Interventional Cardiology & Surgery

SAN FRANCISCO – Transseptal catheter access for mitral valve-in-valve replacement was associated with lower mortality, compared with transapical access, and was an independent predictor of lower mortality at 1 year, in a review of 1,529 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons transcatheter valve therapy registry.

Also, transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MViV) replacement, in general, is “preferable to redo mitral surgery and should be the standard of care for patients with failed surgical bioprosthesis who have favorable anatomy,” said lead investigator Mayra Guerrero, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics meeting.

MViV replacement is a catheter-based alternative to a second open procedure for high-risk patients whose first surgically implanted mitral valve fails. The 30-day mortality tops 10% in most studies of redo operations, so the field’s been moving towards catheter treatment with the Edward Lifesciences Sapien 3 valve, which carries an indication for the procedure.

There’s been a lingering question, however, about whether it’s better to deliver the device through a hole in the atrial septum or the apex of the heart. The issue may now be resolved: “For the first time, we have found a statistical difference between the two access types” in favor of transseptal, Dr. Guerrero said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The team compared outcomes from the 1,326 transseptal Sapien 3 cases in the registry with 203 cases that used the transapical approach from June 2015 and August 2019, linking cases with Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services data to get a better idea of outcomes. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, but transapical cases tended to come earlier in the series because the field is also moving to the transseptal approach.

The procedures were technically successful – the primary safety endpoint – in 97.1% of transseptal and 94.6% of transapical patients. All-cause mortality at 1 year – the primary efficacy endpoint – was 15.8% transseptally and 21.7% transapically (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.97; P = .03).

Transapical cases were more likely to be converted to open surgery, and on multivariate analysis, transseptal access was an independent predictor of lower 1-year mortality.

There was good maintenance of valve performance and ejection fraction in both groups at 1 year, and similar improvements in heart failure symptoms and quality of life.

Transseptal 30-day mortality was 5% with an observed/expected ratio of 0.45 versus 8.1% transapical with an observed/expected ratio of 0.69.

“I don’t think any surgeon will disagree with this: If we don’t have to do another redo mitral valve operation, that’s a good thing. It’s one of the highest-risk procedures we do in cardiac surgery. To have an alternative that cuts that 30-day mortality down to 5% is very much positive. I think this clearly answers that this is the preferred therapy,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott & White Health System, Dallas.

The 1-year transseptal mortality of 16% is at least as good as transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but Dr. Mack and other panelists agreed that longer follow-up is needed to get a more complete picture of the procedure’s durability, especially as it begins to be used in patients who are at lower surgical risk.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Transseptal catheter access for mitral valve-in-valve replacement was associated with lower mortality, compared with transapical access, and was an independent predictor of lower mortality at 1 year, in a review of 1,529 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons transcatheter valve therapy registry.

Also, transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MViV) replacement, in general, is “preferable to redo mitral surgery and should be the standard of care for patients with failed surgical bioprosthesis who have favorable anatomy,” said lead investigator Mayra Guerrero, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics meeting.

MViV replacement is a catheter-based alternative to a second open procedure for high-risk patients whose first surgically implanted mitral valve fails. The 30-day mortality tops 10% in most studies of redo operations, so the field’s been moving towards catheter treatment with the Edward Lifesciences Sapien 3 valve, which carries an indication for the procedure.

There’s been a lingering question, however, about whether it’s better to deliver the device through a hole in the atrial septum or the apex of the heart. The issue may now be resolved: “For the first time, we have found a statistical difference between the two access types” in favor of transseptal, Dr. Guerrero said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The team compared outcomes from the 1,326 transseptal Sapien 3 cases in the registry with 203 cases that used the transapical approach from June 2015 and August 2019, linking cases with Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services data to get a better idea of outcomes. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, but transapical cases tended to come earlier in the series because the field is also moving to the transseptal approach.

The procedures were technically successful – the primary safety endpoint – in 97.1% of transseptal and 94.6% of transapical patients. All-cause mortality at 1 year – the primary efficacy endpoint – was 15.8% transseptally and 21.7% transapically (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.97; P = .03).

Transapical cases were more likely to be converted to open surgery, and on multivariate analysis, transseptal access was an independent predictor of lower 1-year mortality.

There was good maintenance of valve performance and ejection fraction in both groups at 1 year, and similar improvements in heart failure symptoms and quality of life.

Transseptal 30-day mortality was 5% with an observed/expected ratio of 0.45 versus 8.1% transapical with an observed/expected ratio of 0.69.

“I don’t think any surgeon will disagree with this: If we don’t have to do another redo mitral valve operation, that’s a good thing. It’s one of the highest-risk procedures we do in cardiac surgery. To have an alternative that cuts that 30-day mortality down to 5% is very much positive. I think this clearly answers that this is the preferred therapy,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott & White Health System, Dallas.

The 1-year transseptal mortality of 16% is at least as good as transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but Dr. Mack and other panelists agreed that longer follow-up is needed to get a more complete picture of the procedure’s durability, especially as it begins to be used in patients who are at lower surgical risk.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Transseptal catheter access for mitral valve-in-valve replacement was associated with lower mortality, compared with transapical access, and was an independent predictor of lower mortality at 1 year, in a review of 1,529 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons transcatheter valve therapy registry.

Also, transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MViV) replacement, in general, is “preferable to redo mitral surgery and should be the standard of care for patients with failed surgical bioprosthesis who have favorable anatomy,” said lead investigator Mayra Guerrero, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics meeting.

MViV replacement is a catheter-based alternative to a second open procedure for high-risk patients whose first surgically implanted mitral valve fails. The 30-day mortality tops 10% in most studies of redo operations, so the field’s been moving towards catheter treatment with the Edward Lifesciences Sapien 3 valve, which carries an indication for the procedure.

There’s been a lingering question, however, about whether it’s better to deliver the device through a hole in the atrial septum or the apex of the heart. The issue may now be resolved: “For the first time, we have found a statistical difference between the two access types” in favor of transseptal, Dr. Guerrero said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The team compared outcomes from the 1,326 transseptal Sapien 3 cases in the registry with 203 cases that used the transapical approach from June 2015 and August 2019, linking cases with Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services data to get a better idea of outcomes. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, but transapical cases tended to come earlier in the series because the field is also moving to the transseptal approach.

The procedures were technically successful – the primary safety endpoint – in 97.1% of transseptal and 94.6% of transapical patients. All-cause mortality at 1 year – the primary efficacy endpoint – was 15.8% transseptally and 21.7% transapically (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.97; P = .03).

Transapical cases were more likely to be converted to open surgery, and on multivariate analysis, transseptal access was an independent predictor of lower 1-year mortality.

There was good maintenance of valve performance and ejection fraction in both groups at 1 year, and similar improvements in heart failure symptoms and quality of life.

Transseptal 30-day mortality was 5% with an observed/expected ratio of 0.45 versus 8.1% transapical with an observed/expected ratio of 0.69.

“I don’t think any surgeon will disagree with this: If we don’t have to do another redo mitral valve operation, that’s a good thing. It’s one of the highest-risk procedures we do in cardiac surgery. To have an alternative that cuts that 30-day mortality down to 5% is very much positive. I think this clearly answers that this is the preferred therapy,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott & White Health System, Dallas.

The 1-year transseptal mortality of 16% is at least as good as transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but Dr. Mack and other panelists agreed that longer follow-up is needed to get a more complete picture of the procedure’s durability, especially as it begins to be used in patients who are at lower surgical risk.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Published 12 months apart, guidelines on management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from the European Society for Vascular Surgery are similar but diverged in instructive ways from those of the Society for Vascular Surgery, according to a critical review at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. “Some of the differences were almost unavoidable in the sense that the ESVS guidelines represent multiple idiosyncratic health care systems across Europe,” reported Ronald L. Dalman, MD, chief of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

As a result, the ESVS guidelines provide very little specificity about pharmacologic options because of the differences in availability of these treatments within specific health systems. In addition, both open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are given similar emphasis because of the limited availability of EVAR in some parts of Europe.

“The ESVS guidelines specifically recommend repair of an aneurysm within 8 weeks when repair is indicated, but there are not many aneurysms that go 8 weeks in the U.S. without being fixed by a fee-for-service surgeon,” Dr. Dalman observed.

The SVS AAA guidelines were published in January 2018 (J Vasc Surg 2018;67:2-77) and the ESVS guidelines followed 1 year later (Eur J Vasc Surg 2019;57:8-93).

The differences in the guidelines, although modest, are interesting because each set of guidelines was based largely on the same set of trials and published studies, according to Dr. Dalman, who was a coauthor of the SVS guidelines and an external reviewer for the ESVS guidelines.

In the lag between completion of the two guidelines, new information led to three ESVS additions not found in the SVS guidelines, according to Dr. Dalman. They involved the importance of considering aneurysm diameter as a prognostic factor, new understanding of the limitations on endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), and new information about how aneurysm size should affect frequency of surveillance.

Overall, the U.S. guidelines contain 111 recommendations based on 177 references, while the ESVS guidelines contain 125 guidelines based on 189 references. In retrospect, Dr. Dalman believes both sets of guidelines omitted some clinically meaningful information, such as the risk of large-diameter devices for causing endoleaks.

The authors of the ESVS guidelines did have an opportunity to review of a draft of the SVS guidelines, so differences can be interpreted as intentional. For example, the SVS guidelines recommend risk calculators, but Dr. Dalman suggested that the authors of the ESVS guidelines were less convinced that their utility was established.

The decision not to recommend a door-to-treatment time for ruptured aneurysms, as in the SVS recommendations, might have been in deference to disparate practice across European countries, Dr. Dalman suggested.

Ultimately, the guidelines are “substantially similar,” according to Dr. Dalman, but he expressed concerned that neither guideline is accompanied by a specific mechanism or recommended strategy to ensure implementation.

Many of the SVS recommendations are likely to be translated into quality metrics at U.S. institutions, but “there are implementation issues” for ensuring that each guideline is applied, Dr. Dalman said.

Given the agreement on the vast majority of the recommendations, Dr. Dalman suggested that “it might be time to consider global guidelines” for management of AAA and other vascular diseases. Some type of language might be required to accommodate divergent resources or practices across borders, but Dr. Dalman questioned the need to review the same literature to arrive at mostly the same conclusions.

NEW YORK – Published 12 months apart, guidelines on management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from the European Society for Vascular Surgery are similar but diverged in instructive ways from those of the Society for Vascular Surgery, according to a critical review at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. “Some of the differences were almost unavoidable in the sense that the ESVS guidelines represent multiple idiosyncratic health care systems across Europe,” reported Ronald L. Dalman, MD, chief of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

As a result, the ESVS guidelines provide very little specificity about pharmacologic options because of the differences in availability of these treatments within specific health systems. In addition, both open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are given similar emphasis because of the limited availability of EVAR in some parts of Europe.

“The ESVS guidelines specifically recommend repair of an aneurysm within 8 weeks when repair is indicated, but there are not many aneurysms that go 8 weeks in the U.S. without being fixed by a fee-for-service surgeon,” Dr. Dalman observed.

The SVS AAA guidelines were published in January 2018 (J Vasc Surg 2018;67:2-77) and the ESVS guidelines followed 1 year later (Eur J Vasc Surg 2019;57:8-93).

The differences in the guidelines, although modest, are interesting because each set of guidelines was based largely on the same set of trials and published studies, according to Dr. Dalman, who was a coauthor of the SVS guidelines and an external reviewer for the ESVS guidelines.

In the lag between completion of the two guidelines, new information led to three ESVS additions not found in the SVS guidelines, according to Dr. Dalman. They involved the importance of considering aneurysm diameter as a prognostic factor, new understanding of the limitations on endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), and new information about how aneurysm size should affect frequency of surveillance.

Overall, the U.S. guidelines contain 111 recommendations based on 177 references, while the ESVS guidelines contain 125 guidelines based on 189 references. In retrospect, Dr. Dalman believes both sets of guidelines omitted some clinically meaningful information, such as the risk of large-diameter devices for causing endoleaks.

The authors of the ESVS guidelines did have an opportunity to review of a draft of the SVS guidelines, so differences can be interpreted as intentional. For example, the SVS guidelines recommend risk calculators, but Dr. Dalman suggested that the authors of the ESVS guidelines were less convinced that their utility was established.

The decision not to recommend a door-to-treatment time for ruptured aneurysms, as in the SVS recommendations, might have been in deference to disparate practice across European countries, Dr. Dalman suggested.

Ultimately, the guidelines are “substantially similar,” according to Dr. Dalman, but he expressed concerned that neither guideline is accompanied by a specific mechanism or recommended strategy to ensure implementation.

Many of the SVS recommendations are likely to be translated into quality metrics at U.S. institutions, but “there are implementation issues” for ensuring that each guideline is applied, Dr. Dalman said.

Given the agreement on the vast majority of the recommendations, Dr. Dalman suggested that “it might be time to consider global guidelines” for management of AAA and other vascular diseases. Some type of language might be required to accommodate divergent resources or practices across borders, but Dr. Dalman questioned the need to review the same literature to arrive at mostly the same conclusions.

NEW YORK – Published 12 months apart, guidelines on management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from the European Society for Vascular Surgery are similar but diverged in instructive ways from those of the Society for Vascular Surgery, according to a critical review at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. “Some of the differences were almost unavoidable in the sense that the ESVS guidelines represent multiple idiosyncratic health care systems across Europe,” reported Ronald L. Dalman, MD, chief of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

As a result, the ESVS guidelines provide very little specificity about pharmacologic options because of the differences in availability of these treatments within specific health systems. In addition, both open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are given similar emphasis because of the limited availability of EVAR in some parts of Europe.

“The ESVS guidelines specifically recommend repair of an aneurysm within 8 weeks when repair is indicated, but there are not many aneurysms that go 8 weeks in the U.S. without being fixed by a fee-for-service surgeon,” Dr. Dalman observed.

The SVS AAA guidelines were published in January 2018 (J Vasc Surg 2018;67:2-77) and the ESVS guidelines followed 1 year later (Eur J Vasc Surg 2019;57:8-93).

The differences in the guidelines, although modest, are interesting because each set of guidelines was based largely on the same set of trials and published studies, according to Dr. Dalman, who was a coauthor of the SVS guidelines and an external reviewer for the ESVS guidelines.

In the lag between completion of the two guidelines, new information led to three ESVS additions not found in the SVS guidelines, according to Dr. Dalman. They involved the importance of considering aneurysm diameter as a prognostic factor, new understanding of the limitations on endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), and new information about how aneurysm size should affect frequency of surveillance.

Overall, the U.S. guidelines contain 111 recommendations based on 177 references, while the ESVS guidelines contain 125 guidelines based on 189 references. In retrospect, Dr. Dalman believes both sets of guidelines omitted some clinically meaningful information, such as the risk of large-diameter devices for causing endoleaks.

The authors of the ESVS guidelines did have an opportunity to review of a draft of the SVS guidelines, so differences can be interpreted as intentional. For example, the SVS guidelines recommend risk calculators, but Dr. Dalman suggested that the authors of the ESVS guidelines were less convinced that their utility was established.

The decision not to recommend a door-to-treatment time for ruptured aneurysms, as in the SVS recommendations, might have been in deference to disparate practice across European countries, Dr. Dalman suggested.

Ultimately, the guidelines are “substantially similar,” according to Dr. Dalman, but he expressed concerned that neither guideline is accompanied by a specific mechanism or recommended strategy to ensure implementation.

Many of the SVS recommendations are likely to be translated into quality metrics at U.S. institutions, but “there are implementation issues” for ensuring that each guideline is applied, Dr. Dalman said.

Given the agreement on the vast majority of the recommendations, Dr. Dalman suggested that “it might be time to consider global guidelines” for management of AAA and other vascular diseases. Some type of language might be required to accommodate divergent resources or practices across borders, but Dr. Dalman questioned the need to review the same literature to arrive at mostly the same conclusions.

PHILADELPHIA – Coronary revascularization in patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and stable ischemic heart disease accomplishes nothing constructive, according to clear-cut results of the landmark ISCHEMIA-CKD trial.

In this multinational randomized trial including 777 stable patients with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia on noninvasive testing, an early invasive strategy didn’t reduce the risks of death or ischemic events, didn’t provide any significant improvement in quality of life metrics, and resulted in an increased risk of stroke, Sripal Bangalore, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Overall, an initial invasive strategy did not demonstrate a reduced risk of clinical outcomes as compared with an initial conservative strategy,” said Dr. Bangalore, professor of medicine and director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

This was easily the largest-ever trial of an invasive versus conservative coronary artery disease management strategy in this challenging population. For example, in the COURAGE trial of optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease (N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356[15]:1503-16), only 16 of the 2,287 participants had an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Of note, the participating study sites received special training aimed at minimizing the risk of acute kidney injury after cardiac catheterization in this at-risk population. The training included utilization of a customized left ventricular end diastolic volume–based hydration protocol, guidance on how to perform percutaneous coronary intervention with little or no contrast material, and encouragement of a heart/kidney team approach involving a cardiologist, nephrologist, and cardiovascular surgeon. This training really paid off, with roughly a 7% incidence of acute kidney injury after catheterization.

“The expected rate in such patients would be 30%-60%,” according to Dr. Bangalore.

The primary endpoint in ISCHEMIA-CKD was the rates of death or MI during 3 years of prospective follow-up. This occurred in 36.7% of patients randomized to optimal medical therapy alone and 36.4% of those randomized to an early invasive strategy. Similarly, the major secondary endpoint, comprising death, MI, and hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, was also a virtual dead heat, occurring in about 39% of subjects. More than 27% of study participants had died by the 3-year mark regardless of how their coronary disease was managed.

The adjusted risk of stroke was 3.76-fold higher in the invasive strategy group; however, the most strokes were not procedurally related, and the explanation for the significantly increased risk in the invasively managed group remains unknown, the cardiologist said.

John A. Spertus, MD, who led the quality of life assessment in ISCHEMIA-CKD and in the 5,129-patient parent ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), also presented at the AHA scientific sessions. He reported that, unlike in the parent study, there was no hint of a meaningful long-term quality of life benefit for revascularization plus optimal medical therapy, compared with that of optimal medical therapy alone, in ISCHEMIA-CKD.

“We have greater than 93% confidence that there is more of a quality of life effect in patients without advanced CKD than in patients with advanced CKD,” said Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at the Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Discussant Glenn L. Levine, MD, hailed ISCHEMIA-CKD as “a monumental achievement,” an ambitious, well-powered study with essentially no loss of follow-up during up to 4 years. It helps fill an utter void in the AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines, which to date offer no recommendations at all regarding revascularization in patients with CKD because of a lack of evidence. And he considers ISCHEMIA-CKD to be unequivocally practice changing and guideline changing.

“Based on the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, I will generally not go searching for ischemia and [coronary artery disease] in most severe and end-stage CKD patients, absent marked or unacceptable angina, and will treat them with medical therapy alone,” declared Dr. Levine, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and director of the cardiac care unit at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.

He offered a few caveats. Excluded from participation in ISCHEMIA-CKD were patients with acute coronary syndrome, significant heart failure, or unacceptable angina despite optimal medical therapy at baseline, so the study results don’t apply to them. Also, the acute kidney injury rate after intervention was eye-catchingly low.

Dr. Bangalore discussed the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial and outcomes in a video interview with Medscape’s Tricia Ward.

“It seems unlikely that all centers routinely do and will exactly follow the very careful measures to limit contrast and minimize contrast nephropathy used in this study,” Dr. Levine commented.

ISCHEMIA-CKD, like its parent ISCHEMIA trial, was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore reported having no relevant financial interests. Dr. Spertus holds the copyright for the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, which was used for quality of life measurement in the trials. Dr. Levine disclosed that he has no relations with industry or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Coronary revascularization in patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and stable ischemic heart disease accomplishes nothing constructive, according to clear-cut results of the landmark ISCHEMIA-CKD trial.

In this multinational randomized trial including 777 stable patients with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia on noninvasive testing, an early invasive strategy didn’t reduce the risks of death or ischemic events, didn’t provide any significant improvement in quality of life metrics, and resulted in an increased risk of stroke, Sripal Bangalore, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Overall, an initial invasive strategy did not demonstrate a reduced risk of clinical outcomes as compared with an initial conservative strategy,” said Dr. Bangalore, professor of medicine and director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

This was easily the largest-ever trial of an invasive versus conservative coronary artery disease management strategy in this challenging population. For example, in the COURAGE trial of optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease (N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356[15]:1503-16), only 16 of the 2,287 participants had an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Of note, the participating study sites received special training aimed at minimizing the risk of acute kidney injury after cardiac catheterization in this at-risk population. The training included utilization of a customized left ventricular end diastolic volume–based hydration protocol, guidance on how to perform percutaneous coronary intervention with little or no contrast material, and encouragement of a heart/kidney team approach involving a cardiologist, nephrologist, and cardiovascular surgeon. This training really paid off, with roughly a 7% incidence of acute kidney injury after catheterization.

“The expected rate in such patients would be 30%-60%,” according to Dr. Bangalore.

The primary endpoint in ISCHEMIA-CKD was the rates of death or MI during 3 years of prospective follow-up. This occurred in 36.7% of patients randomized to optimal medical therapy alone and 36.4% of those randomized to an early invasive strategy. Similarly, the major secondary endpoint, comprising death, MI, and hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, was also a virtual dead heat, occurring in about 39% of subjects. More than 27% of study participants had died by the 3-year mark regardless of how their coronary disease was managed.

The adjusted risk of stroke was 3.76-fold higher in the invasive strategy group; however, the most strokes were not procedurally related, and the explanation for the significantly increased risk in the invasively managed group remains unknown, the cardiologist said.

John A. Spertus, MD, who led the quality of life assessment in ISCHEMIA-CKD and in the 5,129-patient parent ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), also presented at the AHA scientific sessions. He reported that, unlike in the parent study, there was no hint of a meaningful long-term quality of life benefit for revascularization plus optimal medical therapy, compared with that of optimal medical therapy alone, in ISCHEMIA-CKD.

“We have greater than 93% confidence that there is more of a quality of life effect in patients without advanced CKD than in patients with advanced CKD,” said Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at the Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Discussant Glenn L. Levine, MD, hailed ISCHEMIA-CKD as “a monumental achievement,” an ambitious, well-powered study with essentially no loss of follow-up during up to 4 years. It helps fill an utter void in the AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines, which to date offer no recommendations at all regarding revascularization in patients with CKD because of a lack of evidence. And he considers ISCHEMIA-CKD to be unequivocally practice changing and guideline changing.

“Based on the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, I will generally not go searching for ischemia and [coronary artery disease] in most severe and end-stage CKD patients, absent marked or unacceptable angina, and will treat them with medical therapy alone,” declared Dr. Levine, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and director of the cardiac care unit at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.

He offered a few caveats. Excluded from participation in ISCHEMIA-CKD were patients with acute coronary syndrome, significant heart failure, or unacceptable angina despite optimal medical therapy at baseline, so the study results don’t apply to them. Also, the acute kidney injury rate after intervention was eye-catchingly low.

Dr. Bangalore discussed the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial and outcomes in a video interview with Medscape’s Tricia Ward.

“It seems unlikely that all centers routinely do and will exactly follow the very careful measures to limit contrast and minimize contrast nephropathy used in this study,” Dr. Levine commented.

ISCHEMIA-CKD, like its parent ISCHEMIA trial, was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore reported having no relevant financial interests. Dr. Spertus holds the copyright for the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, which was used for quality of life measurement in the trials. Dr. Levine disclosed that he has no relations with industry or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Coronary revascularization in patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and stable ischemic heart disease accomplishes nothing constructive, according to clear-cut results of the landmark ISCHEMIA-CKD trial.

In this multinational randomized trial including 777 stable patients with advanced CKD and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia on noninvasive testing, an early invasive strategy didn’t reduce the risks of death or ischemic events, didn’t provide any significant improvement in quality of life metrics, and resulted in an increased risk of stroke, Sripal Bangalore, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Overall, an initial invasive strategy did not demonstrate a reduced risk of clinical outcomes as compared with an initial conservative strategy,” said Dr. Bangalore, professor of medicine and director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

This was easily the largest-ever trial of an invasive versus conservative coronary artery disease management strategy in this challenging population. For example, in the COURAGE trial of optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease (N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356[15]:1503-16), only 16 of the 2,287 participants had an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Of note, the participating study sites received special training aimed at minimizing the risk of acute kidney injury after cardiac catheterization in this at-risk population. The training included utilization of a customized left ventricular end diastolic volume–based hydration protocol, guidance on how to perform percutaneous coronary intervention with little or no contrast material, and encouragement of a heart/kidney team approach involving a cardiologist, nephrologist, and cardiovascular surgeon. This training really paid off, with roughly a 7% incidence of acute kidney injury after catheterization.

“The expected rate in such patients would be 30%-60%,” according to Dr. Bangalore.

The primary endpoint in ISCHEMIA-CKD was the rates of death or MI during 3 years of prospective follow-up. This occurred in 36.7% of patients randomized to optimal medical therapy alone and 36.4% of those randomized to an early invasive strategy. Similarly, the major secondary endpoint, comprising death, MI, and hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, was also a virtual dead heat, occurring in about 39% of subjects. More than 27% of study participants had died by the 3-year mark regardless of how their coronary disease was managed.

The adjusted risk of stroke was 3.76-fold higher in the invasive strategy group; however, the most strokes were not procedurally related, and the explanation for the significantly increased risk in the invasively managed group remains unknown, the cardiologist said.

John A. Spertus, MD, who led the quality of life assessment in ISCHEMIA-CKD and in the 5,129-patient parent ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), also presented at the AHA scientific sessions. He reported that, unlike in the parent study, there was no hint of a meaningful long-term quality of life benefit for revascularization plus optimal medical therapy, compared with that of optimal medical therapy alone, in ISCHEMIA-CKD.

“We have greater than 93% confidence that there is more of a quality of life effect in patients without advanced CKD than in patients with advanced CKD,” said Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at the Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Discussant Glenn L. Levine, MD, hailed ISCHEMIA-CKD as “a monumental achievement,” an ambitious, well-powered study with essentially no loss of follow-up during up to 4 years. It helps fill an utter void in the AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines, which to date offer no recommendations at all regarding revascularization in patients with CKD because of a lack of evidence. And he considers ISCHEMIA-CKD to be unequivocally practice changing and guideline changing.

“Based on the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, I will generally not go searching for ischemia and [coronary artery disease] in most severe and end-stage CKD patients, absent marked or unacceptable angina, and will treat them with medical therapy alone,” declared Dr. Levine, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and director of the cardiac care unit at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.

He offered a few caveats. Excluded from participation in ISCHEMIA-CKD were patients with acute coronary syndrome, significant heart failure, or unacceptable angina despite optimal medical therapy at baseline, so the study results don’t apply to them. Also, the acute kidney injury rate after intervention was eye-catchingly low.

Dr. Bangalore discussed the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial and outcomes in a video interview with Medscape’s Tricia Ward.

“It seems unlikely that all centers routinely do and will exactly follow the very careful measures to limit contrast and minimize contrast nephropathy used in this study,” Dr. Levine commented.

ISCHEMIA-CKD, like its parent ISCHEMIA trial, was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore reported having no relevant financial interests. Dr. Spertus holds the copyright for the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, which was used for quality of life measurement in the trials. Dr. Levine disclosed that he has no relations with industry or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.

The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.

The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.

The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.

Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.

Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”

The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y₁₂ inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.

“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.

The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).

The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.

Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.

PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.

The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.

The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.

The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.

Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.

Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”

The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y₁₂ inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.

“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.

The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).

The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.

Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.

PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.

The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.

The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.

The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.

Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.

Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”

The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y₁₂ inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.

“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.

The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).

The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.

Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.

PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.

In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.

However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.

Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.

The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.

Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”

Copyright American Heart Association

Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.

GALILEO

Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.

These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.

In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.

From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).

The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).

Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).

Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).

A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).

The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”

Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.

Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”

Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.

“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.

The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.

GALILEO 4D

However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.

The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.

The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).

“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.

However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”

Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.

Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.

“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.

The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.

That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.

“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”

The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.

Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.

“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”

While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.

The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”

Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.

“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.

“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”

Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.

The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.

This article also appears on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.

In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.

However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.

Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.

The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.

Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”

Copyright American Heart Association

Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.

GALILEO

Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.

These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.

In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.

From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).

The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).

Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).

Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).

A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).

The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”

Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.

Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”

Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.

“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.

The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.

GALILEO 4D

However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.

The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.

The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).

“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.

However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”

Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.

Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.

“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.

The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.

That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.

“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”

The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.

Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.

“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”

While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.

The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”

Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.

“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.

“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”

Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.

The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.

This article also appears on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.

In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.

However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.

Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.

The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.

Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”

Copyright American Heart Association

Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.

GALILEO

Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.

These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.

In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.

From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).

The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).

Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).

Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).

A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).

The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”

Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.

Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”

Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.

“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.

The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.

GALILEO 4D

However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.

The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.

The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).

“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.

However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”

Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.

Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.

“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.

The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.

That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.

“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”

The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.

Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.

“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”

While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.

The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”

Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.

“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.

“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”

Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.

The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.

This article also appears on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – The eagerly awaited results of the ISCHEMIA trial – the largest-ever randomized trial of an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease – were emphatically declared practice-changing by interventional cardiologists and noninterventionalists alike at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a median 3.3 years of follow-up of 5,179 participants with baseline moderate or severe ischemia at 320 sites in 37 countries in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy accompanied by optimal medical therapy (OMT) didn’t reduce the risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, compared with a conservative strategy of OMT alone. The rates at 4 years were 15.5% with the conservative strategy and 13.3% with the invasive strategy, reported study chair Judith S. Hochman, MD, professor of medicine and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University.

Nor was there a significant between-group difference in the major secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI: 13.9% with the conservative strategy, 11.7% with invasive management.

“The probability of at least a 10% benefit of the invasive strategy on all-cause mortality was less than 10%, based on a prespecified Bayesian analysis,” she added.

Prior to enrollment and randomization, CT angiography was routinely performed to rule out left main coronary artery disease.

Fifty-four percent of participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded trial had severe ischemia on a baseline noninvasive stress test. To the investigators’ surprise, patients with more severe ischemia or more extensive multivessel involvement didn’t do better with the invasive approach.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the conservative management group crossed over to revascularization within 4 years.
 

Quality-of-life results

An invasive strategy did result in significantly greater improvement in angina control and quality of life, as measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, than OMT alone in patients who had angina at least once a month at baseline.

“We have 100% confidence that there is a treatment benefit associated with an invasive approach early as well as late after randomization,” said John A. Spertus, MD, coprincipal investigator for the ISCHEMIA quality of life analysis.

Indeed, he calculated that, for patients with weekly angina, the number needed to treat with revascularization instead of OMT alone for one to be angina-free at 3 months was three.

However, in the 35% of ISCHEMIA participants who reported no angina within the past month at baseline, the invasive strategy offered no quality of life advantage, he added.

“I really think we need to hit ‘pause’ on asymptomatic revascularization. I just don’t see any benefit in patients without symptoms, left main disease excluded,” commented Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

The reaction

ISCHEMIA addressed a key clinical issue that’s long been surrounded by equipoise because of a paucity of high-quality data. As such, it was deemed worthy of its own AHA Late-Breaking Science session. The assembled discussants agreed the results will change their clinical practice.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hochman JS. AHA late breaker.

PHILADELPHIA – The eagerly awaited results of the ISCHEMIA trial – the largest-ever randomized trial of an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease – were emphatically declared practice-changing by interventional cardiologists and noninterventionalists alike at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a median 3.3 years of follow-up of 5,179 participants with baseline moderate or severe ischemia at 320 sites in 37 countries in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy accompanied by optimal medical therapy (OMT) didn’t reduce the risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, compared with a conservative strategy of OMT alone. The rates at 4 years were 15.5% with the conservative strategy and 13.3% with the invasive strategy, reported study chair Judith S. Hochman, MD, professor of medicine and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University.

Nor was there a significant between-group difference in the major secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI: 13.9% with the conservative strategy, 11.7% with invasive management.

“The probability of at least a 10% benefit of the invasive strategy on all-cause mortality was less than 10%, based on a prespecified Bayesian analysis,” she added.

Prior to enrollment and randomization, CT angiography was routinely performed to rule out left main coronary artery disease.

Fifty-four percent of participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded trial had severe ischemia on a baseline noninvasive stress test. To the investigators’ surprise, patients with more severe ischemia or more extensive multivessel involvement didn’t do better with the invasive approach.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the conservative management group crossed over to revascularization within 4 years.
 

Quality-of-life results

An invasive strategy did result in significantly greater improvement in angina control and quality of life, as measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, than OMT alone in patients who had angina at least once a month at baseline.

“We have 100% confidence that there is a treatment benefit associated with an invasive approach early as well as late after randomization,” said John A. Spertus, MD, coprincipal investigator for the ISCHEMIA quality of life analysis.

Indeed, he calculated that, for patients with weekly angina, the number needed to treat with revascularization instead of OMT alone for one to be angina-free at 3 months was three.

However, in the 35% of ISCHEMIA participants who reported no angina within the past month at baseline, the invasive strategy offered no quality of life advantage, he added.

“I really think we need to hit ‘pause’ on asymptomatic revascularization. I just don’t see any benefit in patients without symptoms, left main disease excluded,” commented Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

The reaction

ISCHEMIA addressed a key clinical issue that’s long been surrounded by equipoise because of a paucity of high-quality data. As such, it was deemed worthy of its own AHA Late-Breaking Science session. The assembled discussants agreed the results will change their clinical practice.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hochman JS. AHA late breaker.

PHILADELPHIA – The eagerly awaited results of the ISCHEMIA trial – the largest-ever randomized trial of an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease – were emphatically declared practice-changing by interventional cardiologists and noninterventionalists alike at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a median 3.3 years of follow-up of 5,179 participants with baseline moderate or severe ischemia at 320 sites in 37 countries in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy accompanied by optimal medical therapy (OMT) didn’t reduce the risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, compared with a conservative strategy of OMT alone. The rates at 4 years were 15.5% with the conservative strategy and 13.3% with the invasive strategy, reported study chair Judith S. Hochman, MD, professor of medicine and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University.

Nor was there a significant between-group difference in the major secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI: 13.9% with the conservative strategy, 11.7% with invasive management.

“The probability of at least a 10% benefit of the invasive strategy on all-cause mortality was less than 10%, based on a prespecified Bayesian analysis,” she added.

Prior to enrollment and randomization, CT angiography was routinely performed to rule out left main coronary artery disease.

Fifty-four percent of participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded trial had severe ischemia on a baseline noninvasive stress test. To the investigators’ surprise, patients with more severe ischemia or more extensive multivessel involvement didn’t do better with the invasive approach.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the conservative management group crossed over to revascularization within 4 years.
 

Quality-of-life results

An invasive strategy did result in significantly greater improvement in angina control and quality of life, as measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, than OMT alone in patients who had angina at least once a month at baseline.

“We have 100% confidence that there is a treatment benefit associated with an invasive approach early as well as late after randomization,” said John A. Spertus, MD, coprincipal investigator for the ISCHEMIA quality of life analysis.

Indeed, he calculated that, for patients with weekly angina, the number needed to treat with revascularization instead of OMT alone for one to be angina-free at 3 months was three.

However, in the 35% of ISCHEMIA participants who reported no angina within the past month at baseline, the invasive strategy offered no quality of life advantage, he added.

“I really think we need to hit ‘pause’ on asymptomatic revascularization. I just don’t see any benefit in patients without symptoms, left main disease excluded,” commented Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

The reaction

ISCHEMIA addressed a key clinical issue that’s long been surrounded by equipoise because of a paucity of high-quality data. As such, it was deemed worthy of its own AHA Late-Breaking Science session. The assembled discussants agreed the results will change their clinical practice.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hochman JS. AHA late breaker.

Dobutamine stress echocardiography could be used to predict which patients with single-vessel stable coronary artery disease are most likely to benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention, according to secondary analysis of data from the ORBITA trial.

In a study to be presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions on Nov. 16, researchers outline the results of a stress-echo stratification of patients who participated in the Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) trial.

©Thinkstock

Patients with a prerandomization stress echo score at or above 1 were three times more likely to have a lower angina frequency score with PCI than with placebo (odds ratio, 3.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.38, 7.34; P = .007). They were also more than four times more likely to be free from angina with PCI compared to placebo (OR, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.70, 12.60; P = .003).

“We have previously found that there is a clear relationship between invasive physiology and stress echo score but no relationship between invasive physiology and placebo-controlled symptom improvement,” the authors wrote. “The present analysis shows that there is clear evidence of a relationship between ischemia on stress echo and the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on frequency of angina.”

The analysis, however, found no detectable interaction between prerandomization stress echo score and the effect of PCI on physical limitation score, quality of life, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class score, or treadmill time.

The mean prerandomization stress echo score was 1.56 in the PCI arm and 1.61 in the placebo arm.

The study also looked at the relationship between prerandomization stress echo score and fractional flow reserve. This revealed that, as the stress echo score increased with a greater number of ischemia myocardial segments, the fractional flow reserve value decreased, pointing to a greater degree of ischemia. Researchers also noted that as the stress echo score became larger, the instantaneous wave-free ratio also decreased significantly.

“This stress echo-stratified analysis shows the link between stress-induced myocardial wall motion abnormalities and patient-reported angina frequency,” the authors wrote. “The greater the ischemia on [dobutamine stress echocardiography], the greater the placebo-controlled angina relief from PCI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Foundation for Circulatory Health, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, and in-kind support from Philips Volcano. Two authors declared patents relating to technology used in the study and three declared consultancies, speakers’ fees, and research grants from Philips Volcano. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Al-Lamee R et al. Circulation. 2019 Nov 11. doi: doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042918.

Dobutamine stress echocardiography could be used to predict which patients with single-vessel stable coronary artery disease are most likely to benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention, according to secondary analysis of data from the ORBITA trial.

In a study to be presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions on Nov. 16, researchers outline the results of a stress-echo stratification of patients who participated in the Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) trial.

©Thinkstock

Patients with a prerandomization stress echo score at or above 1 were three times more likely to have a lower angina frequency score with PCI than with placebo (odds ratio, 3.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.38, 7.34; P = .007). They were also more than four times more likely to be free from angina with PCI compared to placebo (OR, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.70, 12.60; P = .003).

“We have previously found that there is a clear relationship between invasive physiology and stress echo score but no relationship between invasive physiology and placebo-controlled symptom improvement,” the authors wrote. “The present analysis shows that there is clear evidence of a relationship between ischemia on stress echo and the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on frequency of angina.”

The analysis, however, found no detectable interaction between prerandomization stress echo score and the effect of PCI on physical limitation score, quality of life, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class score, or treadmill time.

The mean prerandomization stress echo score was 1.56 in the PCI arm and 1.61 in the placebo arm.

The study also looked at the relationship between prerandomization stress echo score and fractional flow reserve. This revealed that, as the stress echo score increased with a greater number of ischemia myocardial segments, the fractional flow reserve value decreased, pointing to a greater degree of ischemia. Researchers also noted that as the stress echo score became larger, the instantaneous wave-free ratio also decreased significantly.

“This stress echo-stratified analysis shows the link between stress-induced myocardial wall motion abnormalities and patient-reported angina frequency,” the authors wrote. “The greater the ischemia on [dobutamine stress echocardiography], the greater the placebo-controlled angina relief from PCI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Foundation for Circulatory Health, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, and in-kind support from Philips Volcano. Two authors declared patents relating to technology used in the study and three declared consultancies, speakers’ fees, and research grants from Philips Volcano. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Al-Lamee R et al. Circulation. 2019 Nov 11. doi: doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042918.

Dobutamine stress echocardiography could be used to predict which patients with single-vessel stable coronary artery disease are most likely to benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention, according to secondary analysis of data from the ORBITA trial.

In a study to be presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions on Nov. 16, researchers outline the results of a stress-echo stratification of patients who participated in the Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) trial.

©Thinkstock

Patients with a prerandomization stress echo score at or above 1 were three times more likely to have a lower angina frequency score with PCI than with placebo (odds ratio, 3.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.38, 7.34; P = .007). They were also more than four times more likely to be free from angina with PCI compared to placebo (OR, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.70, 12.60; P = .003).

“We have previously found that there is a clear relationship between invasive physiology and stress echo score but no relationship between invasive physiology and placebo-controlled symptom improvement,” the authors wrote. “The present analysis shows that there is clear evidence of a relationship between ischemia on stress echo and the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on frequency of angina.”

The analysis, however, found no detectable interaction between prerandomization stress echo score and the effect of PCI on physical limitation score, quality of life, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class score, or treadmill time.

The mean prerandomization stress echo score was 1.56 in the PCI arm and 1.61 in the placebo arm.

The study also looked at the relationship between prerandomization stress echo score and fractional flow reserve. This revealed that, as the stress echo score increased with a greater number of ischemia myocardial segments, the fractional flow reserve value decreased, pointing to a greater degree of ischemia. Researchers also noted that as the stress echo score became larger, the instantaneous wave-free ratio also decreased significantly.

“This stress echo-stratified analysis shows the link between stress-induced myocardial wall motion abnormalities and patient-reported angina frequency,” the authors wrote. “The greater the ischemia on [dobutamine stress echocardiography], the greater the placebo-controlled angina relief from PCI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Foundation for Circulatory Health, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, and in-kind support from Philips Volcano. Two authors declared patents relating to technology used in the study and three declared consultancies, speakers’ fees, and research grants from Philips Volcano. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Al-Lamee R et al. Circulation. 2019 Nov 11. doi: doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042918.

SAN FRANCISCO – Volume matters when it comes to mitral valve repair/replacement for primary mitral regurgitation. The more cases a physician and hospital do, the better the outcomes, according to a review of 55,311 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Investigators “found a clear inflection point at approximately 75 cases” for hospitals and 35 cases for individual surgeons when the curves for successful mitral repair and 30-day operative mortality start to level out. Nationwide, 148 hospitals (14%) in the analysis did 75 or more mitral cases a year, and 303 surgeons (13%) did at least 35.

Lead investigator Vinay Badhwar, MD, professor and chair of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at West Virginia University, Morgantown, estimated that about 90% of Americans have access to a regional hospital that does at least 25 mitral procedures annually, and about 82% can use a regional hospital that does at least 40. Meanwhile, the rate of mitral valve repair for primary mitral regurgitation was 81% (44,692/55,311) in the study, up from about 60% a decade ago.

“We are getting there; we are getting better,” Dr. Badhwar said at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. By defining volume cut points, he said the findings could be useful in future guidelines to steer referrals to higher-volume centers.

“We really needed these data, because we’ve had so many other pieces pointing to the volume repair rates and technical success, which clearly is related to volume. Now we have the outcome data we’ve been looking for; this ties it together. There really is an impact on patient outcomes,” Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented.

The team divided annual case volume into quartiles. The lowest hospital quartile did fewer than 11 cases a year, and the highest more than 46. The lowest-quartile surgeons did fewer than 6 cases a year, and the highest more than 20. Lowest-quartile surgeons and hospitals, versus the highest, had higher operative mortality and 30-day morbidity and mortality, and lower 1-year survival.

Patients in the lowest quartile were also more likely to be black or Hispanic (14.8% versus 10.2%); have no insurance (4.0% versus 2.4%); and more severe symptom presentation (31.9% versus 23.8% class III or IV heart failure). The differences were highly statistically significant.

Study moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said there’s a role for advocacy to get more people to high-volume centers. “Just because you live in an area that has a good program doesn’t mean that you are actually going to get referred to that program. We find a lot that it’s advocacy that is important,” especially with the disparities noted in the study. “Not everybody has an advocate who says, ‘Don’t do it here; do it someplace else,’ ” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

And not everyone has an advocate to get them to the right surgeon, even if they get to the right program. “There are cardiac procedures that most surgeons can do well. Mitral valve surgery is one of those that should be super specialized,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott and White Health System, Dallas.

No industry funding was reported. Dr. Badhwar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Badhwar V et al. TCT 2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – Volume matters when it comes to mitral valve repair/replacement for primary mitral regurgitation. The more cases a physician and hospital do, the better the outcomes, according to a review of 55,311 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Investigators “found a clear inflection point at approximately 75 cases” for hospitals and 35 cases for individual surgeons when the curves for successful mitral repair and 30-day operative mortality start to level out. Nationwide, 148 hospitals (14%) in the analysis did 75 or more mitral cases a year, and 303 surgeons (13%) did at least 35.

Lead investigator Vinay Badhwar, MD, professor and chair of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at West Virginia University, Morgantown, estimated that about 90% of Americans have access to a regional hospital that does at least 25 mitral procedures annually, and about 82% can use a regional hospital that does at least 40. Meanwhile, the rate of mitral valve repair for primary mitral regurgitation was 81% (44,692/55,311) in the study, up from about 60% a decade ago.

“We are getting there; we are getting better,” Dr. Badhwar said at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. By defining volume cut points, he said the findings could be useful in future guidelines to steer referrals to higher-volume centers.

“We really needed these data, because we’ve had so many other pieces pointing to the volume repair rates and technical success, which clearly is related to volume. Now we have the outcome data we’ve been looking for; this ties it together. There really is an impact on patient outcomes,” Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented.

The team divided annual case volume into quartiles. The lowest hospital quartile did fewer than 11 cases a year, and the highest more than 46. The lowest-quartile surgeons did fewer than 6 cases a year, and the highest more than 20. Lowest-quartile surgeons and hospitals, versus the highest, had higher operative mortality and 30-day morbidity and mortality, and lower 1-year survival.

Patients in the lowest quartile were also more likely to be black or Hispanic (14.8% versus 10.2%); have no insurance (4.0% versus 2.4%); and more severe symptom presentation (31.9% versus 23.8% class III or IV heart failure). The differences were highly statistically significant.

Study moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said there’s a role for advocacy to get more people to high-volume centers. “Just because you live in an area that has a good program doesn’t mean that you are actually going to get referred to that program. We find a lot that it’s advocacy that is important,” especially with the disparities noted in the study. “Not everybody has an advocate who says, ‘Don’t do it here; do it someplace else,’ ” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

And not everyone has an advocate to get them to the right surgeon, even if they get to the right program. “There are cardiac procedures that most surgeons can do well. Mitral valve surgery is one of those that should be super specialized,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott and White Health System, Dallas.

No industry funding was reported. Dr. Badhwar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Badhwar V et al. TCT 2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – Volume matters when it comes to mitral valve repair/replacement for primary mitral regurgitation. The more cases a physician and hospital do, the better the outcomes, according to a review of 55,311 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Investigators “found a clear inflection point at approximately 75 cases” for hospitals and 35 cases for individual surgeons when the curves for successful mitral repair and 30-day operative mortality start to level out. Nationwide, 148 hospitals (14%) in the analysis did 75 or more mitral cases a year, and 303 surgeons (13%) did at least 35.

Lead investigator Vinay Badhwar, MD, professor and chair of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at West Virginia University, Morgantown, estimated that about 90% of Americans have access to a regional hospital that does at least 25 mitral procedures annually, and about 82% can use a regional hospital that does at least 40. Meanwhile, the rate of mitral valve repair for primary mitral regurgitation was 81% (44,692/55,311) in the study, up from about 60% a decade ago.

“We are getting there; we are getting better,” Dr. Badhwar said at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. By defining volume cut points, he said the findings could be useful in future guidelines to steer referrals to higher-volume centers.

“We really needed these data, because we’ve had so many other pieces pointing to the volume repair rates and technical success, which clearly is related to volume. Now we have the outcome data we’ve been looking for; this ties it together. There really is an impact on patient outcomes,” Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented.

The team divided annual case volume into quartiles. The lowest hospital quartile did fewer than 11 cases a year, and the highest more than 46. The lowest-quartile surgeons did fewer than 6 cases a year, and the highest more than 20. Lowest-quartile surgeons and hospitals, versus the highest, had higher operative mortality and 30-day morbidity and mortality, and lower 1-year survival.

Patients in the lowest quartile were also more likely to be black or Hispanic (14.8% versus 10.2%); have no insurance (4.0% versus 2.4%); and more severe symptom presentation (31.9% versus 23.8% class III or IV heart failure). The differences were highly statistically significant.

Study moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said there’s a role for advocacy to get more people to high-volume centers. “Just because you live in an area that has a good program doesn’t mean that you are actually going to get referred to that program. We find a lot that it’s advocacy that is important,” especially with the disparities noted in the study. “Not everybody has an advocate who says, ‘Don’t do it here; do it someplace else,’ ” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

And not everyone has an advocate to get them to the right surgeon, even if they get to the right program. “There are cardiac procedures that most surgeons can do well. Mitral valve surgery is one of those that should be super specialized,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott and White Health System, Dallas.

No industry funding was reported. Dr. Badhwar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Badhwar V et al. TCT 2019.

PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.

The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.

ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.

The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).

The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.

Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.

ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.

The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.

ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.

The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).

The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.

Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.

ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.

The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.

ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.

The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).

The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.

Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.

ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Survival after 12 months was more likely with transcatheter repair of tricuspid regurgitation instead of guideline-directed medical therapy, and patients were less likely to be rehospitalized with heart failure, in a propensity-matched case-control study presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Tricuspid regurgitation carries a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality, but there hasn’t been great success with surgical approaches, so several trials are underway assessing transcatheter repair. It’s unclear at the moment whether it will beat medical management, which generally includes diuretics and symptom relief, said lead investigator Maurizio Taramasso, MD, PhD, a cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist at the University Hospital of Zürich.

Dr. Taramasso and colleagues wanted to take a look at the issue pending results of the randomized trials. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty in regard to what we can do for the patient by reducing tricuspid regurgitation. [There are] no data showing that reducing tricuspid regurgitation improves survival,” he said at the meeting.

The investigators matched 268 patients from the international Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies registry treated during 2016-2018 with 268 medical-management patients from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Leiden (the Netherlands) University, based on age, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II scores, and systolic pulmonary artery pressure, the major predictor of poor outcomes in tricuspid regurgitation.

Even with matching, transcatheter patients were worse off, which is probably why they had valve repair in the first place, Dr. Taramasso said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. The baseline burden of right ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, and pacemaker placement were all significantly higher in the transcatheter group.

Even so, transcatheter patients had lower 1-year mortality (23% vs. 36%; P = .001) and fewer heart failure rehospitalizations (32% vs. 49%, P less than .0001). Transcatheter repair was associated with greater survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79; P = .003), which remained significant after adjusting for sex, New York Heart Association functional class, right ventricular dysfunction, and atrial fibrillation (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.59; P less than .0001), and after further adjustment for mitral regurgitation and pacemaker/defibrillator placement (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.54; P less than .0001). Subgroup analyses based on mitral regurgitation severity, pulmonary artery pressure, and other factors all favored repair.

“This is an important set of data to show that, indeed, fixing the tricuspid valve does lead to better outcomes, and perhaps we can do that with a transcatheter approach,” said Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, after hearing the presentation.

The fact that transcatheter patients were sicker when they were treated is reassuring, added moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.

The success rate for the procedure, which was to be alive at the end of it, with the device successfully implanted, the delivery system retrieved, and residual tricuspid regurgitation (TR) less than 3+, was 86%, and 85% of patients were treated with MitraClip, most with two or three clips. Outcomes were similar, but not worse, than medical management when TR wasn’t significantly reduced.

Operators were highly experienced, there were no emergent conversions to surgery, and patients tolerated the approach “pretty well,” Dr. Taramasso said. The lesson is that “we should really try to reduce TR, but just a little bit is not enough.” Overall, “we probably need better devices and better patient selection. With the data we are collecting, we’ll be able soon to known when late is too late, which patients should not be treated,” he said.

The study didn’t address postprocedure medications, but it’s been noted in the registry that medication use generally declines after a few months. Subjects tended to be aged in their mid-70s, and there were slightly more women than men.

The results were published online concurrently with Dr. Taramasso’s report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

No company funding was reported. Dr. Taramasso is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, 4TECH, and CoreMedic; and has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Taramasso M et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.028.

SAN FRANCISCO – Survival after 12 months was more likely with transcatheter repair of tricuspid regurgitation instead of guideline-directed medical therapy, and patients were less likely to be rehospitalized with heart failure, in a propensity-matched case-control study presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Tricuspid regurgitation carries a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality, but there hasn’t been great success with surgical approaches, so several trials are underway assessing transcatheter repair. It’s unclear at the moment whether it will beat medical management, which generally includes diuretics and symptom relief, said lead investigator Maurizio Taramasso, MD, PhD, a cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist at the University Hospital of Zürich.

Dr. Taramasso and colleagues wanted to take a look at the issue pending results of the randomized trials. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty in regard to what we can do for the patient by reducing tricuspid regurgitation. [There are] no data showing that reducing tricuspid regurgitation improves survival,” he said at the meeting.

The investigators matched 268 patients from the international Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies registry treated during 2016-2018 with 268 medical-management patients from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Leiden (the Netherlands) University, based on age, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II scores, and systolic pulmonary artery pressure, the major predictor of poor outcomes in tricuspid regurgitation.

Even with matching, transcatheter patients were worse off, which is probably why they had valve repair in the first place, Dr. Taramasso said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. The baseline burden of right ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, and pacemaker placement were all significantly higher in the transcatheter group.

Even so, transcatheter patients had lower 1-year mortality (23% vs. 36%; P = .001) and fewer heart failure rehospitalizations (32% vs. 49%, P less than .0001). Transcatheter repair was associated with greater survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79; P = .003), which remained significant after adjusting for sex, New York Heart Association functional class, right ventricular dysfunction, and atrial fibrillation (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.59; P less than .0001), and after further adjustment for mitral regurgitation and pacemaker/defibrillator placement (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.54; P less than .0001). Subgroup analyses based on mitral regurgitation severity, pulmonary artery pressure, and other factors all favored repair.

“This is an important set of data to show that, indeed, fixing the tricuspid valve does lead to better outcomes, and perhaps we can do that with a transcatheter approach,” said Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, after hearing the presentation.

The fact that transcatheter patients were sicker when they were treated is reassuring, added moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.

The success rate for the procedure, which was to be alive at the end of it, with the device successfully implanted, the delivery system retrieved, and residual tricuspid regurgitation (TR) less than 3+, was 86%, and 85% of patients were treated with MitraClip, most with two or three clips. Outcomes were similar, but not worse, than medical management when TR wasn’t significantly reduced.

Operators were highly experienced, there were no emergent conversions to surgery, and patients tolerated the approach “pretty well,” Dr. Taramasso said. The lesson is that “we should really try to reduce TR, but just a little bit is not enough.” Overall, “we probably need better devices and better patient selection. With the data we are collecting, we’ll be able soon to known when late is too late, which patients should not be treated,” he said.

The study didn’t address postprocedure medications, but it’s been noted in the registry that medication use generally declines after a few months. Subjects tended to be aged in their mid-70s, and there were slightly more women than men.

The results were published online concurrently with Dr. Taramasso’s report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

No company funding was reported. Dr. Taramasso is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, 4TECH, and CoreMedic; and has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Taramasso M et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.028.

SAN FRANCISCO – Survival after 12 months was more likely with transcatheter repair of tricuspid regurgitation instead of guideline-directed medical therapy, and patients were less likely to be rehospitalized with heart failure, in a propensity-matched case-control study presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Tricuspid regurgitation carries a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality, but there hasn’t been great success with surgical approaches, so several trials are underway assessing transcatheter repair. It’s unclear at the moment whether it will beat medical management, which generally includes diuretics and symptom relief, said lead investigator Maurizio Taramasso, MD, PhD, a cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist at the University Hospital of Zürich.

Dr. Taramasso and colleagues wanted to take a look at the issue pending results of the randomized trials. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty in regard to what we can do for the patient by reducing tricuspid regurgitation. [There are] no data showing that reducing tricuspid regurgitation improves survival,” he said at the meeting.

The investigators matched 268 patients from the international Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies registry treated during 2016-2018 with 268 medical-management patients from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Leiden (the Netherlands) University, based on age, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II scores, and systolic pulmonary artery pressure, the major predictor of poor outcomes in tricuspid regurgitation.

Even with matching, transcatheter patients were worse off, which is probably why they had valve repair in the first place, Dr. Taramasso said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. The baseline burden of right ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, and pacemaker placement were all significantly higher in the transcatheter group.

Even so, transcatheter patients had lower 1-year mortality (23% vs. 36%; P = .001) and fewer heart failure rehospitalizations (32% vs. 49%, P less than .0001). Transcatheter repair was associated with greater survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79; P = .003), which remained significant after adjusting for sex, New York Heart Association functional class, right ventricular dysfunction, and atrial fibrillation (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.59; P less than .0001), and after further adjustment for mitral regurgitation and pacemaker/defibrillator placement (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.54; P less than .0001). Subgroup analyses based on mitral regurgitation severity, pulmonary artery pressure, and other factors all favored repair.

“This is an important set of data to show that, indeed, fixing the tricuspid valve does lead to better outcomes, and perhaps we can do that with a transcatheter approach,” said Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, after hearing the presentation.

The fact that transcatheter patients were sicker when they were treated is reassuring, added moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.

The success rate for the procedure, which was to be alive at the end of it, with the device successfully implanted, the delivery system retrieved, and residual tricuspid regurgitation (TR) less than 3+, was 86%, and 85% of patients were treated with MitraClip, most with two or three clips. Outcomes were similar, but not worse, than medical management when TR wasn’t significantly reduced.

Operators were highly experienced, there were no emergent conversions to surgery, and patients tolerated the approach “pretty well,” Dr. Taramasso said. The lesson is that “we should really try to reduce TR, but just a little bit is not enough.” Overall, “we probably need better devices and better patient selection. With the data we are collecting, we’ll be able soon to known when late is too late, which patients should not be treated,” he said.

The study didn’t address postprocedure medications, but it’s been noted in the registry that medication use generally declines after a few months. Subjects tended to be aged in their mid-70s, and there were slightly more women than men.

The results were published online concurrently with Dr. Taramasso’s report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

No company funding was reported. Dr. Taramasso is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, 4TECH, and CoreMedic; and has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Taramasso M et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.028.