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.
“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.
The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.
Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.
For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).
More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.
In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.
The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).
Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.
Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.
DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.
The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.
“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”
Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.
Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.
Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.
At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.
Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.
The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.
The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.
“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.
The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.
Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.
For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).
More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.
In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.
The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).
Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.
Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.
DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.
The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.
“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”
Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.
Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.
Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.
At 6 months follow-up, a new-generation resorbable stent with a magnesium scaffold appears to perform at a level comparable to nonabsorbable drug-eluting stents (DES), according to first-in-man results presented as a late-breaker at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
“IVUS [intravascular ultrasound] assessment demonstrated preservation of the scaffold area from post procedure up to 6 months with a low mean neointimal area,” reported Michael Haude, MD, PhD, director of the Heart & Vascular Center, Neuss, Germany.
Neointimal formation and late lumen loss (LLL) have been the Achilles’ heel of previous efforts to develop a viable fully absorbable stent, making these 6-month data highly encouraging.
The tested device is the most recent iteration of the DREAMS (drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold) technology. Relative to DREAMS 2G, the DREAMS 3G device has several design changes, including a higher radial force and reduced strut thickness.
The goal was to build on the promise of DREAMS 2G while avoiding its limitations.
“The problem with DREAMS 2G was that it showed low–target lesion failure and scaffold thrombosis rates in multiple trials, but in-scaffold LLL was not comparable to LLL values observed with historical PLLA [poly-L-lactic acid]–based scaffolds or contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.
The 6-month data with DREAMS 3G were drawn from the BIOMAG-I study. Patients with stable or unstable angina were enrolled if they had no angiographic evidence of thrombus at the target lesion. Patients were also required to have no more than two single de novo lesions requiring revascularization.
Of 116 patients enrolled, 115 were available for evaluation at 6 months. The study was not controlled, but outcomes were compared at 6 months to those observed with the DREAMS 2G device in the BIOSOLVE-II trial, published several years ago in the Lancet.
For the primary outcome of in-scaffold LLL at 6 months, the mean LLL from baseline at 6 months was more than 50% lower with the DREAMS 3G device in BIOMAG-I than DREAMS 2G in BIOSOLVE-II (0.21 vs. 0.44 mm). In a post hoc superiority analysis employing a weighted mean, a superiority analysis supported a highly significant difference in favor of the newer device (P < .0001).
More importantly, the low LLL in BIOMAG-I was not just favorable relative to previously evaluated bioabsorbable stents, but it appears to compete with nonabsorbable options at least after this length of follow-up.
In terms of LLL at 6 months, “these data suggested that DREAMS 3G “is now on the level of contemporary DES,” Dr. Haude said.
The relative difference in favor of DREAMS 3G was even greater at 6 months for the secondary endpoint of in-segment LLL (0.05 vs. 0.27 mm) with similar significance for the superiority margin in a post hoc analysis (P < .0001).
Serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) was conducted post procedure, and indicated that the struts “were well embedded in the vessel wall,” according to Dr. Haude. Only 4.4% of struts on average were malapposed. The total incomplete strut apposition area was on average 0.08 mm. At 6 months, most struts were no long discernible on OCT, documenting device resorption.
Clinical results at 6 months were supportive. There were no cases of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis, and there were no target vessel myocardial infarctions or cardiac deaths. There was one clinically driven target lesion revascularization.
DREAMS 3G has other features designed to make it easier to deploy, Dr. Haude said. For example, radiopaque markers are now situated on both ends of the stent, making it easier to see on imaging. There are also plans to make these stents available in 15 sizes to accommodate a broad range of anatomy.
The data were impressive for many of the panelists invited to discuss the results.
“For the first time, we are seeing a bioabsorbable device showing excellent healing and very little late lumen loss,” said Michael H. Joner, MD, professor of early clinical trials at the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich. “The next step is some sort of direct comparison with a drug-eluting stent.”
Describing himself as “a little more skeptical,” Aoke V Finn, MD, medical director and chief scientific officer, CVPath Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore, said he wants to know more about the speed of device degradation and to see more long-term results in terms of clinical events. Although he considers the data promising so far, he considers it too early to embark on a randomized trial.
Longer-term data are coming, according to Dr. Haude. In addition to the 12-month follow-up that will include OCT and IVUS evaluations, there are annual clinical follow-up analyses planned to 5 years.
Dr. Haude reports financial relationships with Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips. Dr. Joner reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Finn reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.
FROM CRT 2023
20 years of clinical research in cardiology
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
Long-term BP reductions with renal denervation not race specific
WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.
Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
Black patients are well represented among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension and considered an important subgroup to target, according to Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. This is the reason that they were not only a prespecified subgroup in SYMPLICITY HTN-3, but race was one of two stratification factors at enrollment. At the time of the study design, there was an expectation that Black patients would benefit more than non-Blacks.
This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial
In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.
In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.
Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.
In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.
In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.
For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).
The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.
Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients
Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.
While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.
“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.
This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.
“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.
Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.
WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.
Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
Black patients are well represented among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension and considered an important subgroup to target, according to Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. This is the reason that they were not only a prespecified subgroup in SYMPLICITY HTN-3, but race was one of two stratification factors at enrollment. At the time of the study design, there was an expectation that Black patients would benefit more than non-Blacks.
This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial
In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.
In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.
Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.
In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.
In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.
For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).
The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.
Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients
Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.
While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.
“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.
This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.
“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.
Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.
WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.
Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
Black patients are well represented among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension and considered an important subgroup to target, according to Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. This is the reason that they were not only a prespecified subgroup in SYMPLICITY HTN-3, but race was one of two stratification factors at enrollment. At the time of the study design, there was an expectation that Black patients would benefit more than non-Blacks.
This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial
In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.
In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.
Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.
In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.
In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.
For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).
The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.
Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients
Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.
While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.
“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.
This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.
“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.
Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.
AT CRT 2023
Med center and top cardio surgeon must pay $8.5 million for fraud, concurrent surgeries
the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced.
The lawsuit alleges that James L. Luketich, MD, the longtime chair of the school’s cardiothoracic surgery department, regularly performed up to three complex surgical procedures simultaneously, moving among multiple operating rooms and attending to matters other than patient care. The investigation began after Jonathan D’Cunha, MD, a former UPMC surgeon, raised concerns about his colleague’s surgical scheduling and billing practices.
Dr. Luketich’s overbooking of procedures led to patients enduring hours of medically unnecessary anesthesia time and risking surgical complications, according to court documents.
In addition, the complaint states that these practices violated the False Claims Act, which prohibits “teaching physicians” like Dr. Luketich from billing Medicare and other government health plans for “concurrent surgeries” – regulations federal authorities say UPMC leadership were aware of and the University of Pittsburgh Physicians (UPP), also named in the suit, permitted Dr. Luketich to skirt.
The whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act allows private parties to file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery to help deter health care fraud, says the DOJ.
The defendants previously asked the court to dismiss the case, but a judge denied the request in June 2022.
Paul Wood, vice president and chief communications officer for UPMC, told this news organization that the lawsuit pertained to Dr. Luketich’s “most complicated, team-based surgical procedures.”
“At issue was compliance with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Teaching Physician Regulation and related billing guidance as well as with UPMC’s internal surgical policies,” he said.
“While UPMC continues to believe Dr. Luketich’s surgical practice complies with CMS requirements, it has agreed to [the settlement] to avoid the distraction and expense of further litigation,” said Mr. Wood, adding that all parties agree that UPMC can seek clarity from CMS regarding future billing of these surgeries.
Efrem Grail, JD, Dr. Luketich’s attorney, said in an interview that he and Dr. Luketich are pleased that the settlement puts an end to the case and that he hopes the United States will issue “authoritative guidance” on billing regulations for teaching physicians, something medical schools and hospitals have sought for years.
Dr. Luketich, UPMC, and UPP face more legal challenges from a separate medical malpractice lawsuit. In March 2018, Bernadette Fedorka underwent a lung transplant at UPMC. Although Dr. Luketich did not perform the surgery, Ms. Fedorka alleges that his poor leadership caused understaffing of the lung transplant program and contributed to surgical complications, including a 4-inch piece of wire left in her neck.
Ms. Fedorka claims that suboxone impaired Dr. Luketich’s decision-making. He began taking the drug in 2008 to manage the pain from a slipped disc injury after a history of prescription drug abuse. Both UPMC and Dr. Luketich have denied the validity of Ms. Fedorka’s claims.
The malpractice suit centers on a recording of a conversation between Dr. Luketich and David Wilson, MD, who prescribed the suboxone and treated the surgeon’s opioid use disorder for several years. Dr. Luketich has accused former colleagues, Dr. D’Cunha and Lara Schaheen, MD, of illegally recording the private conversation that discussed Dr. Luketich’s suboxone prescription – something both physicians deny.
For the billing fraud case, Dr. Luketich has agreed to complete a corrective action plan and submit to a third-party audit of his Medicare billings for 1 year.
“This is an important settlement and a just conclusion to the United States’ investigation into Dr. Luketich’s surgical and billing practices and UPMC and UPP’s acceptance of those practices,” Acting U.S. Attorney Troy Rivetti said in a statement that, “no medical provider – however renowned – is excepted from scrutiny or above the law.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced.
The lawsuit alleges that James L. Luketich, MD, the longtime chair of the school’s cardiothoracic surgery department, regularly performed up to three complex surgical procedures simultaneously, moving among multiple operating rooms and attending to matters other than patient care. The investigation began after Jonathan D’Cunha, MD, a former UPMC surgeon, raised concerns about his colleague’s surgical scheduling and billing practices.
Dr. Luketich’s overbooking of procedures led to patients enduring hours of medically unnecessary anesthesia time and risking surgical complications, according to court documents.
In addition, the complaint states that these practices violated the False Claims Act, which prohibits “teaching physicians” like Dr. Luketich from billing Medicare and other government health plans for “concurrent surgeries” – regulations federal authorities say UPMC leadership were aware of and the University of Pittsburgh Physicians (UPP), also named in the suit, permitted Dr. Luketich to skirt.
The whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act allows private parties to file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery to help deter health care fraud, says the DOJ.
The defendants previously asked the court to dismiss the case, but a judge denied the request in June 2022.
Paul Wood, vice president and chief communications officer for UPMC, told this news organization that the lawsuit pertained to Dr. Luketich’s “most complicated, team-based surgical procedures.”
“At issue was compliance with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Teaching Physician Regulation and related billing guidance as well as with UPMC’s internal surgical policies,” he said.
“While UPMC continues to believe Dr. Luketich’s surgical practice complies with CMS requirements, it has agreed to [the settlement] to avoid the distraction and expense of further litigation,” said Mr. Wood, adding that all parties agree that UPMC can seek clarity from CMS regarding future billing of these surgeries.
Efrem Grail, JD, Dr. Luketich’s attorney, said in an interview that he and Dr. Luketich are pleased that the settlement puts an end to the case and that he hopes the United States will issue “authoritative guidance” on billing regulations for teaching physicians, something medical schools and hospitals have sought for years.
Dr. Luketich, UPMC, and UPP face more legal challenges from a separate medical malpractice lawsuit. In March 2018, Bernadette Fedorka underwent a lung transplant at UPMC. Although Dr. Luketich did not perform the surgery, Ms. Fedorka alleges that his poor leadership caused understaffing of the lung transplant program and contributed to surgical complications, including a 4-inch piece of wire left in her neck.
Ms. Fedorka claims that suboxone impaired Dr. Luketich’s decision-making. He began taking the drug in 2008 to manage the pain from a slipped disc injury after a history of prescription drug abuse. Both UPMC and Dr. Luketich have denied the validity of Ms. Fedorka’s claims.
The malpractice suit centers on a recording of a conversation between Dr. Luketich and David Wilson, MD, who prescribed the suboxone and treated the surgeon’s opioid use disorder for several years. Dr. Luketich has accused former colleagues, Dr. D’Cunha and Lara Schaheen, MD, of illegally recording the private conversation that discussed Dr. Luketich’s suboxone prescription – something both physicians deny.
For the billing fraud case, Dr. Luketich has agreed to complete a corrective action plan and submit to a third-party audit of his Medicare billings for 1 year.
“This is an important settlement and a just conclusion to the United States’ investigation into Dr. Luketich’s surgical and billing practices and UPMC and UPP’s acceptance of those practices,” Acting U.S. Attorney Troy Rivetti said in a statement that, “no medical provider – however renowned – is excepted from scrutiny or above the law.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced.
The lawsuit alleges that James L. Luketich, MD, the longtime chair of the school’s cardiothoracic surgery department, regularly performed up to three complex surgical procedures simultaneously, moving among multiple operating rooms and attending to matters other than patient care. The investigation began after Jonathan D’Cunha, MD, a former UPMC surgeon, raised concerns about his colleague’s surgical scheduling and billing practices.
Dr. Luketich’s overbooking of procedures led to patients enduring hours of medically unnecessary anesthesia time and risking surgical complications, according to court documents.
In addition, the complaint states that these practices violated the False Claims Act, which prohibits “teaching physicians” like Dr. Luketich from billing Medicare and other government health plans for “concurrent surgeries” – regulations federal authorities say UPMC leadership were aware of and the University of Pittsburgh Physicians (UPP), also named in the suit, permitted Dr. Luketich to skirt.
The whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act allows private parties to file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery to help deter health care fraud, says the DOJ.
The defendants previously asked the court to dismiss the case, but a judge denied the request in June 2022.
Paul Wood, vice president and chief communications officer for UPMC, told this news organization that the lawsuit pertained to Dr. Luketich’s “most complicated, team-based surgical procedures.”
“At issue was compliance with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Teaching Physician Regulation and related billing guidance as well as with UPMC’s internal surgical policies,” he said.
“While UPMC continues to believe Dr. Luketich’s surgical practice complies with CMS requirements, it has agreed to [the settlement] to avoid the distraction and expense of further litigation,” said Mr. Wood, adding that all parties agree that UPMC can seek clarity from CMS regarding future billing of these surgeries.
Efrem Grail, JD, Dr. Luketich’s attorney, said in an interview that he and Dr. Luketich are pleased that the settlement puts an end to the case and that he hopes the United States will issue “authoritative guidance” on billing regulations for teaching physicians, something medical schools and hospitals have sought for years.
Dr. Luketich, UPMC, and UPP face more legal challenges from a separate medical malpractice lawsuit. In March 2018, Bernadette Fedorka underwent a lung transplant at UPMC. Although Dr. Luketich did not perform the surgery, Ms. Fedorka alleges that his poor leadership caused understaffing of the lung transplant program and contributed to surgical complications, including a 4-inch piece of wire left in her neck.
Ms. Fedorka claims that suboxone impaired Dr. Luketich’s decision-making. He began taking the drug in 2008 to manage the pain from a slipped disc injury after a history of prescription drug abuse. Both UPMC and Dr. Luketich have denied the validity of Ms. Fedorka’s claims.
The malpractice suit centers on a recording of a conversation between Dr. Luketich and David Wilson, MD, who prescribed the suboxone and treated the surgeon’s opioid use disorder for several years. Dr. Luketich has accused former colleagues, Dr. D’Cunha and Lara Schaheen, MD, of illegally recording the private conversation that discussed Dr. Luketich’s suboxone prescription – something both physicians deny.
For the billing fraud case, Dr. Luketich has agreed to complete a corrective action plan and submit to a third-party audit of his Medicare billings for 1 year.
“This is an important settlement and a just conclusion to the United States’ investigation into Dr. Luketich’s surgical and billing practices and UPMC and UPP’s acceptance of those practices,” Acting U.S. Attorney Troy Rivetti said in a statement that, “no medical provider – however renowned – is excepted from scrutiny or above the law.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mini-invasive MV repair as safe, effective as sternotomy surgery but has advantages: UK Mini-Mitral Trial
Patients with degenerative mitral valve (MV) regurgitation that calls for surgery may, for the most part, safely choose either a standard procedure requiring a midline sternotomy or one performed through a minithoracotomy, suggests a randomized comparison of the two techniques.
Still, the minimally invasive approach showed some advantages in the study. Patients’ quality of recovery was about the same with both procedures at 12 weeks, but those who had the minimally invasive thoracoscopy-guided surgery had shown greater improvement 6 weeks earlier.
Also in the UK Mini Mitral Trial, hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter for patients who underwent the mini-thoracotomy procedure, and that group spent fewer days in the hospital over the following months.
But neither procedure had an edge in terms of postoperative clinical risk in the study. Rates of clinical events, such as death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), were about the same over 1 year.
Patients in this trial had been deemed suitable for either of the two surgeries, which were always performed by surgeons specially chosen by the steering committee for their experience and expertise.
This first randomized head-to-head comparison of the two approaches in such patients should make both patients and clinicians more confident about choosing the minimally invasive surgery for degenerative MV disease, said Enoch Akowuah, MD, Newcastle (England) University, United Kingdom.
Dr. Akowuah presented the UK Mini-Mitral Trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
A “main takeaway” for clinical practice from the trial would be that minithoracotomy MV repair “is as safe and effective as conventional sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation,” said discussant Amy E. Simone, PA-C, following Dr. Akowuah’s presentation.
“I think this study is unique in that its focus is on delivering high-quality, cost-efficient care for mitral regurgitation, but also with an emphasis on patients’ goals and wishes,” said Ms. Simone, who directs the Marcus Heart Valve Center of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.
Cardiac surgeon Thomas MacGillivray, MD, another discussant, agreed that the data presented from at least this study suggest neither the minithoracotomy nor sternotomy approach is better than the other. But he questioned whether that would hold true if applied to broader clinical practice.
Dr. MacGillivray, of MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, observed that only 330 patients were randomly assigned among a total of 1,167 candidates for candidates for MV repair surgery.
Indeed, he noted, more than 200 declined and about 600 were declared ineligible for the study, “even though it had seemed as if all were appropriate for mitral valve repair. That could be viewed as a significant limitation in terms of scalability in the real world.”
Some of those patients weren’t randomly assigned because they ultimately were not considered appropriate for both procedures, and some expressed a preference for one or the other approach, Dr. Akowuah replied. Those were the most common reasons. Many others did not enter the study, he said, because their mitral regurgitation was functional, not degenerative.
The two randomization groups fared similarly for the primary endpoint reflecting recovery from surgery, so the trial was actually “negative,” Dr. Akowuah said in an interview. However, “I see it as very much a win for minithoracotomy. The outstanding questions for clinicians and patients have been about the clinical efficacy and safety of the technique. And we’ve shown in this trial that minithoracotomy is safe and effective.”
If the minithoracotomy procedure is available, he continued, “and it’s just as clinically effective and safe – and we weren’t sure that was the case until we did this trial – and the repair is almost as durable, then why have a sternotomy?”
The researchers assigned 330 patients with degenerative MV disease who were deemed suitable for either type of surgery to undergo the standard operation via sternotomy or the minithoracotomy procedure at 10 centers in the United Kingdom. The steering committee had hand-selected its 28 experienced surgeons, each of whom performed only one of the two surgeries consistently for the trial’s patients.
The technically more demanding minithoracotomy procedure took longer to perform by a mean of 44 minutes, it prolonged cross-clamp time by 11 minutes, and it required 30 minutes more cardiopulmonary bypass support, Dr. Akowuah reported.
The two patient groups showed no significant differences in the primary endpoint of physical function and ability to return to usual activity levels at 12 weeks, as assessed by scores on the 36-Item Short Form Survey and wrist-worn accelerometer monitoring. At 6 weeks, however, the mini-thoracotomy patients had shown a significant early but temporary advantage for those recovery measures.
The minithoracotomy group clearly fared better, however, on some secondary endpoints. For example, their median hospital LOS was 5 days, compared with 6 days for the sternotomy group (P = .003), and 33.1% of the mini-thoracotomy patients were discharged within 4 days of the surgery, compared with only 15.3% of patients who had the standard procedure (P < .001).
The minithoracotomy group also had marginally more days alive out of the hospital at both 30 days (23.6 days vs. 22.4 days in the sternotomy group) and 90 days (82.7 days and 80.5 days, respectively) after the surgery (P = .03 for both differences).
Safety outcomes at 12 weeks were similar, with no significant differences in rate of death, strokes, MI, or renal impairment, or in ICU length of stay or need for more than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, Dr. Akowuah reported.
Safety outcomes at 1 year were also similar. Mortality by then was 2.4% for the minithoracotomy patients and 2.5% for the sternotomy group, nor were there significant differences in HHF rates or need for repeat MV surgical repair.
Dr. Akowuah said the patients will be followed for up to 5 years for the primary outcomes, echocardiographic changes, and clinical events.
The minithoracotomy surgery’s longer operative times and specialized equipment make it more a expensive procedure than the standard surgery, he said. “So we need to work out in a cost-effectiveness analysis whether that is offset by the benefits,” such as shorter hospital stays or perhaps fewer transfusions or readmissions.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reported no relevant financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with degenerative mitral valve (MV) regurgitation that calls for surgery may, for the most part, safely choose either a standard procedure requiring a midline sternotomy or one performed through a minithoracotomy, suggests a randomized comparison of the two techniques.
Still, the minimally invasive approach showed some advantages in the study. Patients’ quality of recovery was about the same with both procedures at 12 weeks, but those who had the minimally invasive thoracoscopy-guided surgery had shown greater improvement 6 weeks earlier.
Also in the UK Mini Mitral Trial, hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter for patients who underwent the mini-thoracotomy procedure, and that group spent fewer days in the hospital over the following months.
But neither procedure had an edge in terms of postoperative clinical risk in the study. Rates of clinical events, such as death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), were about the same over 1 year.
Patients in this trial had been deemed suitable for either of the two surgeries, which were always performed by surgeons specially chosen by the steering committee for their experience and expertise.
This first randomized head-to-head comparison of the two approaches in such patients should make both patients and clinicians more confident about choosing the minimally invasive surgery for degenerative MV disease, said Enoch Akowuah, MD, Newcastle (England) University, United Kingdom.
Dr. Akowuah presented the UK Mini-Mitral Trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
A “main takeaway” for clinical practice from the trial would be that minithoracotomy MV repair “is as safe and effective as conventional sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation,” said discussant Amy E. Simone, PA-C, following Dr. Akowuah’s presentation.
“I think this study is unique in that its focus is on delivering high-quality, cost-efficient care for mitral regurgitation, but also with an emphasis on patients’ goals and wishes,” said Ms. Simone, who directs the Marcus Heart Valve Center of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.
Cardiac surgeon Thomas MacGillivray, MD, another discussant, agreed that the data presented from at least this study suggest neither the minithoracotomy nor sternotomy approach is better than the other. But he questioned whether that would hold true if applied to broader clinical practice.
Dr. MacGillivray, of MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, observed that only 330 patients were randomly assigned among a total of 1,167 candidates for candidates for MV repair surgery.
Indeed, he noted, more than 200 declined and about 600 were declared ineligible for the study, “even though it had seemed as if all were appropriate for mitral valve repair. That could be viewed as a significant limitation in terms of scalability in the real world.”
Some of those patients weren’t randomly assigned because they ultimately were not considered appropriate for both procedures, and some expressed a preference for one or the other approach, Dr. Akowuah replied. Those were the most common reasons. Many others did not enter the study, he said, because their mitral regurgitation was functional, not degenerative.
The two randomization groups fared similarly for the primary endpoint reflecting recovery from surgery, so the trial was actually “negative,” Dr. Akowuah said in an interview. However, “I see it as very much a win for minithoracotomy. The outstanding questions for clinicians and patients have been about the clinical efficacy and safety of the technique. And we’ve shown in this trial that minithoracotomy is safe and effective.”
If the minithoracotomy procedure is available, he continued, “and it’s just as clinically effective and safe – and we weren’t sure that was the case until we did this trial – and the repair is almost as durable, then why have a sternotomy?”
The researchers assigned 330 patients with degenerative MV disease who were deemed suitable for either type of surgery to undergo the standard operation via sternotomy or the minithoracotomy procedure at 10 centers in the United Kingdom. The steering committee had hand-selected its 28 experienced surgeons, each of whom performed only one of the two surgeries consistently for the trial’s patients.
The technically more demanding minithoracotomy procedure took longer to perform by a mean of 44 minutes, it prolonged cross-clamp time by 11 minutes, and it required 30 minutes more cardiopulmonary bypass support, Dr. Akowuah reported.
The two patient groups showed no significant differences in the primary endpoint of physical function and ability to return to usual activity levels at 12 weeks, as assessed by scores on the 36-Item Short Form Survey and wrist-worn accelerometer monitoring. At 6 weeks, however, the mini-thoracotomy patients had shown a significant early but temporary advantage for those recovery measures.
The minithoracotomy group clearly fared better, however, on some secondary endpoints. For example, their median hospital LOS was 5 days, compared with 6 days for the sternotomy group (P = .003), and 33.1% of the mini-thoracotomy patients were discharged within 4 days of the surgery, compared with only 15.3% of patients who had the standard procedure (P < .001).
The minithoracotomy group also had marginally more days alive out of the hospital at both 30 days (23.6 days vs. 22.4 days in the sternotomy group) and 90 days (82.7 days and 80.5 days, respectively) after the surgery (P = .03 for both differences).
Safety outcomes at 12 weeks were similar, with no significant differences in rate of death, strokes, MI, or renal impairment, or in ICU length of stay or need for more than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, Dr. Akowuah reported.
Safety outcomes at 1 year were also similar. Mortality by then was 2.4% for the minithoracotomy patients and 2.5% for the sternotomy group, nor were there significant differences in HHF rates or need for repeat MV surgical repair.
Dr. Akowuah said the patients will be followed for up to 5 years for the primary outcomes, echocardiographic changes, and clinical events.
The minithoracotomy surgery’s longer operative times and specialized equipment make it more a expensive procedure than the standard surgery, he said. “So we need to work out in a cost-effectiveness analysis whether that is offset by the benefits,” such as shorter hospital stays or perhaps fewer transfusions or readmissions.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reported no relevant financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with degenerative mitral valve (MV) regurgitation that calls for surgery may, for the most part, safely choose either a standard procedure requiring a midline sternotomy or one performed through a minithoracotomy, suggests a randomized comparison of the two techniques.
Still, the minimally invasive approach showed some advantages in the study. Patients’ quality of recovery was about the same with both procedures at 12 weeks, but those who had the minimally invasive thoracoscopy-guided surgery had shown greater improvement 6 weeks earlier.
Also in the UK Mini Mitral Trial, hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter for patients who underwent the mini-thoracotomy procedure, and that group spent fewer days in the hospital over the following months.
But neither procedure had an edge in terms of postoperative clinical risk in the study. Rates of clinical events, such as death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), were about the same over 1 year.
Patients in this trial had been deemed suitable for either of the two surgeries, which were always performed by surgeons specially chosen by the steering committee for their experience and expertise.
This first randomized head-to-head comparison of the two approaches in such patients should make both patients and clinicians more confident about choosing the minimally invasive surgery for degenerative MV disease, said Enoch Akowuah, MD, Newcastle (England) University, United Kingdom.
Dr. Akowuah presented the UK Mini-Mitral Trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
A “main takeaway” for clinical practice from the trial would be that minithoracotomy MV repair “is as safe and effective as conventional sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation,” said discussant Amy E. Simone, PA-C, following Dr. Akowuah’s presentation.
“I think this study is unique in that its focus is on delivering high-quality, cost-efficient care for mitral regurgitation, but also with an emphasis on patients’ goals and wishes,” said Ms. Simone, who directs the Marcus Heart Valve Center of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.
Cardiac surgeon Thomas MacGillivray, MD, another discussant, agreed that the data presented from at least this study suggest neither the minithoracotomy nor sternotomy approach is better than the other. But he questioned whether that would hold true if applied to broader clinical practice.
Dr. MacGillivray, of MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, observed that only 330 patients were randomly assigned among a total of 1,167 candidates for candidates for MV repair surgery.
Indeed, he noted, more than 200 declined and about 600 were declared ineligible for the study, “even though it had seemed as if all were appropriate for mitral valve repair. That could be viewed as a significant limitation in terms of scalability in the real world.”
Some of those patients weren’t randomly assigned because they ultimately were not considered appropriate for both procedures, and some expressed a preference for one or the other approach, Dr. Akowuah replied. Those were the most common reasons. Many others did not enter the study, he said, because their mitral regurgitation was functional, not degenerative.
The two randomization groups fared similarly for the primary endpoint reflecting recovery from surgery, so the trial was actually “negative,” Dr. Akowuah said in an interview. However, “I see it as very much a win for minithoracotomy. The outstanding questions for clinicians and patients have been about the clinical efficacy and safety of the technique. And we’ve shown in this trial that minithoracotomy is safe and effective.”
If the minithoracotomy procedure is available, he continued, “and it’s just as clinically effective and safe – and we weren’t sure that was the case until we did this trial – and the repair is almost as durable, then why have a sternotomy?”
The researchers assigned 330 patients with degenerative MV disease who were deemed suitable for either type of surgery to undergo the standard operation via sternotomy or the minithoracotomy procedure at 10 centers in the United Kingdom. The steering committee had hand-selected its 28 experienced surgeons, each of whom performed only one of the two surgeries consistently for the trial’s patients.
The technically more demanding minithoracotomy procedure took longer to perform by a mean of 44 minutes, it prolonged cross-clamp time by 11 minutes, and it required 30 minutes more cardiopulmonary bypass support, Dr. Akowuah reported.
The two patient groups showed no significant differences in the primary endpoint of physical function and ability to return to usual activity levels at 12 weeks, as assessed by scores on the 36-Item Short Form Survey and wrist-worn accelerometer monitoring. At 6 weeks, however, the mini-thoracotomy patients had shown a significant early but temporary advantage for those recovery measures.
The minithoracotomy group clearly fared better, however, on some secondary endpoints. For example, their median hospital LOS was 5 days, compared with 6 days for the sternotomy group (P = .003), and 33.1% of the mini-thoracotomy patients were discharged within 4 days of the surgery, compared with only 15.3% of patients who had the standard procedure (P < .001).
The minithoracotomy group also had marginally more days alive out of the hospital at both 30 days (23.6 days vs. 22.4 days in the sternotomy group) and 90 days (82.7 days and 80.5 days, respectively) after the surgery (P = .03 for both differences).
Safety outcomes at 12 weeks were similar, with no significant differences in rate of death, strokes, MI, or renal impairment, or in ICU length of stay or need for more than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, Dr. Akowuah reported.
Safety outcomes at 1 year were also similar. Mortality by then was 2.4% for the minithoracotomy patients and 2.5% for the sternotomy group, nor were there significant differences in HHF rates or need for repeat MV surgical repair.
Dr. Akowuah said the patients will be followed for up to 5 years for the primary outcomes, echocardiographic changes, and clinical events.
The minithoracotomy surgery’s longer operative times and specialized equipment make it more a expensive procedure than the standard surgery, he said. “So we need to work out in a cost-effectiveness analysis whether that is offset by the benefits,” such as shorter hospital stays or perhaps fewer transfusions or readmissions.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reported no relevant financial relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023
BIOVASC: Immediate complete revascularization beneficial in ACS
Immediate complete revascularization during the index procedure might become the new treatment paradigm in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease, based on results of the BIOVASC trial.
In the trial, in patients presenting with ACS and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularization was noninferior to staged complete revascularization for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization.
The BIOVASC trial was presented on March 5 by Roberto Diletti, MD, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
“We did not detect an early safety signal against an immediate complete revascularization strategy,” the authors state in the Lancet paper, adding: “Treating physicians should not be concerned about potential risks associated with immediate treatment of nonculprit lesions.”
They note, “This strategy might be particularly effective in patients with only two-vessel disease and reasonably simple lesions, with a high likelihood of procedural success without excessive use of radiation, contrast dye, or other resources.”
The trial also showed a shorter hospital stay with an immediate complete revascularization strategy.
“Immediate complete revascularization might have potential health economic benefits because of the lower rate of myocardial infarction, including spontaneous myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularizations, and the shorter overall hospital stay,” the researchers conclude.
Introducing his presentation, Dr. Diletti explained that multiple studies have established the clinical benefit of complete coronary revascularization as compared with exclusive reperfusion of the culprit lesion, but the optimal timing for nonculprit lesion revascularization remains unclear.
The BIOVASC trial, conducted in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, involved 1,525 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) or non-STEMI ACS and multivessel coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion.
They were randomly assigned to undergo immediate complete revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] of the culprit lesion first, followed by other nonculprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularization (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all nonculprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant within 6 weeks after the index procedure).
The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure.
The trial had a noninferiority design, with noninferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularization considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for the primary outcome did not exceed 1.39.
Among the trial population, 40% of patients had STEMI, 52% had non-STEMI, and 8% had unstable angina.
In the immediate complete revascularization group, 16 patients did not receive complete revascularization during the index procedure primarily because of prolonged procedure time, procedural complexity, or excessive contrast dye use.
In the staged group, 30% of patients underwent all subsequent procedures during the index hospitalization.
Results showed that the primary composite outcome at 1 year occurred in 7.6% of the immediate revascularization group and in 9.4% of the staged group, meeting the noninferiority criteria (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11; P for noninferiority = .0011).
Superiority of the immediate over the staged complete revascularization strategy was not met at 1-year follow-up (P for superiority = .17).
However, in the prespecified analysis of clinical events at 30 days after the index procedure, immediate complete revascularization was superior to staged revascularization in terms of the composite primary outcome (2.2% vs. 5.8%; HR, 0.38; P for superiority = .0007).
One-year results showed no difference in all-cause death between the two groups, but the immediate complete revascularization group appeared to have a reduction in MI (1.9% vs. 4.5%) and fewer unplanned ischemia-driven revascularizations (4.2% vs. 6.7%).
The difference in MI was mainly driven by spontaneous MIs (not procedure related) that predominantly occurred in the time window between the index procedure and the planned date for the staged intervention, and an originally nonculprit lesion was identified as the cause for these events in almost all cases.
Subgroup analysis showed similar results across the patient population, including age, sex, and STEMI vs. non-STEMI presentation.
High rate of MI in staged group
Discussant of the study at the ACC session, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, said this was a “very important trial.”
She expressed surprise over the “remarkably high rate” of MI in the staged procedure group and asked Dr. Diletti why that might have occurred.
He responded that the operator may have misjudged the culprit lesion or that patients with ACS may have multiple unstable plaques and “treating the culprit lesion alone does not do the job.”
He added: “We need to look at the data more thoroughly to better understand this, but in both scenarios, immediate complete revascularization would prevent these events.”
Dr. Itchhaporia also pointed out a low rate of functional imaging used in the study.
Dr. Diletti replied that this reflected current European practice, but he acknowledged that, “in my opinion this reduces our ability to detect the culprit lesion.”
Commenting at an ACC press conference, David Moliterno, MD, Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, Lexington, Ky., said the trial poses the question “Can we fix it all at once?” and the results suggest “Yes, we can.”
He said this approach had the advantage of removing any uncertainly as to which was the culprit lesion. “We just fix everything – leave no blockage behind.”
But he pointed out that for some patients this may not be appropriate, such as those with compromised renal function, in whom excessive amounts of contrast material should be avoided.
CABG still needs to be considered
In a comment accompanying the Lancet publication, Tobias Pustjens, MD, Pieter Vriesendorp, MD, and Arnoud W.J. van’t Hof, MD, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (the Netherlands), note that more than half of the patients presenting with an ACS have multivessel coronary disease.
They say the trial results suggest that “pursuing an immediate complete revascularisation strategy, especially in times of reduced hospital capacity and staff scarcity, not only benefits the individual patient in clinical outcomes but can also safely reduce the pressure on health care systems.”
But they also point out that the possibility of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should not be omitted, and that CABG is still the treatment of choice in patients with diabetes or complex coronary artery disease.
They conclude: “The results of the BIOVASC study move clinical practice forward from culprit-only to an immediate, complete revascularisation strategy. … However, further fine tuning of this treatment strategy to substantiate a role for intracoronary physiology assessment, intracoronary imaging, and guidance of the heart team decision is needed.”
The BIOVASC trial was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Biotronik AG. Dr. Diletti has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Medtronic, ACIST Medical Systems, and Boston Scientific. Dr. van’t Hof has received institutional research grants from Biotronik.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Immediate complete revascularization during the index procedure might become the new treatment paradigm in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease, based on results of the BIOVASC trial.
In the trial, in patients presenting with ACS and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularization was noninferior to staged complete revascularization for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization.
The BIOVASC trial was presented on March 5 by Roberto Diletti, MD, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
“We did not detect an early safety signal against an immediate complete revascularization strategy,” the authors state in the Lancet paper, adding: “Treating physicians should not be concerned about potential risks associated with immediate treatment of nonculprit lesions.”
They note, “This strategy might be particularly effective in patients with only two-vessel disease and reasonably simple lesions, with a high likelihood of procedural success without excessive use of radiation, contrast dye, or other resources.”
The trial also showed a shorter hospital stay with an immediate complete revascularization strategy.
“Immediate complete revascularization might have potential health economic benefits because of the lower rate of myocardial infarction, including spontaneous myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularizations, and the shorter overall hospital stay,” the researchers conclude.
Introducing his presentation, Dr. Diletti explained that multiple studies have established the clinical benefit of complete coronary revascularization as compared with exclusive reperfusion of the culprit lesion, but the optimal timing for nonculprit lesion revascularization remains unclear.
The BIOVASC trial, conducted in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, involved 1,525 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) or non-STEMI ACS and multivessel coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion.
They were randomly assigned to undergo immediate complete revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] of the culprit lesion first, followed by other nonculprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularization (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all nonculprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant within 6 weeks after the index procedure).
The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure.
The trial had a noninferiority design, with noninferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularization considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for the primary outcome did not exceed 1.39.
Among the trial population, 40% of patients had STEMI, 52% had non-STEMI, and 8% had unstable angina.
In the immediate complete revascularization group, 16 patients did not receive complete revascularization during the index procedure primarily because of prolonged procedure time, procedural complexity, or excessive contrast dye use.
In the staged group, 30% of patients underwent all subsequent procedures during the index hospitalization.
Results showed that the primary composite outcome at 1 year occurred in 7.6% of the immediate revascularization group and in 9.4% of the staged group, meeting the noninferiority criteria (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11; P for noninferiority = .0011).
Superiority of the immediate over the staged complete revascularization strategy was not met at 1-year follow-up (P for superiority = .17).
However, in the prespecified analysis of clinical events at 30 days after the index procedure, immediate complete revascularization was superior to staged revascularization in terms of the composite primary outcome (2.2% vs. 5.8%; HR, 0.38; P for superiority = .0007).
One-year results showed no difference in all-cause death between the two groups, but the immediate complete revascularization group appeared to have a reduction in MI (1.9% vs. 4.5%) and fewer unplanned ischemia-driven revascularizations (4.2% vs. 6.7%).
The difference in MI was mainly driven by spontaneous MIs (not procedure related) that predominantly occurred in the time window between the index procedure and the planned date for the staged intervention, and an originally nonculprit lesion was identified as the cause for these events in almost all cases.
Subgroup analysis showed similar results across the patient population, including age, sex, and STEMI vs. non-STEMI presentation.
High rate of MI in staged group
Discussant of the study at the ACC session, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, said this was a “very important trial.”
She expressed surprise over the “remarkably high rate” of MI in the staged procedure group and asked Dr. Diletti why that might have occurred.
He responded that the operator may have misjudged the culprit lesion or that patients with ACS may have multiple unstable plaques and “treating the culprit lesion alone does not do the job.”
He added: “We need to look at the data more thoroughly to better understand this, but in both scenarios, immediate complete revascularization would prevent these events.”
Dr. Itchhaporia also pointed out a low rate of functional imaging used in the study.
Dr. Diletti replied that this reflected current European practice, but he acknowledged that, “in my opinion this reduces our ability to detect the culprit lesion.”
Commenting at an ACC press conference, David Moliterno, MD, Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, Lexington, Ky., said the trial poses the question “Can we fix it all at once?” and the results suggest “Yes, we can.”
He said this approach had the advantage of removing any uncertainly as to which was the culprit lesion. “We just fix everything – leave no blockage behind.”
But he pointed out that for some patients this may not be appropriate, such as those with compromised renal function, in whom excessive amounts of contrast material should be avoided.
CABG still needs to be considered
In a comment accompanying the Lancet publication, Tobias Pustjens, MD, Pieter Vriesendorp, MD, and Arnoud W.J. van’t Hof, MD, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (the Netherlands), note that more than half of the patients presenting with an ACS have multivessel coronary disease.
They say the trial results suggest that “pursuing an immediate complete revascularisation strategy, especially in times of reduced hospital capacity and staff scarcity, not only benefits the individual patient in clinical outcomes but can also safely reduce the pressure on health care systems.”
But they also point out that the possibility of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should not be omitted, and that CABG is still the treatment of choice in patients with diabetes or complex coronary artery disease.
They conclude: “The results of the BIOVASC study move clinical practice forward from culprit-only to an immediate, complete revascularisation strategy. … However, further fine tuning of this treatment strategy to substantiate a role for intracoronary physiology assessment, intracoronary imaging, and guidance of the heart team decision is needed.”
The BIOVASC trial was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Biotronik AG. Dr. Diletti has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Medtronic, ACIST Medical Systems, and Boston Scientific. Dr. van’t Hof has received institutional research grants from Biotronik.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Immediate complete revascularization during the index procedure might become the new treatment paradigm in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease, based on results of the BIOVASC trial.
In the trial, in patients presenting with ACS and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularization was noninferior to staged complete revascularization for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization.
The BIOVASC trial was presented on March 5 by Roberto Diletti, MD, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.
“We did not detect an early safety signal against an immediate complete revascularization strategy,” the authors state in the Lancet paper, adding: “Treating physicians should not be concerned about potential risks associated with immediate treatment of nonculprit lesions.”
They note, “This strategy might be particularly effective in patients with only two-vessel disease and reasonably simple lesions, with a high likelihood of procedural success without excessive use of radiation, contrast dye, or other resources.”
The trial also showed a shorter hospital stay with an immediate complete revascularization strategy.
“Immediate complete revascularization might have potential health economic benefits because of the lower rate of myocardial infarction, including spontaneous myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularizations, and the shorter overall hospital stay,” the researchers conclude.
Introducing his presentation, Dr. Diletti explained that multiple studies have established the clinical benefit of complete coronary revascularization as compared with exclusive reperfusion of the culprit lesion, but the optimal timing for nonculprit lesion revascularization remains unclear.
The BIOVASC trial, conducted in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, involved 1,525 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) or non-STEMI ACS and multivessel coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion.
They were randomly assigned to undergo immediate complete revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] of the culprit lesion first, followed by other nonculprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularization (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all nonculprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant within 6 weeks after the index procedure).
The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure.
The trial had a noninferiority design, with noninferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularization considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for the primary outcome did not exceed 1.39.
Among the trial population, 40% of patients had STEMI, 52% had non-STEMI, and 8% had unstable angina.
In the immediate complete revascularization group, 16 patients did not receive complete revascularization during the index procedure primarily because of prolonged procedure time, procedural complexity, or excessive contrast dye use.
In the staged group, 30% of patients underwent all subsequent procedures during the index hospitalization.
Results showed that the primary composite outcome at 1 year occurred in 7.6% of the immediate revascularization group and in 9.4% of the staged group, meeting the noninferiority criteria (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11; P for noninferiority = .0011).
Superiority of the immediate over the staged complete revascularization strategy was not met at 1-year follow-up (P for superiority = .17).
However, in the prespecified analysis of clinical events at 30 days after the index procedure, immediate complete revascularization was superior to staged revascularization in terms of the composite primary outcome (2.2% vs. 5.8%; HR, 0.38; P for superiority = .0007).
One-year results showed no difference in all-cause death between the two groups, but the immediate complete revascularization group appeared to have a reduction in MI (1.9% vs. 4.5%) and fewer unplanned ischemia-driven revascularizations (4.2% vs. 6.7%).
The difference in MI was mainly driven by spontaneous MIs (not procedure related) that predominantly occurred in the time window between the index procedure and the planned date for the staged intervention, and an originally nonculprit lesion was identified as the cause for these events in almost all cases.
Subgroup analysis showed similar results across the patient population, including age, sex, and STEMI vs. non-STEMI presentation.
High rate of MI in staged group
Discussant of the study at the ACC session, Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, University of California, Irvine, said this was a “very important trial.”
She expressed surprise over the “remarkably high rate” of MI in the staged procedure group and asked Dr. Diletti why that might have occurred.
He responded that the operator may have misjudged the culprit lesion or that patients with ACS may have multiple unstable plaques and “treating the culprit lesion alone does not do the job.”
He added: “We need to look at the data more thoroughly to better understand this, but in both scenarios, immediate complete revascularization would prevent these events.”
Dr. Itchhaporia also pointed out a low rate of functional imaging used in the study.
Dr. Diletti replied that this reflected current European practice, but he acknowledged that, “in my opinion this reduces our ability to detect the culprit lesion.”
Commenting at an ACC press conference, David Moliterno, MD, Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, Lexington, Ky., said the trial poses the question “Can we fix it all at once?” and the results suggest “Yes, we can.”
He said this approach had the advantage of removing any uncertainly as to which was the culprit lesion. “We just fix everything – leave no blockage behind.”
But he pointed out that for some patients this may not be appropriate, such as those with compromised renal function, in whom excessive amounts of contrast material should be avoided.
CABG still needs to be considered
In a comment accompanying the Lancet publication, Tobias Pustjens, MD, Pieter Vriesendorp, MD, and Arnoud W.J. van’t Hof, MD, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (the Netherlands), note that more than half of the patients presenting with an ACS have multivessel coronary disease.
They say the trial results suggest that “pursuing an immediate complete revascularisation strategy, especially in times of reduced hospital capacity and staff scarcity, not only benefits the individual patient in clinical outcomes but can also safely reduce the pressure on health care systems.”
But they also point out that the possibility of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should not be omitted, and that CABG is still the treatment of choice in patients with diabetes or complex coronary artery disease.
They conclude: “The results of the BIOVASC study move clinical practice forward from culprit-only to an immediate, complete revascularisation strategy. … However, further fine tuning of this treatment strategy to substantiate a role for intracoronary physiology assessment, intracoronary imaging, and guidance of the heart team decision is needed.”
The BIOVASC trial was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Biotronik AG. Dr. Diletti has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Medtronic, ACIST Medical Systems, and Boston Scientific. Dr. van’t Hof has received institutional research grants from Biotronik.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACS 2023
When intravascular imaging guides complex PCI, MACE risk is lowered
NEW ORLEANS – In patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for complex coronary lesions, intravascular imaging is superior to angiography for reducing the risk of target lesion failure (TLF), according to results of a randomized trial.
Previous studies have produced the same conclusion, but the advantage was demonstrated this time in a multicenter well-powered randomized trial, principal investigator Joo Yong Hahn, MD, PhD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The earlier studies “were not definitive,” said Dr. Hahn, pointing out that even those that were randomized lacked sufficient duration of follow-up or were not inclusive of a broad array of types of complex PCI.
In this clinical outcomes–driven study, called RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 1,639 patients undergoing complex PCI in 20 South Korean treatment centers were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to PCI guided by intravascular imaging or angiography alone. There were nine types of complex PCI eligible for trial entry, including bifurcated lesions, long lesions (expected stent length ≥ 38 mm), total coronary occlusions, lesions requiring multiple stents, severely calcified lesions, and lesions in multiple vessels.
Intravascular imaging in the experimental arm could be performed with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT), according to Dr. Hahn. Because one might be better than the other for specific patient and lesions characteristics, the type of intravascular imaging in the experimental group was selected at the discretion of the treating investigator, reported Dr. Hahn, of the Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul.
The primary TLF endpoint was defined as death from cardiovascular causes, target-vessel-related MI, and target-vessel revascularization.
Risk reduction of > 35% observed
After a median of 2.1 years of follow-up, the lower TLF incidence in the group with PCI guided by intravascular imaging (7.7% vs. 12.3%) translated into a 36% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .008).
Intravascular imaging was associated with a numerical reduction of each component of TLF. In the case of death from cardiovascular causes, the confidence interval remained below the line of unity (HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.93).
Although this was not true for target vessel–related MI (HR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.45-1.22) or target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.36-1.22), it was also true of TLF without procedural-related MI (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90) and cardiac death or target vessel–related MI (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.93).
With few exceptions, all of the secondary outcomes “moved in the right direction” to favor intravascular imaging, including death from any cause (HR 0.71, 95% CI, 0.44-1.15), reported Dr. Hahn, who noted that the results were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
When compared, there were no major baseline differences in the 1,092 patients with PCI guided by intravascular imaging relative to the 547 guided by angiography. The median age was 65.5 years. Most (79%) were male. About half (51%) had an acute coronary syndrome and the remainder had stable ischemic heart disease. The proportions of patients with hypertension (61%), dyslipidemia (51%), and diabetes (38%) were substantial. About 18% of patients were current smokers, 24% had a previous PCI, and 7% had a previous MI.
Stent types were similar in the two groups, and they were delivered by radial access. Procedural success was achieved in about 98% of both groups. Almost all patients were discharged on a statin, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, and the other specific postprocedural medications were comparable in the two groups.
Advantage of intravascular imaging consistent
Of the complex lesions, most (55%) had diffuse long coronary artery lesions, but other types of complex PCI, including bifurcated lesions (22%), chronic total occlusions (20%), severely calcified lesions (14%), and ostial lesions of a major coronary artery (15%) were represented. Across these lesion types, intravascular imaging was favored over angiography for TLF at least numerically. The potential exceptions were lesions requiring at least three stents (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.49-3.18), but confidence intervals were wide.
The trial was unblinded, but Dr. Hahn reported that imaging analyses were performed at a core laboratory and events were adjudicated by a committee with members unaware of trial group assignments.
One unanswered question is cost. Because intravascular imaging adds cost to PCI relative to angiography, cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to provide context for the decision to use this approach in all complex PCI patients. These analyses are planned.
Based on the consistency of these trial results with previous studies, almost all of which showed the same thing, “the intravascular imaging world has spoken,” said Wayne B. Batchelor, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va. “The only question now is when will the interventional community is going to listen.”
Dr. Batchelor predicted that these data will change the mindset of many practitioners “to shift the debate to why not do it [intravascular imaging] from why do it.”
“Only about 15% of PCI is performed with intravascular imaging in the United States, and these [results] argue that this number needs to go up,” Dr. Batchelor said. Although he said there are technical reasons, such as diffuse lesions or small vessels, that prevent intravascular imaging from being used in every complex patient, he suggested the data are compelling.
“If you apply this to the one million patients undergoing PCI in the United States, this will translate potentially into tens of thousands of patients protected from the TVF endpoint,” Dr. Batchelor said.
Dr. Hahn reports no potential conflicts of interest, but this investigator-initiated trial received funding from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Batchelor reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Idorsia, Medtronic, and V-Wave Medical.
NEW ORLEANS – In patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for complex coronary lesions, intravascular imaging is superior to angiography for reducing the risk of target lesion failure (TLF), according to results of a randomized trial.
Previous studies have produced the same conclusion, but the advantage was demonstrated this time in a multicenter well-powered randomized trial, principal investigator Joo Yong Hahn, MD, PhD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The earlier studies “were not definitive,” said Dr. Hahn, pointing out that even those that were randomized lacked sufficient duration of follow-up or were not inclusive of a broad array of types of complex PCI.
In this clinical outcomes–driven study, called RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 1,639 patients undergoing complex PCI in 20 South Korean treatment centers were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to PCI guided by intravascular imaging or angiography alone. There were nine types of complex PCI eligible for trial entry, including bifurcated lesions, long lesions (expected stent length ≥ 38 mm), total coronary occlusions, lesions requiring multiple stents, severely calcified lesions, and lesions in multiple vessels.
Intravascular imaging in the experimental arm could be performed with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT), according to Dr. Hahn. Because one might be better than the other for specific patient and lesions characteristics, the type of intravascular imaging in the experimental group was selected at the discretion of the treating investigator, reported Dr. Hahn, of the Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul.
The primary TLF endpoint was defined as death from cardiovascular causes, target-vessel-related MI, and target-vessel revascularization.
Risk reduction of > 35% observed
After a median of 2.1 years of follow-up, the lower TLF incidence in the group with PCI guided by intravascular imaging (7.7% vs. 12.3%) translated into a 36% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .008).
Intravascular imaging was associated with a numerical reduction of each component of TLF. In the case of death from cardiovascular causes, the confidence interval remained below the line of unity (HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.93).
Although this was not true for target vessel–related MI (HR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.45-1.22) or target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.36-1.22), it was also true of TLF without procedural-related MI (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90) and cardiac death or target vessel–related MI (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.93).
With few exceptions, all of the secondary outcomes “moved in the right direction” to favor intravascular imaging, including death from any cause (HR 0.71, 95% CI, 0.44-1.15), reported Dr. Hahn, who noted that the results were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
When compared, there were no major baseline differences in the 1,092 patients with PCI guided by intravascular imaging relative to the 547 guided by angiography. The median age was 65.5 years. Most (79%) were male. About half (51%) had an acute coronary syndrome and the remainder had stable ischemic heart disease. The proportions of patients with hypertension (61%), dyslipidemia (51%), and diabetes (38%) were substantial. About 18% of patients were current smokers, 24% had a previous PCI, and 7% had a previous MI.
Stent types were similar in the two groups, and they were delivered by radial access. Procedural success was achieved in about 98% of both groups. Almost all patients were discharged on a statin, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, and the other specific postprocedural medications were comparable in the two groups.
Advantage of intravascular imaging consistent
Of the complex lesions, most (55%) had diffuse long coronary artery lesions, but other types of complex PCI, including bifurcated lesions (22%), chronic total occlusions (20%), severely calcified lesions (14%), and ostial lesions of a major coronary artery (15%) were represented. Across these lesion types, intravascular imaging was favored over angiography for TLF at least numerically. The potential exceptions were lesions requiring at least three stents (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.49-3.18), but confidence intervals were wide.
The trial was unblinded, but Dr. Hahn reported that imaging analyses were performed at a core laboratory and events were adjudicated by a committee with members unaware of trial group assignments.
One unanswered question is cost. Because intravascular imaging adds cost to PCI relative to angiography, cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to provide context for the decision to use this approach in all complex PCI patients. These analyses are planned.
Based on the consistency of these trial results with previous studies, almost all of which showed the same thing, “the intravascular imaging world has spoken,” said Wayne B. Batchelor, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va. “The only question now is when will the interventional community is going to listen.”
Dr. Batchelor predicted that these data will change the mindset of many practitioners “to shift the debate to why not do it [intravascular imaging] from why do it.”
“Only about 15% of PCI is performed with intravascular imaging in the United States, and these [results] argue that this number needs to go up,” Dr. Batchelor said. Although he said there are technical reasons, such as diffuse lesions or small vessels, that prevent intravascular imaging from being used in every complex patient, he suggested the data are compelling.
“If you apply this to the one million patients undergoing PCI in the United States, this will translate potentially into tens of thousands of patients protected from the TVF endpoint,” Dr. Batchelor said.
Dr. Hahn reports no potential conflicts of interest, but this investigator-initiated trial received funding from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Batchelor reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Idorsia, Medtronic, and V-Wave Medical.
NEW ORLEANS – In patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for complex coronary lesions, intravascular imaging is superior to angiography for reducing the risk of target lesion failure (TLF), according to results of a randomized trial.
Previous studies have produced the same conclusion, but the advantage was demonstrated this time in a multicenter well-powered randomized trial, principal investigator Joo Yong Hahn, MD, PhD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The earlier studies “were not definitive,” said Dr. Hahn, pointing out that even those that were randomized lacked sufficient duration of follow-up or were not inclusive of a broad array of types of complex PCI.
In this clinical outcomes–driven study, called RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 1,639 patients undergoing complex PCI in 20 South Korean treatment centers were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to PCI guided by intravascular imaging or angiography alone. There were nine types of complex PCI eligible for trial entry, including bifurcated lesions, long lesions (expected stent length ≥ 38 mm), total coronary occlusions, lesions requiring multiple stents, severely calcified lesions, and lesions in multiple vessels.
Intravascular imaging in the experimental arm could be performed with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT), according to Dr. Hahn. Because one might be better than the other for specific patient and lesions characteristics, the type of intravascular imaging in the experimental group was selected at the discretion of the treating investigator, reported Dr. Hahn, of the Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul.
The primary TLF endpoint was defined as death from cardiovascular causes, target-vessel-related MI, and target-vessel revascularization.
Risk reduction of > 35% observed
After a median of 2.1 years of follow-up, the lower TLF incidence in the group with PCI guided by intravascular imaging (7.7% vs. 12.3%) translated into a 36% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.64; P = .008).
Intravascular imaging was associated with a numerical reduction of each component of TLF. In the case of death from cardiovascular causes, the confidence interval remained below the line of unity (HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.93).
Although this was not true for target vessel–related MI (HR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.45-1.22) or target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.36-1.22), it was also true of TLF without procedural-related MI (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90) and cardiac death or target vessel–related MI (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.93).
With few exceptions, all of the secondary outcomes “moved in the right direction” to favor intravascular imaging, including death from any cause (HR 0.71, 95% CI, 0.44-1.15), reported Dr. Hahn, who noted that the results were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
When compared, there were no major baseline differences in the 1,092 patients with PCI guided by intravascular imaging relative to the 547 guided by angiography. The median age was 65.5 years. Most (79%) were male. About half (51%) had an acute coronary syndrome and the remainder had stable ischemic heart disease. The proportions of patients with hypertension (61%), dyslipidemia (51%), and diabetes (38%) were substantial. About 18% of patients were current smokers, 24% had a previous PCI, and 7% had a previous MI.
Stent types were similar in the two groups, and they were delivered by radial access. Procedural success was achieved in about 98% of both groups. Almost all patients were discharged on a statin, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, and the other specific postprocedural medications were comparable in the two groups.
Advantage of intravascular imaging consistent
Of the complex lesions, most (55%) had diffuse long coronary artery lesions, but other types of complex PCI, including bifurcated lesions (22%), chronic total occlusions (20%), severely calcified lesions (14%), and ostial lesions of a major coronary artery (15%) were represented. Across these lesion types, intravascular imaging was favored over angiography for TLF at least numerically. The potential exceptions were lesions requiring at least three stents (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.49-3.18), but confidence intervals were wide.
The trial was unblinded, but Dr. Hahn reported that imaging analyses were performed at a core laboratory and events were adjudicated by a committee with members unaware of trial group assignments.
One unanswered question is cost. Because intravascular imaging adds cost to PCI relative to angiography, cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to provide context for the decision to use this approach in all complex PCI patients. These analyses are planned.
Based on the consistency of these trial results with previous studies, almost all of which showed the same thing, “the intravascular imaging world has spoken,” said Wayne B. Batchelor, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va. “The only question now is when will the interventional community is going to listen.”
Dr. Batchelor predicted that these data will change the mindset of many practitioners “to shift the debate to why not do it [intravascular imaging] from why do it.”
“Only about 15% of PCI is performed with intravascular imaging in the United States, and these [results] argue that this number needs to go up,” Dr. Batchelor said. Although he said there are technical reasons, such as diffuse lesions or small vessels, that prevent intravascular imaging from being used in every complex patient, he suggested the data are compelling.
“If you apply this to the one million patients undergoing PCI in the United States, this will translate potentially into tens of thousands of patients protected from the TVF endpoint,” Dr. Batchelor said.
Dr. Hahn reports no potential conflicts of interest, but this investigator-initiated trial received funding from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Batchelor reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Idorsia, Medtronic, and V-Wave Medical.
AT ACC 2023