Interventional Cardiology & Surgery

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small group of patients with heart failure (HF) who underwent a novel transcatheter nerve-ablation procedure seemed to benefit with improved hemodynamics, symptoms, and quality of life in an admittedly limited observational series.

All had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and remained on guideline-directed medical therapy during the study.

The open-label experience has launched a randomized trial, featuring a sham control group, that could ultimately challenge dogma about volume overload in patients with chronic and acute HF and the perceived essential role of diuretics.

Researchers see transvenous ablation of the right greater splanchnic nerve (GSN) as potentially appropriate for patients with HF, regardless of ventricular function or acuity. But the ongoing REBALANCE-HF trial aims to enroll up to 80 patients with chronic HFpEF.

Meanwhile, the current 18 patients with elevated resting or exertional pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), given the procedure as part of the main trial’s “roll-in” phase, showed declines in exercise PCWP after 1 month (P = .007) and improved quality-of-life scores at both 1 and 3 months (P < .01). Also at 1 month, a third of the patients improved by at least one step in NYHA functional class.

The procedure, called splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM), could potentially be used “across the spectrum of acute and chronic heart failure, maybe even with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction,” Marat Fudim, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

However, “for outcomes, we’ve really only looked in the ambulatory setting,” and only at symptomatic and functional responses. To that extent, based on the current experience and a few small previous studies, Dr. Fudim said, SAVM seems to benefit patients with HF in general who have dyspnea at exercise. Beyond that, the kind of patient who may be most suitable for it “is something I hope we will be able answer once the randomized dataset is in.”

Dr. Fudim reported the REBALANCE-HF roll-in results at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2022 sessions, held virtually and live in Madrid. He is also lead author on the same-day publication in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

A different treatment paradigm

Splanchnic-nerve blockade as a possible HF treatment is based on growing evidence that volume overload in patients with HF is not always the cause, at least not a main cause, of congestion and dyspnea. Rather, those classic HF signs and symptoms may often be triggered by adverse redistribution of stable fluid volume from primarily the splanchnic vascular compartment to the intrathoracic space.

In other words, what might seem like classic volume overload calling for diuresis often might actually be euvolemic redistribution of fluid from the abdomen to the chest, raising intracardiac pressures and causing dyspnea.

In that scenario, loop diuretics might only dehydrate the patient and potentially put the kidneys at risk, Dr. Fudim proposed. His recent experience with HF patients implanted with a pulmonary-artery pressure monitor, he said, suggests many who received standard volume-overload therapy had actually been normo- or hypovolemic.

More then half the patients “did not have high volume, they just had high pressures,” he said. “So there is a significant portion of the population that has pathological processes leading to high pressures, but it’s not volume overload. Diuresing those patients would probably not be the right decision.”

The unilateral SAVM procedure appears to attenuate sympathetically mediated splanchnic volume redistribution to the heart and lungs, but as it doesn’t affect the left GSN, preserves some normal sympathetic response.

Sometimes in studies of surgical or catheter-based SAVM, Dr. Fudim said, “we have observationally seen that people discontinued diuretics or decreased doses in the treatment arm.”
 

‘Beyond our classical thinking’

It’s “impressive” that such right-GSN ablation seemed to reduce exercise-filling pressures, but one should be circumspect because “it’s way beyond our classical thinking,” Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, said as a panelist after Dr. Fudim’s presentation.

“These are invasive procedures,” he noted, “and our physiological understanding does not always match up with what we’re doing in real life, if you look at other interventional procedures, like renal denervation, which showed neutral effects, or if you look at even interatrial shunt devices, which might even be dangerous.”

The field should be “very prudent” before using SAVM in practice, which shouldn’t be “before we have sufficient data to support the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Mullens said. “It remains to be seen how treatment success will be defined. Is it during exercise? How long does the treatment last? What is the effect of the treatment over time; is it not harmful? These are things that we don’t know yet.”

The procedure was considered successful in all 18 patients, 14 of whom were women and 16 of whom were in NYHA class 3. Their average age was 75, and their mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline was 61%. The primary efficacy endpoints were a reduction in PCWP at rest, with legs raised, and at 20W exercise at 1 month. Their baseline invasively measured peak exercise PCWP was at least 25 mm Hg.

At 1 month, mean PCWP at 20W exercise fell from 36.4 mm Hg to 28.9 mm Hg (P = .007) and peak PCWP declined from 39.5 mm Hg to 31.9 mm Hg (P = .013); resting PCWP wasn’t significantly affected. Twelve patients improved by at least one NYHA functional class (P = .02).

Scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which assesses quality of life, improved by 22 points at 1 month and 18.3 points at 3 months (P < .01 for both differences).

No significant effects on 6-minute walk distance or natriuretic peptide levels were observed, nor were any observed on LVEF or echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, left ventricular (LV) atrial volume, or LV mass at 3 months.

Three “nonserious” device-related adverse events were observed, including one case of acute decompensation early in the experience, ostensibly due to excessive saline administration, Dr. Fudim reported. There was also one case of transient periprocedural hypertension and one instance of postprocedure back pain.

The SAVM procedure is performed transvenously and in general is technically “really not that challenging,” Dr. Fudim said. In most cases, the necessary skills would be accessible not only to interventional cardiologists but also heart failure specialists. “I have performed this procedure myself, and I’m a heart failure guy.”

The REBALANCE-HF roll-in phase and main trial are supported by Axon Therapies. Dr. Fudim discloses receiving support from Bayer, Bodyport, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Abbott, Audicor, Axon Therapies, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, Gradient, Intershunt, NXT Biomedical, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Splendo, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. Dr. Mullens discloses receiving fees for speaking from Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

Distal radial access is not superior to conventional radial access with regard to radial artery occlusion (RAO) but is a valid alternative for use in percutaneous procedures, according to results of the DISCO RADIAL trial.

The primary endpoint of forearm RAO at discharge was not met, occurring in 0.31% of patients whose radial artery was accessed distally (DRA) at the anatomical snuffbox and in 0.91% of patients with conventional transradial access (TRA) in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = .29).

The DRA group was also twice as likely to crossover to another access point (7.5% vs. 3.7%; P = .002) and to experience radial artery spasm (5.4% vs. 2.7%; P < .015).

“The message first is that if you do a good job with transradial access you can end up with a lower [occlusion] rate,” said coprincipal investigator Adel Aminian, MD, Hôpital Civil Marie Curie, Charleroi, Belgium. “On the other hand, it’s a trade-off between a more demanding puncture for distal radial access but also a simpler hemostatic process, which I think is one of the main advantages of distal radial access.”

The results were presented during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

DISCO-RADIAL (Distal Versus Conventional RADIAL Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention) is the largest trial thus far to compare TRA with the distal radial snuffbox technique, which has shown promise for reducing RAO rates in the recent single-center randomized DAPRAO and ANGIE trials.

The trial was conducted at 15 sites across Europe and Japan in 1,309 patients with an indication for percutaneous coronary procedures using the 6Fr Glidesheath Slender (Terumo). The intention-to-treat population included 657 TRA patients and 650 DRA patients.

The two groups were well matched, with most having a chronic coronary syndrome. Operators had to have performed a minimum of 100 procedures by DRA and follow systematic best practices previously reported by the investigators to prevent RAO, Dr. Aminian said.

The use of DRA did not significantly affect the duration of the coronary procedure (27 minutes vs. 24 minutes with TRA; P = .12) or average radiation dose (1298 mGy vs. 1222 mGy; P = .70).

DRA, however, reduced the need for selective compression devices (88% vs. 99.2%) and shortened the median time to hemostasis from 180 minutes to 153 minutes (P for both < .001).

“These results establish compliance to best practice recommendations for RAO avoidance as a mandatory new reference in transradial practice,” Dr. Aminian concluded. “At the same time, distal radial artery arises as a valid alternative associated with higher crossover rates but with a simpler and shorter hemostasis process.”

A show of hands revealed that about 25% of the audience used distal radial access prior to the presentation but that enthusiasm fell off following the results.

Discussant Hany Eteiba, MD, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said: “I salute your enthusiasm for presenting a negative trial and you tried to persuade the audience to use the distal radial artery results, but nonetheless.”

Dr. Eteiba said he could see a “potential advantage in the shorter hemostasis time,” and asked whether it might be influencing the rapid turnover for day-case angioplasty.

Dr. Aminian responded that “if you do an angioplasty you have to keep the patient for a certain amount of time, but I think for your nurse work and for the health care resources, having a very short hemostasis time is very interesting. We started with a hemostasis time of 2 hours and now we’ve decreased it to 1 hour and it will decrease even more.”

Session moderator Chaim Lotan, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, called DISCO-RADIAL an important study and said, “the question now is what’s the indication in your eyes for using distal radial?”

Dr. Aminian said that one message from the trial is that people who are using transradial access “have to do a better job,” and reminded the audience that RAO rates at many centers are too high, at 10% or upward.

At the same time, Dr. Aminian cautioned that operators wanting to use distal radial access “need to master the technique” or they will “end up with a relatively high failure rate.”

Discussant Eliano Navarese, MD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland, said, “I still think that it is a very valid approach, we use it for almost 20 years ... but it is very true, it is very demanding. And the learning curve of 100 cases in the trial maybe needed more cases.”

In an accompanying editorial, Grigorios Tsigkas, MD, PhD, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece, and colleagues wrote that the incidence of forearm RAO was “surprisingly low” but could be even lower if the authors administered adequate anticoagulation.

Still, they wrote that distal transradial access “for coronary procedures in combination with the systematic implementation of best practices for RAO prevention may be the final solution against RAO.”

The editorialists suggested that exposure to radiation could be the “main limitation of this novel vascular approach” and that forthcoming trials, such as DOSE, could shed light on this issue.

Increased procedure times in the DISCO RADIAL and ANGIE trials are secondary in stable patients, Dr. Tsigkas said, but could be a limitation in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Ongoing research, such as the RESERVE trial from China and a Korean trial, will provide insights into the safety and feasibility of distal transradial access in STEMI.

The study was supported by Terumo Europe. Dr. Aminian reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Terumo Interventional Systems. Dr. Tsigkas reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Distal radial access is not superior to conventional radial access with regard to radial artery occlusion (RAO) but is a valid alternative for use in percutaneous procedures, according to results of the DISCO RADIAL trial.

The primary endpoint of forearm RAO at discharge was not met, occurring in 0.31% of patients whose radial artery was accessed distally (DRA) at the anatomical snuffbox and in 0.91% of patients with conventional transradial access (TRA) in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = .29).

The DRA group was also twice as likely to crossover to another access point (7.5% vs. 3.7%; P = .002) and to experience radial artery spasm (5.4% vs. 2.7%; P < .015).

“The message first is that if you do a good job with transradial access you can end up with a lower [occlusion] rate,” said coprincipal investigator Adel Aminian, MD, Hôpital Civil Marie Curie, Charleroi, Belgium. “On the other hand, it’s a trade-off between a more demanding puncture for distal radial access but also a simpler hemostatic process, which I think is one of the main advantages of distal radial access.”

The results were presented during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

DISCO-RADIAL (Distal Versus Conventional RADIAL Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention) is the largest trial thus far to compare TRA with the distal radial snuffbox technique, which has shown promise for reducing RAO rates in the recent single-center randomized DAPRAO and ANGIE trials.

The trial was conducted at 15 sites across Europe and Japan in 1,309 patients with an indication for percutaneous coronary procedures using the 6Fr Glidesheath Slender (Terumo). The intention-to-treat population included 657 TRA patients and 650 DRA patients.

The two groups were well matched, with most having a chronic coronary syndrome. Operators had to have performed a minimum of 100 procedures by DRA and follow systematic best practices previously reported by the investigators to prevent RAO, Dr. Aminian said.

The use of DRA did not significantly affect the duration of the coronary procedure (27 minutes vs. 24 minutes with TRA; P = .12) or average radiation dose (1298 mGy vs. 1222 mGy; P = .70).

DRA, however, reduced the need for selective compression devices (88% vs. 99.2%) and shortened the median time to hemostasis from 180 minutes to 153 minutes (P for both < .001).

“These results establish compliance to best practice recommendations for RAO avoidance as a mandatory new reference in transradial practice,” Dr. Aminian concluded. “At the same time, distal radial artery arises as a valid alternative associated with higher crossover rates but with a simpler and shorter hemostasis process.”

A show of hands revealed that about 25% of the audience used distal radial access prior to the presentation but that enthusiasm fell off following the results.

Discussant Hany Eteiba, MD, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said: “I salute your enthusiasm for presenting a negative trial and you tried to persuade the audience to use the distal radial artery results, but nonetheless.”

Dr. Eteiba said he could see a “potential advantage in the shorter hemostasis time,” and asked whether it might be influencing the rapid turnover for day-case angioplasty.

Dr. Aminian responded that “if you do an angioplasty you have to keep the patient for a certain amount of time, but I think for your nurse work and for the health care resources, having a very short hemostasis time is very interesting. We started with a hemostasis time of 2 hours and now we’ve decreased it to 1 hour and it will decrease even more.”

Session moderator Chaim Lotan, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, called DISCO-RADIAL an important study and said, “the question now is what’s the indication in your eyes for using distal radial?”

Dr. Aminian said that one message from the trial is that people who are using transradial access “have to do a better job,” and reminded the audience that RAO rates at many centers are too high, at 10% or upward.

At the same time, Dr. Aminian cautioned that operators wanting to use distal radial access “need to master the technique” or they will “end up with a relatively high failure rate.”

Discussant Eliano Navarese, MD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland, said, “I still think that it is a very valid approach, we use it for almost 20 years ... but it is very true, it is very demanding. And the learning curve of 100 cases in the trial maybe needed more cases.”

In an accompanying editorial, Grigorios Tsigkas, MD, PhD, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece, and colleagues wrote that the incidence of forearm RAO was “surprisingly low” but could be even lower if the authors administered adequate anticoagulation.

Still, they wrote that distal transradial access “for coronary procedures in combination with the systematic implementation of best practices for RAO prevention may be the final solution against RAO.”

The editorialists suggested that exposure to radiation could be the “main limitation of this novel vascular approach” and that forthcoming trials, such as DOSE, could shed light on this issue.

Increased procedure times in the DISCO RADIAL and ANGIE trials are secondary in stable patients, Dr. Tsigkas said, but could be a limitation in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Ongoing research, such as the RESERVE trial from China and a Korean trial, will provide insights into the safety and feasibility of distal transradial access in STEMI.

The study was supported by Terumo Europe. Dr. Aminian reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Terumo Interventional Systems. Dr. Tsigkas reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Distal radial access is not superior to conventional radial access with regard to radial artery occlusion (RAO) but is a valid alternative for use in percutaneous procedures, according to results of the DISCO RADIAL trial.

The primary endpoint of forearm RAO at discharge was not met, occurring in 0.31% of patients whose radial artery was accessed distally (DRA) at the anatomical snuffbox and in 0.91% of patients with conventional transradial access (TRA) in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = .29).

The DRA group was also twice as likely to crossover to another access point (7.5% vs. 3.7%; P = .002) and to experience radial artery spasm (5.4% vs. 2.7%; P < .015).

“The message first is that if you do a good job with transradial access you can end up with a lower [occlusion] rate,” said coprincipal investigator Adel Aminian, MD, Hôpital Civil Marie Curie, Charleroi, Belgium. “On the other hand, it’s a trade-off between a more demanding puncture for distal radial access but also a simpler hemostatic process, which I think is one of the main advantages of distal radial access.”

The results were presented during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

DISCO-RADIAL (Distal Versus Conventional RADIAL Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention) is the largest trial thus far to compare TRA with the distal radial snuffbox technique, which has shown promise for reducing RAO rates in the recent single-center randomized DAPRAO and ANGIE trials.

The trial was conducted at 15 sites across Europe and Japan in 1,309 patients with an indication for percutaneous coronary procedures using the 6Fr Glidesheath Slender (Terumo). The intention-to-treat population included 657 TRA patients and 650 DRA patients.

The two groups were well matched, with most having a chronic coronary syndrome. Operators had to have performed a minimum of 100 procedures by DRA and follow systematic best practices previously reported by the investigators to prevent RAO, Dr. Aminian said.

The use of DRA did not significantly affect the duration of the coronary procedure (27 minutes vs. 24 minutes with TRA; P = .12) or average radiation dose (1298 mGy vs. 1222 mGy; P = .70).

DRA, however, reduced the need for selective compression devices (88% vs. 99.2%) and shortened the median time to hemostasis from 180 minutes to 153 minutes (P for both < .001).

“These results establish compliance to best practice recommendations for RAO avoidance as a mandatory new reference in transradial practice,” Dr. Aminian concluded. “At the same time, distal radial artery arises as a valid alternative associated with higher crossover rates but with a simpler and shorter hemostasis process.”

A show of hands revealed that about 25% of the audience used distal radial access prior to the presentation but that enthusiasm fell off following the results.

Discussant Hany Eteiba, MD, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said: “I salute your enthusiasm for presenting a negative trial and you tried to persuade the audience to use the distal radial artery results, but nonetheless.”

Dr. Eteiba said he could see a “potential advantage in the shorter hemostasis time,” and asked whether it might be influencing the rapid turnover for day-case angioplasty.

Dr. Aminian responded that “if you do an angioplasty you have to keep the patient for a certain amount of time, but I think for your nurse work and for the health care resources, having a very short hemostasis time is very interesting. We started with a hemostasis time of 2 hours and now we’ve decreased it to 1 hour and it will decrease even more.”

Session moderator Chaim Lotan, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, called DISCO-RADIAL an important study and said, “the question now is what’s the indication in your eyes for using distal radial?”

Dr. Aminian said that one message from the trial is that people who are using transradial access “have to do a better job,” and reminded the audience that RAO rates at many centers are too high, at 10% or upward.

At the same time, Dr. Aminian cautioned that operators wanting to use distal radial access “need to master the technique” or they will “end up with a relatively high failure rate.”

Discussant Eliano Navarese, MD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland, said, “I still think that it is a very valid approach, we use it for almost 20 years ... but it is very true, it is very demanding. And the learning curve of 100 cases in the trial maybe needed more cases.”

In an accompanying editorial, Grigorios Tsigkas, MD, PhD, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece, and colleagues wrote that the incidence of forearm RAO was “surprisingly low” but could be even lower if the authors administered adequate anticoagulation.

Still, they wrote that distal transradial access “for coronary procedures in combination with the systematic implementation of best practices for RAO prevention may be the final solution against RAO.”

The editorialists suggested that exposure to radiation could be the “main limitation of this novel vascular approach” and that forthcoming trials, such as DOSE, could shed light on this issue.

Increased procedure times in the DISCO RADIAL and ANGIE trials are secondary in stable patients, Dr. Tsigkas said, but could be a limitation in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Ongoing research, such as the RESERVE trial from China and a Korean trial, will provide insights into the safety and feasibility of distal transradial access in STEMI.

The study was supported by Terumo Europe. Dr. Aminian reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Terumo Interventional Systems. Dr. Tsigkas reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.
 

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.
 

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.
 

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent ISCHEMIA trial substudy is under scrutiny from surgeons for a data discrepancy, rekindling concerns about reliance on the landmark trial data in the latest coronary revascularization guidelines.

As previously reported, the main ISCHEMIA findings showed no significant benefit for an initial strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) over medical therapy in patients with stable moderate to severe ischemic heart disease.

The 2021 substudy by Reynolds et al. showed that coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the trial, whereas ischemia severity did not.

Cardiac surgeons Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, and Faisal Bakaeen, MD, however, spotted that only 40 patients are in the Duke category 6 group (three-vessel severe stenosis of at least 70% or two-vessel severe stenosis with a proximal left anterior descending lesion) in Supplemental tables 1 and 2, whereas 659 are in the main paper.

In addition, the Supplemental tables list the following:

• 659 patients in Duke group 5, not 894 as in the paper.
• 894 patients in Duke group 4, not 743 as in the paper.
• 743 patients in Duke group 3, not 179 as in the paper.

The surgeons penned a letter to Circulation early in April flagging the discrepancies, but say it was rejected April 15 because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters. They posted a public comment on the Remarq research platform, as advised by Circulation’s editorial office, and reached out directly to the authors and ISCHEMIA leadership.

“They just keep saying it’s a simple formatting error. Well, if it is a simple formatting error, then fix it,” Dr. Sabik, chair of surgery at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said in an interview. “But here we are now, a month later, and they still haven’t published our letter. Why? We’re the ones who identified the problem.”

Dr. Sabik said the accuracy of the data has important implications because the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used the ISCHEMIA data to downgrade the CABG recommendation for complex multivessel disease from class 1 to class 2B. Patients with a Duke 6 score are also typically the ones referred for CABG by today’s heart teams.

Several surgical societies have contested the guidelines, questioning whether the ISCHEMIA patients are truly reflective of those seen in clinical practice and questioning the decision to treat PCI and surgery as equivalent strategies to decrease ischemic events.

Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization they don’t want a public battle over the data like the one that befell the EXCEL trial, and that it’s entirely possible the investigators might have inadvertently upgraded all the Duke score assignments by 1.

A systematic error, however, is more plausible than a formatting error, he said, because Supplemental tables 1 and 2 correspond exactly to the Duke 1 to Duke 7 sequence, suggesting the tables are correct and that the error might have occurred downstream, including in the manuscript.

The numbers should be consistent across all the ISCHEMIA manuscripts, Dr. Bakaeen added, but currently “don’t add up,” even after adjustment for different denominators, and especially for participants with left main disease.

They hope that publication of their letter, he said, will convince the authors to publicly share the data for patients in each of the seven modified Duke categories.

Lead author of the ISCHEMIA substudy, Harmony Reynolds, MD, New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health, told this news organization via email that as a result of a “formatting error in the transfer of data from the statistical output file to a Word document, data in Supplemental tables 1 and 2 were incorrect.”

She explained that they planned to present six, not seven, rows for the Duke score in the tables, collapsing the first two categories of nonobstructive disease (Duke 1-2), as they were in all other tables and figures. However, the Supplemental tables had incorrect row headings and because the Word program is designed to fill all available rows, it inserted the data from the output file into a seven-row table shell, duplicating the values for row 1 in the last row for left main disease of at least 50%.

“The data were correctly presented in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement, with a total of 659 patients in the subset with modified Duke prognostic index category 6 on coronary CT angiography,” Dr. Reynolds said.

She noted that Circulation will issue a correction. In addition, “we are in the process of preparing the data for public sharing soon. The data will include the Duke prognostic score at all levels.”

Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, declined to be interviewed but confirmed via email that Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik’s letter and the correction will be published the week of May 16.

As for the delay, he said, “I received their reach-out just over 1 week ago, and per protocol, we conducted an internal evaluation of their allegations, which took a bit of time.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the Onyx Frontier drug-eluting stent (DES) to treat patients with coronary artery disease, the device manufacturer, Medtronic, announced today.

The Onyx Frontier shares the same stent platform and clinical indications as the previous-generation Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent, including the most recent approval for patients at high risk of bleeding who may benefit from just 1 month dual-antiplatelet therapy.

“Meaningful design changes, including increased catheter flexibility, an innovative dual-layer balloon technology and a lower crossing profile led to a 16% improvement in deliverability with Onyx Frontier vs. the previous generation Resolute Onyx DES,” Medtronic said in a news release.

Onyx Frontier also offers a broad size matrix to treat more patients, and joins the Resolute Onyx as the only 2-mm DES available in the United States, the company noted. The stent is available in 4.5- to 5-mm sizes that can be expanded to 6 mm, specifically designed to support extra-large vessels.

The Onyx Frontier DES is pending CE Mark in Europe.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the Onyx Frontier drug-eluting stent (DES) to treat patients with coronary artery disease, the device manufacturer, Medtronic, announced today.

The Onyx Frontier shares the same stent platform and clinical indications as the previous-generation Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent, including the most recent approval for patients at high risk of bleeding who may benefit from just 1 month dual-antiplatelet therapy.

“Meaningful design changes, including increased catheter flexibility, an innovative dual-layer balloon technology and a lower crossing profile led to a 16% improvement in deliverability with Onyx Frontier vs. the previous generation Resolute Onyx DES,” Medtronic said in a news release.

Onyx Frontier also offers a broad size matrix to treat more patients, and joins the Resolute Onyx as the only 2-mm DES available in the United States, the company noted. The stent is available in 4.5- to 5-mm sizes that can be expanded to 6 mm, specifically designed to support extra-large vessels.

The Onyx Frontier DES is pending CE Mark in Europe.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the Onyx Frontier drug-eluting stent (DES) to treat patients with coronary artery disease, the device manufacturer, Medtronic, announced today.

The Onyx Frontier shares the same stent platform and clinical indications as the previous-generation Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent, including the most recent approval for patients at high risk of bleeding who may benefit from just 1 month dual-antiplatelet therapy.

“Meaningful design changes, including increased catheter flexibility, an innovative dual-layer balloon technology and a lower crossing profile led to a 16% improvement in deliverability with Onyx Frontier vs. the previous generation Resolute Onyx DES,” Medtronic said in a news release.

Onyx Frontier also offers a broad size matrix to treat more patients, and joins the Resolute Onyx as the only 2-mm DES available in the United States, the company noted. The stent is available in 4.5- to 5-mm sizes that can be expanded to 6 mm, specifically designed to support extra-large vessels.

The Onyx Frontier DES is pending CE Mark in Europe.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The benefit of endovascular therapy in the treatment of stroke caused by an occlusion of the basilar artery has finally been confirmed in the ATTENTION randomized trial.

The study, conducted in China, showed that endovascular therapy for basilar artery occlusion is associated with higher rates of favorable and independent outcomes, as well as lower overall disability and lower mortality at 90 days, than best medical management alone.

The results were presented by Raul Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022, where they were greeted with applause from the audience.

The number needed to treat was just four.

“There were no surprises with secondary endpoints; everything was highly statistically significant,” Dr. Nogueira said.

Specifically, there was a lower rate of overall disability in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 2.8 favoring the intervention.  

Safety results showed an increased risk for symptomatic ICH in the endovascular group (5.3% vs. 0.0%) but, despite that, 90-day mortality was significantly lower in the endovascular group (36.7% vs. 55.3%).

Dr. Nogueira noted a limitation of the study was that it was conducted in China.

“This was a Chinese study and, as Asians are known to have higher rates of intracranial atherosclerotic disease, the overall degree of generalizability of our findings to Western countries needs to be considered,” he commented.

However, subgroup analysis showed no treatment effect modification based on the presence of intracranial atherosclerotic disease, he noted.

Also, the proportion of comorbidities in the ATTENTION trial was similar to that in the BASICS trial, with the same degree of diabetes and atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Nogueira concluded that, in contrast to previous randomized trials of endovascular treatment for basilar artery occlusion, the ATTENTION trial was able to reinforce consecutive enrollment, resulting in a fast recruitment while minimizing crossovers. 

Furthermore, he pointed out that the overall results are consistent with modern era observational studies, large registries, and meta-analysis.

Commenting on the study, Joanna Wardlaw, MD, professor of applied neuroimaging at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), and chair of the ESOC Planning Group, said: “This is a very important result, since it provides confirmation beyond doubt the benefit of thrombectomy versus medical therapy for basilar artery occlusion stroke up to 12 hours after onset.”

Dr. Wardlaw added: “The trial was large enough to provide clear results and to enable subgroup analyses; no subgroup did not benefit from thrombectomy.”

In a discussion after the presentation, Urs Fischer, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, said he was not surprised by the results of the ATTENTION trial.

“We have been doing thrombectomy in patients with basilar artery occlusion now for 20 years, although trials are extremely important to answer these questions, so now we have some clear evidence,” Dr. Fischer said. “Nevertheless, there are some caveats, as this is an Asian population, but this is a proof of concept, and it is going in the right direction.”

The ATTENTION trial was sponsored by the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The benefit of endovascular therapy in the treatment of stroke caused by an occlusion of the basilar artery has finally been confirmed in the ATTENTION randomized trial.

The study, conducted in China, showed that endovascular therapy for basilar artery occlusion is associated with higher rates of favorable and independent outcomes, as well as lower overall disability and lower mortality at 90 days, than best medical management alone.

The results were presented by Raul Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022, where they were greeted with applause from the audience.

The number needed to treat was just four.

“There were no surprises with secondary endpoints; everything was highly statistically significant,” Dr. Nogueira said.

Specifically, there was a lower rate of overall disability in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 2.8 favoring the intervention.  

Safety results showed an increased risk for symptomatic ICH in the endovascular group (5.3% vs. 0.0%) but, despite that, 90-day mortality was significantly lower in the endovascular group (36.7% vs. 55.3%).

Dr. Nogueira noted a limitation of the study was that it was conducted in China.

“This was a Chinese study and, as Asians are known to have higher rates of intracranial atherosclerotic disease, the overall degree of generalizability of our findings to Western countries needs to be considered,” he commented.

However, subgroup analysis showed no treatment effect modification based on the presence of intracranial atherosclerotic disease, he noted.

Also, the proportion of comorbidities in the ATTENTION trial was similar to that in the BASICS trial, with the same degree of diabetes and atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Nogueira concluded that, in contrast to previous randomized trials of endovascular treatment for basilar artery occlusion, the ATTENTION trial was able to reinforce consecutive enrollment, resulting in a fast recruitment while minimizing crossovers. 

Furthermore, he pointed out that the overall results are consistent with modern era observational studies, large registries, and meta-analysis.

Commenting on the study, Joanna Wardlaw, MD, professor of applied neuroimaging at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), and chair of the ESOC Planning Group, said: “This is a very important result, since it provides confirmation beyond doubt the benefit of thrombectomy versus medical therapy for basilar artery occlusion stroke up to 12 hours after onset.”

Dr. Wardlaw added: “The trial was large enough to provide clear results and to enable subgroup analyses; no subgroup did not benefit from thrombectomy.”

In a discussion after the presentation, Urs Fischer, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, said he was not surprised by the results of the ATTENTION trial.

“We have been doing thrombectomy in patients with basilar artery occlusion now for 20 years, although trials are extremely important to answer these questions, so now we have some clear evidence,” Dr. Fischer said. “Nevertheless, there are some caveats, as this is an Asian population, but this is a proof of concept, and it is going in the right direction.”

The ATTENTION trial was sponsored by the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The benefit of endovascular therapy in the treatment of stroke caused by an occlusion of the basilar artery has finally been confirmed in the ATTENTION randomized trial.

The study, conducted in China, showed that endovascular therapy for basilar artery occlusion is associated with higher rates of favorable and independent outcomes, as well as lower overall disability and lower mortality at 90 days, than best medical management alone.

The results were presented by Raul Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022, where they were greeted with applause from the audience.

The number needed to treat was just four.

“There were no surprises with secondary endpoints; everything was highly statistically significant,” Dr. Nogueira said.

Specifically, there was a lower rate of overall disability in the shift analysis, with a common odds ratio of 2.8 favoring the intervention.  

Safety results showed an increased risk for symptomatic ICH in the endovascular group (5.3% vs. 0.0%) but, despite that, 90-day mortality was significantly lower in the endovascular group (36.7% vs. 55.3%).

Dr. Nogueira noted a limitation of the study was that it was conducted in China.

“This was a Chinese study and, as Asians are known to have higher rates of intracranial atherosclerotic disease, the overall degree of generalizability of our findings to Western countries needs to be considered,” he commented.

However, subgroup analysis showed no treatment effect modification based on the presence of intracranial atherosclerotic disease, he noted.

Also, the proportion of comorbidities in the ATTENTION trial was similar to that in the BASICS trial, with the same degree of diabetes and atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Nogueira concluded that, in contrast to previous randomized trials of endovascular treatment for basilar artery occlusion, the ATTENTION trial was able to reinforce consecutive enrollment, resulting in a fast recruitment while minimizing crossovers. 

Furthermore, he pointed out that the overall results are consistent with modern era observational studies, large registries, and meta-analysis.

Commenting on the study, Joanna Wardlaw, MD, professor of applied neuroimaging at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), and chair of the ESOC Planning Group, said: “This is a very important result, since it provides confirmation beyond doubt the benefit of thrombectomy versus medical therapy for basilar artery occlusion stroke up to 12 hours after onset.”

Dr. Wardlaw added: “The trial was large enough to provide clear results and to enable subgroup analyses; no subgroup did not benefit from thrombectomy.”

In a discussion after the presentation, Urs Fischer, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, said he was not surprised by the results of the ATTENTION trial.

“We have been doing thrombectomy in patients with basilar artery occlusion now for 20 years, although trials are extremely important to answer these questions, so now we have some clear evidence,” Dr. Fischer said. “Nevertheless, there are some caveats, as this is an Asian population, but this is a proof of concept, and it is going in the right direction.”

The ATTENTION trial was sponsored by the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study finds clinicians are shifting away from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved combination of warfarin and aspirin after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device and that adverse events, particularly bleeding, are lower when aspirin is dropped.

Of 31,994 patients successfully implanted with the Watchman 2.5 device in the 3 years after its March 2015 approval, only 1 in 10 received the full postprocedure protocol studied in pivotal trials and codified into the FDA-device approval.

The protocol consisted of aspirin (81-325 mg) indefinitely and warfarin for 45 days. Following transesophageal echocardiography, patients were then maintained on warfarin and aspirin if there was a peridevice leak greater than 5 mm or switched to clopidogrel 75 mg for 6 months if a peridevice leak was ruled out or was 5 mm or less.

Based on the results, drawn from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry, the most common discharge medications were warfarin and aspirin in 36.9% of patients, followed by a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin alone (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (5%).

“There’s a little bit of practice leading the science in this space,” lead author James V. Freeman, MD, MPH, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Patients who couldn’t tolerate long-term anticoagulation were excluded from the pivotal trials but are now the patients in whom the device is most often used, because of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid reimbursement mandate for a relative or absolute contraindication to long-term anticoagulation, he noted.

Not surprisingly, 70% of patients in the registry had history of clinically relevant bleeding, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3. At an average age of 76, they were also older, by years, than those in the clinical trials.

Secular trends at the time also saw the ascendancy of the DOACs relative to warfarin, observed Dr. Freeman. “So I think it’s pretty reasonable for physicians to be considering DOACs rather than warfarin in this context.”
 

Aspirin takes another hit

Results, published May 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed that any adverse event occurred at 45 days in 5.7% of patients discharged on warfarin and aspirin, 4% on warfarin alone, 5.2% on DOAC and aspirin, 3.8% on DOAC only, and 5.5% on DAPT.

Rates of any major adverse event were 4.4%, 3.3%, 4.3%, 3.1%, and 4.2% respectively, and for major bleeding were 3%, 1.8%, 2.8%, 1.7%, and 2.2% respectively. Although patients were similar across treatment groups, those treated with DAPT were slightly older and had more comorbidities, Dr. Freeman said.

In Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event at 45 days was significantly lower when patients were discharged on warfarin alone (hazard ratio, 0.692; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.84) and a DOAC alone (HR, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), compared with warfarin and aspirin. There were no differences among the other groups.

The risk of any major adverse event was also significantly lower with warfarin alone (HR, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.53-0.80) and DOAC alone (HR, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98).

At 6 months, rates of any adverse event (HR, 0.814; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) and any major adverse event (HR, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) were significantly lower only in patients treated with warfarin alone.

“I think if there’s a take-home [message] here, it’s that for a lot of patients there’s good data now to suggest getting rid of the aspirin is a very reasonable thing to do,” Dr. Freeman said.

Further studies are needed in the space, but the results are consistent with those from transcatheter aortic valve replacement studies showing discharge on warfarin or DOAC anticoagulation alone reduces major adverse events without increasing thrombotic events, he said.

“I do think if there’s a strong indication for aspirin – someone has terrible coronary disease – there may be a role for using it,” Dr. Freeman said. But for a lot of these patients, anticoagulation alone without aspirin “may present a big opportunity to mitigate morbidity associated with this procedure.”

Dr. Freeman said he doesn’t expect the findings would be dramatically different with the second-generation Watchman FLX device but noted that randomized data will be forthcoming, as Boston Scientific changed the CHAMPION-AF trial protocol to include DOAC alone without aspirin.

Commenting for this news organization, Domenico Della Rocca, MD, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center, Austin, said the study is a useful overview of post-LAAO therapies in a large population – but not surprising.

“Practice has changed over the years. More and more we are adopting and trusting the DOACs,” he said. “And, we are realizing that dual antiplatelet therapy is so aggressive and antiplatelet therapy alone maybe is not the best choice based on data on activation of coagulation.”

Commenting further, he said “I think it’s too early to suggest being too keen to completely drop aspirin,” noting that 20%-25% of patients have clopidogrel resistance and that the combination of two antiplatelets may be too aggressive a strategy for others.

Dr. Della Rocca and colleagues recently reported favorable long-term results with half-dose DOAC therapy after Watchman implantation and said the team is launching a randomized trial in more than 500 LAAO patients in the United States and Europe later this year. The trial will be comparing a DOAC-based strategy with low-dose apixaban long-term versus clopidogrel and aspirin initially and then switching to 100 mg aspirin long-term.

“We hope that in the next 2-3 years we will have some better answers, but at this point I would say that clopidogrel is kind of an obsolete strategy for appendage closure,” Dr. Della Rocca said.

In an accompanying editorial, David R. Holmes Jr., MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., says “the cornucopia of these specific strategies can be expected to change as practices evolve, as instructions for use broaden and, hopefully, with the results of well-done, scientifically performed trials. This current LAAO Registry report, however, serves as a useful benchmark.”

He cautioned that this is an observational cohort study and that unmeasured imbalances still may affect the ability to identify an unbiased treatment signal. The use of DAPT was also infrequent during the study and “conclusions based on this information are soft.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) grants. Dr. Freeman has received salary support from the ACC NCDR and the NHLBI and has received consulting/advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biosense Webster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study finds clinicians are shifting away from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved combination of warfarin and aspirin after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device and that adverse events, particularly bleeding, are lower when aspirin is dropped.

Of 31,994 patients successfully implanted with the Watchman 2.5 device in the 3 years after its March 2015 approval, only 1 in 10 received the full postprocedure protocol studied in pivotal trials and codified into the FDA-device approval.

The protocol consisted of aspirin (81-325 mg) indefinitely and warfarin for 45 days. Following transesophageal echocardiography, patients were then maintained on warfarin and aspirin if there was a peridevice leak greater than 5 mm or switched to clopidogrel 75 mg for 6 months if a peridevice leak was ruled out or was 5 mm or less.

Based on the results, drawn from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry, the most common discharge medications were warfarin and aspirin in 36.9% of patients, followed by a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin alone (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (5%).

“There’s a little bit of practice leading the science in this space,” lead author James V. Freeman, MD, MPH, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Patients who couldn’t tolerate long-term anticoagulation were excluded from the pivotal trials but are now the patients in whom the device is most often used, because of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid reimbursement mandate for a relative or absolute contraindication to long-term anticoagulation, he noted.

Not surprisingly, 70% of patients in the registry had history of clinically relevant bleeding, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3. At an average age of 76, they were also older, by years, than those in the clinical trials.

Secular trends at the time also saw the ascendancy of the DOACs relative to warfarin, observed Dr. Freeman. “So I think it’s pretty reasonable for physicians to be considering DOACs rather than warfarin in this context.”
 

Aspirin takes another hit

Results, published May 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed that any adverse event occurred at 45 days in 5.7% of patients discharged on warfarin and aspirin, 4% on warfarin alone, 5.2% on DOAC and aspirin, 3.8% on DOAC only, and 5.5% on DAPT.

Rates of any major adverse event were 4.4%, 3.3%, 4.3%, 3.1%, and 4.2% respectively, and for major bleeding were 3%, 1.8%, 2.8%, 1.7%, and 2.2% respectively. Although patients were similar across treatment groups, those treated with DAPT were slightly older and had more comorbidities, Dr. Freeman said.

In Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event at 45 days was significantly lower when patients were discharged on warfarin alone (hazard ratio, 0.692; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.84) and a DOAC alone (HR, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), compared with warfarin and aspirin. There were no differences among the other groups.

The risk of any major adverse event was also significantly lower with warfarin alone (HR, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.53-0.80) and DOAC alone (HR, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98).

At 6 months, rates of any adverse event (HR, 0.814; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) and any major adverse event (HR, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) were significantly lower only in patients treated with warfarin alone.

“I think if there’s a take-home [message] here, it’s that for a lot of patients there’s good data now to suggest getting rid of the aspirin is a very reasonable thing to do,” Dr. Freeman said.

Further studies are needed in the space, but the results are consistent with those from transcatheter aortic valve replacement studies showing discharge on warfarin or DOAC anticoagulation alone reduces major adverse events without increasing thrombotic events, he said.

“I do think if there’s a strong indication for aspirin – someone has terrible coronary disease – there may be a role for using it,” Dr. Freeman said. But for a lot of these patients, anticoagulation alone without aspirin “may present a big opportunity to mitigate morbidity associated with this procedure.”

Dr. Freeman said he doesn’t expect the findings would be dramatically different with the second-generation Watchman FLX device but noted that randomized data will be forthcoming, as Boston Scientific changed the CHAMPION-AF trial protocol to include DOAC alone without aspirin.

Commenting for this news organization, Domenico Della Rocca, MD, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center, Austin, said the study is a useful overview of post-LAAO therapies in a large population – but not surprising.

“Practice has changed over the years. More and more we are adopting and trusting the DOACs,” he said. “And, we are realizing that dual antiplatelet therapy is so aggressive and antiplatelet therapy alone maybe is not the best choice based on data on activation of coagulation.”

Commenting further, he said “I think it’s too early to suggest being too keen to completely drop aspirin,” noting that 20%-25% of patients have clopidogrel resistance and that the combination of two antiplatelets may be too aggressive a strategy for others.

Dr. Della Rocca and colleagues recently reported favorable long-term results with half-dose DOAC therapy after Watchman implantation and said the team is launching a randomized trial in more than 500 LAAO patients in the United States and Europe later this year. The trial will be comparing a DOAC-based strategy with low-dose apixaban long-term versus clopidogrel and aspirin initially and then switching to 100 mg aspirin long-term.

“We hope that in the next 2-3 years we will have some better answers, but at this point I would say that clopidogrel is kind of an obsolete strategy for appendage closure,” Dr. Della Rocca said.

In an accompanying editorial, David R. Holmes Jr., MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., says “the cornucopia of these specific strategies can be expected to change as practices evolve, as instructions for use broaden and, hopefully, with the results of well-done, scientifically performed trials. This current LAAO Registry report, however, serves as a useful benchmark.”

He cautioned that this is an observational cohort study and that unmeasured imbalances still may affect the ability to identify an unbiased treatment signal. The use of DAPT was also infrequent during the study and “conclusions based on this information are soft.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) grants. Dr. Freeman has received salary support from the ACC NCDR and the NHLBI and has received consulting/advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biosense Webster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study finds clinicians are shifting away from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved combination of warfarin and aspirin after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device and that adverse events, particularly bleeding, are lower when aspirin is dropped.

Of 31,994 patients successfully implanted with the Watchman 2.5 device in the 3 years after its March 2015 approval, only 1 in 10 received the full postprocedure protocol studied in pivotal trials and codified into the FDA-device approval.

The protocol consisted of aspirin (81-325 mg) indefinitely and warfarin for 45 days. Following transesophageal echocardiography, patients were then maintained on warfarin and aspirin if there was a peridevice leak greater than 5 mm or switched to clopidogrel 75 mg for 6 months if a peridevice leak was ruled out or was 5 mm or less.

Based on the results, drawn from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry, the most common discharge medications were warfarin and aspirin in 36.9% of patients, followed by a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin alone (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (5%).

“There’s a little bit of practice leading the science in this space,” lead author James V. Freeman, MD, MPH, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Patients who couldn’t tolerate long-term anticoagulation were excluded from the pivotal trials but are now the patients in whom the device is most often used, because of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid reimbursement mandate for a relative or absolute contraindication to long-term anticoagulation, he noted.

Not surprisingly, 70% of patients in the registry had history of clinically relevant bleeding, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3. At an average age of 76, they were also older, by years, than those in the clinical trials.

Secular trends at the time also saw the ascendancy of the DOACs relative to warfarin, observed Dr. Freeman. “So I think it’s pretty reasonable for physicians to be considering DOACs rather than warfarin in this context.”
 

Aspirin takes another hit

Results, published May 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showed that any adverse event occurred at 45 days in 5.7% of patients discharged on warfarin and aspirin, 4% on warfarin alone, 5.2% on DOAC and aspirin, 3.8% on DOAC only, and 5.5% on DAPT.

Rates of any major adverse event were 4.4%, 3.3%, 4.3%, 3.1%, and 4.2% respectively, and for major bleeding were 3%, 1.8%, 2.8%, 1.7%, and 2.2% respectively. Although patients were similar across treatment groups, those treated with DAPT were slightly older and had more comorbidities, Dr. Freeman said.

In Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event at 45 days was significantly lower when patients were discharged on warfarin alone (hazard ratio, 0.692; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.84) and a DOAC alone (HR, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), compared with warfarin and aspirin. There were no differences among the other groups.

The risk of any major adverse event was also significantly lower with warfarin alone (HR, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.53-0.80) and DOAC alone (HR, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98).

At 6 months, rates of any adverse event (HR, 0.814; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) and any major adverse event (HR, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) were significantly lower only in patients treated with warfarin alone.

“I think if there’s a take-home [message] here, it’s that for a lot of patients there’s good data now to suggest getting rid of the aspirin is a very reasonable thing to do,” Dr. Freeman said.

Further studies are needed in the space, but the results are consistent with those from transcatheter aortic valve replacement studies showing discharge on warfarin or DOAC anticoagulation alone reduces major adverse events without increasing thrombotic events, he said.

“I do think if there’s a strong indication for aspirin – someone has terrible coronary disease – there may be a role for using it,” Dr. Freeman said. But for a lot of these patients, anticoagulation alone without aspirin “may present a big opportunity to mitigate morbidity associated with this procedure.”

Dr. Freeman said he doesn’t expect the findings would be dramatically different with the second-generation Watchman FLX device but noted that randomized data will be forthcoming, as Boston Scientific changed the CHAMPION-AF trial protocol to include DOAC alone without aspirin.

Commenting for this news organization, Domenico Della Rocca, MD, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center, Austin, said the study is a useful overview of post-LAAO therapies in a large population – but not surprising.

“Practice has changed over the years. More and more we are adopting and trusting the DOACs,” he said. “And, we are realizing that dual antiplatelet therapy is so aggressive and antiplatelet therapy alone maybe is not the best choice based on data on activation of coagulation.”

Commenting further, he said “I think it’s too early to suggest being too keen to completely drop aspirin,” noting that 20%-25% of patients have clopidogrel resistance and that the combination of two antiplatelets may be too aggressive a strategy for others.

Dr. Della Rocca and colleagues recently reported favorable long-term results with half-dose DOAC therapy after Watchman implantation and said the team is launching a randomized trial in more than 500 LAAO patients in the United States and Europe later this year. The trial will be comparing a DOAC-based strategy with low-dose apixaban long-term versus clopidogrel and aspirin initially and then switching to 100 mg aspirin long-term.

“We hope that in the next 2-3 years we will have some better answers, but at this point I would say that clopidogrel is kind of an obsolete strategy for appendage closure,” Dr. Della Rocca said.

In an accompanying editorial, David R. Holmes Jr., MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., says “the cornucopia of these specific strategies can be expected to change as practices evolve, as instructions for use broaden and, hopefully, with the results of well-done, scientifically performed trials. This current LAAO Registry report, however, serves as a useful benchmark.”

He cautioned that this is an observational cohort study and that unmeasured imbalances still may affect the ability to identify an unbiased treatment signal. The use of DAPT was also infrequent during the study and “conclusions based on this information are soft.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) grants. Dr. Freeman has received salary support from the ACC NCDR and the NHLBI and has received consulting/advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biosense Webster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The heart from a genetically modified pig transplanted to a Maryland patient in January in a pioneering, acclaimed, and widely critiqued surgery appears to have carried an unwanted passenger.

A porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) in the heart had gone undetected before the operation and may or may not have been instrumental in David Bennett’s death 2 months later, according to a report published in MIT Technology Review.  

University of Maryland Medical Center

“The issue is now a subject of wide discussion among specialists, who think the infection was a potential contributor to Mr. Bennett’s death and a possible reason why the heart did not last longer,” states the article, written by staff journalist Antonio Regalado.

As described in the story, the xenotransplant saga’s new twist comes from the surgeon who performed the operation, Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, who related the PCMV finding in an April 20 online presentation hosted by the American Society of Transplantation.

Mr. Bennett’s initially promising but later turbulent clinical course, described by his surgeons and widely reported upon his death, included repeated skirmishes with infection and retaliatory adjustments to his immunosuppressant regimen. Those episodes were thought to have contributed to his death, the actual cause of which is undetermined or at least not yet reported.

“We are beginning to learn why he passed on,” Dr. Griffith said in Mr. Regalado’s article, acknowledging further that the porcine virus “maybe was the actor, or could be the actor,” that set off the events leading to Bennett’s death.

Xenotransplant specialists know that PCMV is a potential problem with pig organs and know to test for it before attempting the procedure in animal models, notes the article. It refers to a published series of pig-heart transplants to baboons in Germany. The hearts “lasted only a couple of weeks if the virus was present, while organs free from the infection could survive more than half a year.”

The heart Mr. Bennett received had been extensively screened for bacteria, viruses, and other issues that could have threatened the organ and Mr. Bennett, but the effort apparently fell short. In the MIT Technology Review story, the first author of the German baboon series speculates on how the University of Maryland team might have missed PCMV.

“The U.S. team appears to have tested the pig’s snout for the virus, but often it is lurking deeper in the tissues,” Joachim Denner, PhD, Institute of Virology, Free University of Berlin, said in the article. The virus, he contended, “can be detected and easily removed from pig populations, but unfortunately they didn’t use a good assay and didn’t detect the virus.”

That PCMV escaped detection before the operation “could now factor into some people’s questions over whether the experiment should have taken place at all,” the MIT Technology Review article proposes. “It’s a big red flag,” bioethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, New York University, said in a quote, adding: “If doctors can’t prevent or control infection, ‘then such experiments are tough to justify.’ ”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The heart from a genetically modified pig transplanted to a Maryland patient in January in a pioneering, acclaimed, and widely critiqued surgery appears to have carried an unwanted passenger.

A porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) in the heart had gone undetected before the operation and may or may not have been instrumental in David Bennett’s death 2 months later, according to a report published in MIT Technology Review.  

University of Maryland Medical Center

“The issue is now a subject of wide discussion among specialists, who think the infection was a potential contributor to Mr. Bennett’s death and a possible reason why the heart did not last longer,” states the article, written by staff journalist Antonio Regalado.

As described in the story, the xenotransplant saga’s new twist comes from the surgeon who performed the operation, Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, who related the PCMV finding in an April 20 online presentation hosted by the American Society of Transplantation.

Mr. Bennett’s initially promising but later turbulent clinical course, described by his surgeons and widely reported upon his death, included repeated skirmishes with infection and retaliatory adjustments to his immunosuppressant regimen. Those episodes were thought to have contributed to his death, the actual cause of which is undetermined or at least not yet reported.

“We are beginning to learn why he passed on,” Dr. Griffith said in Mr. Regalado’s article, acknowledging further that the porcine virus “maybe was the actor, or could be the actor,” that set off the events leading to Bennett’s death.

Xenotransplant specialists know that PCMV is a potential problem with pig organs and know to test for it before attempting the procedure in animal models, notes the article. It refers to a published series of pig-heart transplants to baboons in Germany. The hearts “lasted only a couple of weeks if the virus was present, while organs free from the infection could survive more than half a year.”

The heart Mr. Bennett received had been extensively screened for bacteria, viruses, and other issues that could have threatened the organ and Mr. Bennett, but the effort apparently fell short. In the MIT Technology Review story, the first author of the German baboon series speculates on how the University of Maryland team might have missed PCMV.

“The U.S. team appears to have tested the pig’s snout for the virus, but often it is lurking deeper in the tissues,” Joachim Denner, PhD, Institute of Virology, Free University of Berlin, said in the article. The virus, he contended, “can be detected and easily removed from pig populations, but unfortunately they didn’t use a good assay and didn’t detect the virus.”

That PCMV escaped detection before the operation “could now factor into some people’s questions over whether the experiment should have taken place at all,” the MIT Technology Review article proposes. “It’s a big red flag,” bioethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, New York University, said in a quote, adding: “If doctors can’t prevent or control infection, ‘then such experiments are tough to justify.’ ”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The heart from a genetically modified pig transplanted to a Maryland patient in January in a pioneering, acclaimed, and widely critiqued surgery appears to have carried an unwanted passenger.

A porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) in the heart had gone undetected before the operation and may or may not have been instrumental in David Bennett’s death 2 months later, according to a report published in MIT Technology Review.  

University of Maryland Medical Center

“The issue is now a subject of wide discussion among specialists, who think the infection was a potential contributor to Mr. Bennett’s death and a possible reason why the heart did not last longer,” states the article, written by staff journalist Antonio Regalado.

As described in the story, the xenotransplant saga’s new twist comes from the surgeon who performed the operation, Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, who related the PCMV finding in an April 20 online presentation hosted by the American Society of Transplantation.

Mr. Bennett’s initially promising but later turbulent clinical course, described by his surgeons and widely reported upon his death, included repeated skirmishes with infection and retaliatory adjustments to his immunosuppressant regimen. Those episodes were thought to have contributed to his death, the actual cause of which is undetermined or at least not yet reported.

“We are beginning to learn why he passed on,” Dr. Griffith said in Mr. Regalado’s article, acknowledging further that the porcine virus “maybe was the actor, or could be the actor,” that set off the events leading to Bennett’s death.

Xenotransplant specialists know that PCMV is a potential problem with pig organs and know to test for it before attempting the procedure in animal models, notes the article. It refers to a published series of pig-heart transplants to baboons in Germany. The hearts “lasted only a couple of weeks if the virus was present, while organs free from the infection could survive more than half a year.”

The heart Mr. Bennett received had been extensively screened for bacteria, viruses, and other issues that could have threatened the organ and Mr. Bennett, but the effort apparently fell short. In the MIT Technology Review story, the first author of the German baboon series speculates on how the University of Maryland team might have missed PCMV.

“The U.S. team appears to have tested the pig’s snout for the virus, but often it is lurking deeper in the tissues,” Joachim Denner, PhD, Institute of Virology, Free University of Berlin, said in the article. The virus, he contended, “can be detected and easily removed from pig populations, but unfortunately they didn’t use a good assay and didn’t detect the virus.”

That PCMV escaped detection before the operation “could now factor into some people’s questions over whether the experiment should have taken place at all,” the MIT Technology Review article proposes. “It’s a big red flag,” bioethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, New York University, said in a quote, adding: “If doctors can’t prevent or control infection, ‘then such experiments are tough to justify.’ ”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.