Interventional Cardiology & Surgery

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

Anticipating Food and Drug Administration approval of at least one investigational device for renal denervation (RDN) as a treatment for hypertension (HTN) refractory to medical therapies, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions is asking its members and the public to provide input on a draft position statement to guide use of the procedure.

The draft addresses appropriate patient selection, best practices for procedural techniques, measures for operator competence, recommendations for operator and staff training, and guidance for hospitals and centers that want to adopt RDN. SCAI is requesting feedback by June 14.

“With the anticipated FDA approval of renal denervation, there will be a need for SCAI to formulate an official position around clinical competence and training standards, best practices, and institutional and operator requirements for RDN,” Herbert D. Aronow, MD, MPH, chair of the statement writing committee, said in an interview.

RDN is an endoscopic procedure that disrupts the sympathetic nerves near the renal arteries. A number of studies, including sham-controlled, randomized trials, have shown that RDN can achieve short-term reductions in blood pressure for patients for whom HTN medications don’t work. Two devices are awaiting FDA premarket approval: the Paradise uRDN system, by ReCor Medical; and the Symplicity Spyral device, by Medtronic.

However, the trajectory of RDN has been uneven, said Dr. Aronow, president of the Society for Vascular Medicine and medical director for heart and vascular services and Benson Ford Chair in cardiology at Henry Ford Health, Detroit.

“Despite supportive early animal and human data, the first sham-controlled randomized trial of RDN was negative on its primary endpoint,” he said. “Modifications to patient inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinements in denervation technology and protocols, and selection of more appropriate study endpoints resulted in a series of positive randomized, sham-controlled trials. These second-generation trials found that RDN, when compared with sham therapy, substantially reduced ambulatory and office blood pressures.”

The draft is available for review at the SCAI website. Comments may be submitted via a link to a questionnaire.

“Through the open comment process, we are hoping to gain broad perspective from stakeholders, including clinicians, hospitals, payers, professional societies, industry and patients,” Dr. Aronow said. “By incorporating this feedback, we hope to enhance the quality of the document before we submit it for publication.”

The bulk of the SCAI draft position statement is devoted to patient selection and procedural and technical considerations. “We believe it will serve as a road map for the successful launch of RDN programs around the United States,” Dr. Aronow said.
 

Patient selection considerations

The draft statement notes that RDN for all patients with uncontrolled HTN “would not currently be practical.” The average age of patients for whom RDN showed effectiveness in the cited clinical trials was less than 60 years. The effectiveness of RDN for patients in whom arterial stiffness is a primary driver of HTN “is less certain.”

Patients who may benefit most from RDN are those with limited medical treatment options. Initially, RDN was tried on patients who had continued to experience resistant HTN despite taking three or more medications, including a diuretic, the statement noted. But even nonadherent patients may derive some potential benefit from RDN.

The statement also added that RDN isn’t a panacea; about one-third of trial patients didn’t respond to the procedure. The most reliable predictor of response may be higher levels of baseline systolic blood pressure, otherwise known as Wilder’s principle. The statement listed other potential markers of success, including higher nocturnal blood pressure and wider swings in nocturnal blood pressure.
 

Procedural and technical considerations

The statement also provided direction on a protocol for RDN procedures. The preprocedure evaluation should include noninvasive imaging to rule out disqualifying secondary causes of HTN, such as renal artery stenosis or fibromuscular dysplasia.

Patient characteristics should drive the selection of imaging modality, and availability as well as local expertise should be taken into account. The statement gave CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography the edge over duplex ultrasound.

The statement also noted a number of anatomic considerations, citing preclinical analyses that “consistently reinforce” circumferential, perivascular RDN to ablate the renal nerves. In planning the procedure, consideration should be given to accessory renal arteries.

Additionally, operators should have training in obtaining access, and they should be familiar with different catheters and console devices as well as troubleshooting.
 

Training, competency, and institutional requirements

Interventional cardiologists who want to perform RDN should demonstrate proficiency in a number of specific skill sets germane to the procedure, from arterial vascular access and hemostasis to recognizing and treating potential renovascular complications.

For institutions that want to offer RDN, the statement offered a number of requirements. One is to designate a primary physician stakeholder who’s well versed in HTN management to oversee the long-term management of RDN patients.

The institution must have a dedicated HTN program and a multidisciplinary team to manage treated patients. Requirements for RDN referral centers range from operators experienced with FDA-approved RDN devices to an infrastructure that includes CT or MR angiography to identify appropriate candidates.

“Renal denervation has been a long time coming, and it’s a great example of how academicians, clinicians and industry leaders can partner to move the cardiovascular field forward, addressing a major public health issue for which alternative solutions are greatly needed,” Dr. Aronow said.

Dr. Aronow has served as an unpaid council member for Medtronic and as a paid moderator for ReCor.

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

PHOENIX – Marijuana users have an almost four times greater risk of developing peripheral artery disease, compared with nonusers, results of a study of more than 600,000 marijuana users suggest, although there was no greater risk of death from myocardial infarction or other cardiac causes or need for revascularization.

Instants/Getty Images

The researchers noted, however, that the study population was young, with an average age of 37.4 years, and that the study period, from 2016 to 2019, predates the legalization of recreational marijuana in a number of states.

Nonetheless, even in this young study population, marijuana users’ risk of developing peripheral artery disease (PAD) was 3.68 times greater (P < .001) than that of nonusers. PAD at a young age could precede worse outcomes later in life, the study authors said.

“Basically, marijuana users were at increased risk of being diagnosed with peripheral artery disease, but there was no increased risk for them requiring any intervention, such as a peripheral vascular intervention, nor were they at increased risk of death from what we found,” said Hirva Vyas, DO, an internal medicine resident at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, who presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

The study used data on 623,768 marijuana users from the National Inpatient Sample, a nationwide database of inpatient visits covered by all public and commercial payers, then extracted a diagnosis for PAD from all 30 million–plus patient encounters to compare PAD rates between marijuana users and nonusers. Marijuana users were more likely to be White and to have elective rather than emergency admissions (P < .001). The researchers used diagnostic codes to identify marijuana users and PAD patients.

Recreational marijuana is legal in 22 states and the District of Columbia, according to ProCon.org. Since 2019, the last year of the study, 11 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. “It’s a data point that we studied at one point in time, only from 2016 to 2019,” Dr. Vyas said in an interview.

“As we’ve seen over the past 4-5 years, legalization has skyrocketed and recreational use has become more and more favorable not only among younger folks but older folks,” study coauthor Harsh Jain, MD, a second-year internal medicine resident at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in the interview. “It would be really refreshing to see how these data change as we look at endpoints from 2019 to 2023.”

Because of the young age of the study population, Dr. Jain said, these findings may not accurately represent the true cardiovascular risks of marijuana use, especially later in life.

“One of the biggest secondary endpoints that we wanted to study was the development of chronic conditions that lead to multiple rehospitalizations, the most significant one of which would be the development of heart failure,” Dr. Jain said. “However, it was difficult to stratify because, again, many of these patients were very young and so they did not carry the diagnosis for heart failure, so we couldn’t complete that subset analysis.”

The goal is to extend the study period out to 2023, Dr. Jain said. “We know that these are very crude and rudimentary data findings that we presented so far, but we’re hoping that the final paper gives us a chance to flesh out all the details of our study and also gives us a chance to expand going forward,” he said.

The findings are in line with other research into the effects of marijuana and cardiovascular disease, said Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, medical director for cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans who’s published a number of studies on PAD and substance use, including marijuana.

“It is known that cannabis is associated with more vasoconstriction, has sympathomimetic effects, causes endothelial dysfunction and increased platelet aggregation, and is known to increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction, especially in the hour or so after use,” he said in written comments sent to this news organization.

“It is also well known to be a cause of thromboangiitis obliterans, which is in the PAD family,” he added. “Based on these mechanisms, one would expect an increased PAD and, especially, PAD events. The 3.7-fold increased risk is supportive of this increased PAD.”

One study strength, Dr. Lavie pointed out, is that it’s one of the few studies that found an association between marijuana and PAD, which hasn’t been studied as well as other cardiovascular endpoints. “However,” he said, “the limitation is this is just an inpatient sample, and it is all based on coding – e.g., a patient could have PAD and it may not have been coded.”

PHOENIX – Marijuana users have an almost four times greater risk of developing peripheral artery disease, compared with nonusers, results of a study of more than 600,000 marijuana users suggest, although there was no greater risk of death from myocardial infarction or other cardiac causes or need for revascularization.

Instants/Getty Images

The researchers noted, however, that the study population was young, with an average age of 37.4 years, and that the study period, from 2016 to 2019, predates the legalization of recreational marijuana in a number of states.

Nonetheless, even in this young study population, marijuana users’ risk of developing peripheral artery disease (PAD) was 3.68 times greater (P < .001) than that of nonusers. PAD at a young age could precede worse outcomes later in life, the study authors said.

“Basically, marijuana users were at increased risk of being diagnosed with peripheral artery disease, but there was no increased risk for them requiring any intervention, such as a peripheral vascular intervention, nor were they at increased risk of death from what we found,” said Hirva Vyas, DO, an internal medicine resident at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, who presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

The study used data on 623,768 marijuana users from the National Inpatient Sample, a nationwide database of inpatient visits covered by all public and commercial payers, then extracted a diagnosis for PAD from all 30 million–plus patient encounters to compare PAD rates between marijuana users and nonusers. Marijuana users were more likely to be White and to have elective rather than emergency admissions (P < .001). The researchers used diagnostic codes to identify marijuana users and PAD patients.

Recreational marijuana is legal in 22 states and the District of Columbia, according to ProCon.org. Since 2019, the last year of the study, 11 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. “It’s a data point that we studied at one point in time, only from 2016 to 2019,” Dr. Vyas said in an interview.

“As we’ve seen over the past 4-5 years, legalization has skyrocketed and recreational use has become more and more favorable not only among younger folks but older folks,” study coauthor Harsh Jain, MD, a second-year internal medicine resident at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in the interview. “It would be really refreshing to see how these data change as we look at endpoints from 2019 to 2023.”

Because of the young age of the study population, Dr. Jain said, these findings may not accurately represent the true cardiovascular risks of marijuana use, especially later in life.

“One of the biggest secondary endpoints that we wanted to study was the development of chronic conditions that lead to multiple rehospitalizations, the most significant one of which would be the development of heart failure,” Dr. Jain said. “However, it was difficult to stratify because, again, many of these patients were very young and so they did not carry the diagnosis for heart failure, so we couldn’t complete that subset analysis.”

The goal is to extend the study period out to 2023, Dr. Jain said. “We know that these are very crude and rudimentary data findings that we presented so far, but we’re hoping that the final paper gives us a chance to flesh out all the details of our study and also gives us a chance to expand going forward,” he said.

The findings are in line with other research into the effects of marijuana and cardiovascular disease, said Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, medical director for cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans who’s published a number of studies on PAD and substance use, including marijuana.

“It is known that cannabis is associated with more vasoconstriction, has sympathomimetic effects, causes endothelial dysfunction and increased platelet aggregation, and is known to increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction, especially in the hour or so after use,” he said in written comments sent to this news organization.

“It is also well known to be a cause of thromboangiitis obliterans, which is in the PAD family,” he added. “Based on these mechanisms, one would expect an increased PAD and, especially, PAD events. The 3.7-fold increased risk is supportive of this increased PAD.”

One study strength, Dr. Lavie pointed out, is that it’s one of the few studies that found an association between marijuana and PAD, which hasn’t been studied as well as other cardiovascular endpoints. “However,” he said, “the limitation is this is just an inpatient sample, and it is all based on coding – e.g., a patient could have PAD and it may not have been coded.”

PHOENIX – Marijuana users have an almost four times greater risk of developing peripheral artery disease, compared with nonusers, results of a study of more than 600,000 marijuana users suggest, although there was no greater risk of death from myocardial infarction or other cardiac causes or need for revascularization.

Instants/Getty Images

The researchers noted, however, that the study population was young, with an average age of 37.4 years, and that the study period, from 2016 to 2019, predates the legalization of recreational marijuana in a number of states.

Nonetheless, even in this young study population, marijuana users’ risk of developing peripheral artery disease (PAD) was 3.68 times greater (P < .001) than that of nonusers. PAD at a young age could precede worse outcomes later in life, the study authors said.

“Basically, marijuana users were at increased risk of being diagnosed with peripheral artery disease, but there was no increased risk for them requiring any intervention, such as a peripheral vascular intervention, nor were they at increased risk of death from what we found,” said Hirva Vyas, DO, an internal medicine resident at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, who presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

The study used data on 623,768 marijuana users from the National Inpatient Sample, a nationwide database of inpatient visits covered by all public and commercial payers, then extracted a diagnosis for PAD from all 30 million–plus patient encounters to compare PAD rates between marijuana users and nonusers. Marijuana users were more likely to be White and to have elective rather than emergency admissions (P < .001). The researchers used diagnostic codes to identify marijuana users and PAD patients.

Recreational marijuana is legal in 22 states and the District of Columbia, according to ProCon.org. Since 2019, the last year of the study, 11 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. “It’s a data point that we studied at one point in time, only from 2016 to 2019,” Dr. Vyas said in an interview.

“As we’ve seen over the past 4-5 years, legalization has skyrocketed and recreational use has become more and more favorable not only among younger folks but older folks,” study coauthor Harsh Jain, MD, a second-year internal medicine resident at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in the interview. “It would be really refreshing to see how these data change as we look at endpoints from 2019 to 2023.”

Because of the young age of the study population, Dr. Jain said, these findings may not accurately represent the true cardiovascular risks of marijuana use, especially later in life.

“One of the biggest secondary endpoints that we wanted to study was the development of chronic conditions that lead to multiple rehospitalizations, the most significant one of which would be the development of heart failure,” Dr. Jain said. “However, it was difficult to stratify because, again, many of these patients were very young and so they did not carry the diagnosis for heart failure, so we couldn’t complete that subset analysis.”

The goal is to extend the study period out to 2023, Dr. Jain said. “We know that these are very crude and rudimentary data findings that we presented so far, but we’re hoping that the final paper gives us a chance to flesh out all the details of our study and also gives us a chance to expand going forward,” he said.

The findings are in line with other research into the effects of marijuana and cardiovascular disease, said Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, medical director for cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans who’s published a number of studies on PAD and substance use, including marijuana.

“It is known that cannabis is associated with more vasoconstriction, has sympathomimetic effects, causes endothelial dysfunction and increased platelet aggregation, and is known to increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction, especially in the hour or so after use,” he said in written comments sent to this news organization.

“It is also well known to be a cause of thromboangiitis obliterans, which is in the PAD family,” he added. “Based on these mechanisms, one would expect an increased PAD and, especially, PAD events. The 3.7-fold increased risk is supportive of this increased PAD.”

One study strength, Dr. Lavie pointed out, is that it’s one of the few studies that found an association between marijuana and PAD, which hasn’t been studied as well as other cardiovascular endpoints. “However,” he said, “the limitation is this is just an inpatient sample, and it is all based on coding – e.g., a patient could have PAD and it may not have been coded.”

Real-world data accumulated in Europe outside of a clinical trial support both the safety and the benefit of two transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) devices designed specifically for the treatment of tricuspid regurgitation (TR).

For the TriClip system (Abbott), the data were drawn from a prospective postmarketing registry, and for the EVOQUE system (Edwards Lifesciences), data were generated by a compassionate use program.

The TriClip system is approved and available in Europe, but neither system has regulatory approval in the United States.

The two sets of data, each presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, are consistent with controlled trials. Each system was associated with high rates of procedural success, low rates of adverse events, and sustained improvements in quality of life.
 

Real-world backup for TRILUMINATE

Presented just days before the pivotal multinational TRILUMINATE trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the bRIGHT postmarketing study of the TriClip device demonstrated a procedural rate of success and a subsequent reduction in TR that was at least as good but in a substantially sicker patient population.

“To appreciate these results, you have to put into perspective the baseline TR in our population,” reported Philipp Lurz, MD, PhD, of the Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany. Whereas only 70% of those randomized in TRILUMINATE had grade 4 (massive) or 5 (torrential) TR, the proportion was 90% in bRIGHT.

The proportion with TR of moderate or less severity was 77% when assessed at 30 days in bRIGHT versus 72%, however, when assessed at 1 year in TRILUMINATE. In addition, procedural success was 99% in both studies even though patients in bRIGHT were on average older and had more comorbidities. At baseline, 80% of bRIGHT patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure versus 59% of those in TRILUMINATE.

TRILUMINATE data, presented prior to publication at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology earlier this year, did not associate the transcatheter TR repair with a reduction in mortality or a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, which were the first two of three hierarchical endpoints, but it did show benefit on the third, which was quality of life. As measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), patients in the transcatheter repair group gained 12.3 points versus 0.6 points (P < .001) on medical therapy.

In the bRIGHT registry, patients gained 19 points in the KCCQ score after treatment. By 30 days, the proportion of patients in NHYA class III/IV had fallen from 80% to 20%. The major adverse event rate of 2.5% at 30 days was only modestly higher than the 1.7% rate at 30 days in TRILUMINATE.

“The safety profile remained strong despite the sicker population treated in the registry,” reported Dr. Lurz, whose results were simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The bRIGHT registry analysis was based on 511 patients treated at 26 sites in Europe. Dr. Lurz characterized it as “the first prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, postmarket registry to evaluate the safety and performance of any transcatheter tricuspid valve repair system.”

In a panel discussion following the presentation, Nicole Karam, MD, PhD, codirector of the heart valve unit, Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, praised a study of TEER tricuspid valve device in the real world, but she pointed out that the question of who to treat remains unanswered. Although symptom relief has value for a condition that can impose large deficits in quality of life, she called for more data to identify optimal candidates, particularly in the persistent absence of a major effect on hard endpoints.

Dr. Lurz agreed. In bRIGHT, predictors of a moderate or less TR at discharge included a smaller tethering distance, a smaller right ventricular end diastolic dimension, a smaller right atrial volume, and a smaller tricuspid annular diameter.

Each of these predictors argues for earlier treatment, he said, even if later treatment in a clinical trial provides a greater likelihood of eventually demonstrating benefits on hard endpoints.

‘Remarkable reduction’

The data from the much smaller compassionate use evaluation of the EVOQUE system generated similar evidence of safety and benefit while also making the point that earlier intervention offers a greater opportunity for preventing irreversible progression. With much longer follow up, the compassionate-use analysis, which involved patients even sicker than those included in bRIGHT, suggested these repairs are durable.

In this retrospective analysis of 38 patients treated at eight centers in Europe, the United States, and Canada, the mortality climbed steadily over 2 years of follow-up, reaching 29% at 2 years despite the fact that TR was reduced to < 1% after the procedure and remained durably suppressed at a median follow-up of 520 days.

The tricuspid valve repair with the EVOQUE system “was associated with a remarkable reduction in heart failure symptoms and significant improvement in NYHA functional class up to a maximum of 1,074 days after the intervention,” reported Lukas Stolz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.

In the data he presented at EuroPCR, which was published simultaneously as a letter in JACC, he said that favorable reverse remodeling of the right ventricle, which was observed as early as 30 days after the procedure, was maintained at long-term follow up.

The uncontrolled data from the compassionate analysis, like the bRIGHT registry, could not confirm that tricuspid valve repair changes the trajectory of progressive heart disease, but the favorable effects Dr. Stolz reported on cardiovascular function, not just symptoms, support this idea.

Dr. Lutz has financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, ReCor, and Abbott, which funded the bRIGHT registry. Dr. Karam reports financial relationships with Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Stolz reports no potential conflicts of interest, but other coinvestigators of the retrospective analysis have financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, which is developing the EVOQUE system.

Real-world data accumulated in Europe outside of a clinical trial support both the safety and the benefit of two transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) devices designed specifically for the treatment of tricuspid regurgitation (TR).

For the TriClip system (Abbott), the data were drawn from a prospective postmarketing registry, and for the EVOQUE system (Edwards Lifesciences), data were generated by a compassionate use program.

The TriClip system is approved and available in Europe, but neither system has regulatory approval in the United States.

The two sets of data, each presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, are consistent with controlled trials. Each system was associated with high rates of procedural success, low rates of adverse events, and sustained improvements in quality of life.
 

Real-world backup for TRILUMINATE

Presented just days before the pivotal multinational TRILUMINATE trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the bRIGHT postmarketing study of the TriClip device demonstrated a procedural rate of success and a subsequent reduction in TR that was at least as good but in a substantially sicker patient population.

“To appreciate these results, you have to put into perspective the baseline TR in our population,” reported Philipp Lurz, MD, PhD, of the Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany. Whereas only 70% of those randomized in TRILUMINATE had grade 4 (massive) or 5 (torrential) TR, the proportion was 90% in bRIGHT.

The proportion with TR of moderate or less severity was 77% when assessed at 30 days in bRIGHT versus 72%, however, when assessed at 1 year in TRILUMINATE. In addition, procedural success was 99% in both studies even though patients in bRIGHT were on average older and had more comorbidities. At baseline, 80% of bRIGHT patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure versus 59% of those in TRILUMINATE.

TRILUMINATE data, presented prior to publication at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology earlier this year, did not associate the transcatheter TR repair with a reduction in mortality or a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, which were the first two of three hierarchical endpoints, but it did show benefit on the third, which was quality of life. As measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), patients in the transcatheter repair group gained 12.3 points versus 0.6 points (P < .001) on medical therapy.

In the bRIGHT registry, patients gained 19 points in the KCCQ score after treatment. By 30 days, the proportion of patients in NHYA class III/IV had fallen from 80% to 20%. The major adverse event rate of 2.5% at 30 days was only modestly higher than the 1.7% rate at 30 days in TRILUMINATE.

“The safety profile remained strong despite the sicker population treated in the registry,” reported Dr. Lurz, whose results were simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The bRIGHT registry analysis was based on 511 patients treated at 26 sites in Europe. Dr. Lurz characterized it as “the first prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, postmarket registry to evaluate the safety and performance of any transcatheter tricuspid valve repair system.”

In a panel discussion following the presentation, Nicole Karam, MD, PhD, codirector of the heart valve unit, Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, praised a study of TEER tricuspid valve device in the real world, but she pointed out that the question of who to treat remains unanswered. Although symptom relief has value for a condition that can impose large deficits in quality of life, she called for more data to identify optimal candidates, particularly in the persistent absence of a major effect on hard endpoints.

Dr. Lurz agreed. In bRIGHT, predictors of a moderate or less TR at discharge included a smaller tethering distance, a smaller right ventricular end diastolic dimension, a smaller right atrial volume, and a smaller tricuspid annular diameter.

Each of these predictors argues for earlier treatment, he said, even if later treatment in a clinical trial provides a greater likelihood of eventually demonstrating benefits on hard endpoints.

‘Remarkable reduction’

The data from the much smaller compassionate use evaluation of the EVOQUE system generated similar evidence of safety and benefit while also making the point that earlier intervention offers a greater opportunity for preventing irreversible progression. With much longer follow up, the compassionate-use analysis, which involved patients even sicker than those included in bRIGHT, suggested these repairs are durable.

In this retrospective analysis of 38 patients treated at eight centers in Europe, the United States, and Canada, the mortality climbed steadily over 2 years of follow-up, reaching 29% at 2 years despite the fact that TR was reduced to < 1% after the procedure and remained durably suppressed at a median follow-up of 520 days.

The tricuspid valve repair with the EVOQUE system “was associated with a remarkable reduction in heart failure symptoms and significant improvement in NYHA functional class up to a maximum of 1,074 days after the intervention,” reported Lukas Stolz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.

In the data he presented at EuroPCR, which was published simultaneously as a letter in JACC, he said that favorable reverse remodeling of the right ventricle, which was observed as early as 30 days after the procedure, was maintained at long-term follow up.

The uncontrolled data from the compassionate analysis, like the bRIGHT registry, could not confirm that tricuspid valve repair changes the trajectory of progressive heart disease, but the favorable effects Dr. Stolz reported on cardiovascular function, not just symptoms, support this idea.

Dr. Lutz has financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, ReCor, and Abbott, which funded the bRIGHT registry. Dr. Karam reports financial relationships with Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Stolz reports no potential conflicts of interest, but other coinvestigators of the retrospective analysis have financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, which is developing the EVOQUE system.

Real-world data accumulated in Europe outside of a clinical trial support both the safety and the benefit of two transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) devices designed specifically for the treatment of tricuspid regurgitation (TR).

For the TriClip system (Abbott), the data were drawn from a prospective postmarketing registry, and for the EVOQUE system (Edwards Lifesciences), data were generated by a compassionate use program.

The TriClip system is approved and available in Europe, but neither system has regulatory approval in the United States.

The two sets of data, each presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, are consistent with controlled trials. Each system was associated with high rates of procedural success, low rates of adverse events, and sustained improvements in quality of life.
 

Real-world backup for TRILUMINATE

Presented just days before the pivotal multinational TRILUMINATE trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the bRIGHT postmarketing study of the TriClip device demonstrated a procedural rate of success and a subsequent reduction in TR that was at least as good but in a substantially sicker patient population.

“To appreciate these results, you have to put into perspective the baseline TR in our population,” reported Philipp Lurz, MD, PhD, of the Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany. Whereas only 70% of those randomized in TRILUMINATE had grade 4 (massive) or 5 (torrential) TR, the proportion was 90% in bRIGHT.

The proportion with TR of moderate or less severity was 77% when assessed at 30 days in bRIGHT versus 72%, however, when assessed at 1 year in TRILUMINATE. In addition, procedural success was 99% in both studies even though patients in bRIGHT were on average older and had more comorbidities. At baseline, 80% of bRIGHT patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure versus 59% of those in TRILUMINATE.

TRILUMINATE data, presented prior to publication at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology earlier this year, did not associate the transcatheter TR repair with a reduction in mortality or a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, which were the first two of three hierarchical endpoints, but it did show benefit on the third, which was quality of life. As measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), patients in the transcatheter repair group gained 12.3 points versus 0.6 points (P < .001) on medical therapy.

In the bRIGHT registry, patients gained 19 points in the KCCQ score after treatment. By 30 days, the proportion of patients in NHYA class III/IV had fallen from 80% to 20%. The major adverse event rate of 2.5% at 30 days was only modestly higher than the 1.7% rate at 30 days in TRILUMINATE.

“The safety profile remained strong despite the sicker population treated in the registry,” reported Dr. Lurz, whose results were simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The bRIGHT registry analysis was based on 511 patients treated at 26 sites in Europe. Dr. Lurz characterized it as “the first prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, postmarket registry to evaluate the safety and performance of any transcatheter tricuspid valve repair system.”

In a panel discussion following the presentation, Nicole Karam, MD, PhD, codirector of the heart valve unit, Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, praised a study of TEER tricuspid valve device in the real world, but she pointed out that the question of who to treat remains unanswered. Although symptom relief has value for a condition that can impose large deficits in quality of life, she called for more data to identify optimal candidates, particularly in the persistent absence of a major effect on hard endpoints.

Dr. Lurz agreed. In bRIGHT, predictors of a moderate or less TR at discharge included a smaller tethering distance, a smaller right ventricular end diastolic dimension, a smaller right atrial volume, and a smaller tricuspid annular diameter.

Each of these predictors argues for earlier treatment, he said, even if later treatment in a clinical trial provides a greater likelihood of eventually demonstrating benefits on hard endpoints.

‘Remarkable reduction’

The data from the much smaller compassionate use evaluation of the EVOQUE system generated similar evidence of safety and benefit while also making the point that earlier intervention offers a greater opportunity for preventing irreversible progression. With much longer follow up, the compassionate-use analysis, which involved patients even sicker than those included in bRIGHT, suggested these repairs are durable.

In this retrospective analysis of 38 patients treated at eight centers in Europe, the United States, and Canada, the mortality climbed steadily over 2 years of follow-up, reaching 29% at 2 years despite the fact that TR was reduced to < 1% after the procedure and remained durably suppressed at a median follow-up of 520 days.

The tricuspid valve repair with the EVOQUE system “was associated with a remarkable reduction in heart failure symptoms and significant improvement in NYHA functional class up to a maximum of 1,074 days after the intervention,” reported Lukas Stolz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.

In the data he presented at EuroPCR, which was published simultaneously as a letter in JACC, he said that favorable reverse remodeling of the right ventricle, which was observed as early as 30 days after the procedure, was maintained at long-term follow up.

The uncontrolled data from the compassionate analysis, like the bRIGHT registry, could not confirm that tricuspid valve repair changes the trajectory of progressive heart disease, but the favorable effects Dr. Stolz reported on cardiovascular function, not just symptoms, support this idea.

Dr. Lutz has financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, ReCor, and Abbott, which funded the bRIGHT registry. Dr. Karam reports financial relationships with Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Stolz reports no potential conflicts of interest, but other coinvestigators of the retrospective analysis have financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, which is developing the EVOQUE system.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

The time has come to rethink the conventional primary endpoints investigators use in coronary revascularization trials – a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death or MI, and other endpoints – and shift toward greater emphasis on quality of life, two clinical trial investigators say.

Gregg Stone, MD, and Mario Gaudino, MD, MSCE, PhD, made their case in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, writing: “The classic academic exercise of comparing revascularization modalities in an elusive search for a clear ‘winner’ has failed.” Dr. Stone was the principal investigator of the landmark EXCEL trial and an investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial, the latter of which Dr. Gaudino was also an investigator. Both trials evaluated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) as treatments for coronary artery disease.

In an interview, Dr. Stone, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “We’re proposing a new endpoint called a composite endpoint measured in a hierarchical fashion of death or quality of life [QOL].” Dr. Gaudino is a cardiac surgeon at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
 

Quality of life as a validation tool

As a measure of revascularization after PCI or CABG, Dr. Stone said, QOL is ready for prime time. “Over the last 20 years there’s been a very rich literature of science developed linking certain quality of life instruments to improved outcomes, in particularly health but also heart failure.”

Those instruments include the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. “All of these are sufficiently validated that the [Food and Drug Administration] considers them ‘validated tools’ for use in clinical trials.” Dr. Stone also noted that substudies of three landmark trials comparing PCI and CABG – EXCEL, SYNTAX, and FREEDOM – used those instruments to evaluate QOL as an endpoint alongside “hard” outcomes such as death, MI or stroke. “So quality of life already is being used and it is already widely accepted. What we’re saying is, when you think about the information you need for medical studies, we believe it’s time to elevate that from secondary supportive information to primary.”

He and Dr. Gaudino are putting their money where their mouths are. They’ve applied for a grant through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to use QOL as an outcomes measure in a trial of revascularization strategies in women and minority patients.
 

Shortcomings with traditional endpoints

Dr. Stone explained some of the shortcomings with the traditional endpoints revascularization studies have used. “Everybody agrees that mortality or survival is the most important endpoint, but studies can never be large enough to be powered for that. So we always end up combining them with myocardial infarction, stroke, and often with repeat revascularization” into one MACE endpoint.

But those four types of events are “very, very different,” Dr. Stone said. The severity of MIs and strokes can range from minor, almost inconsequential events to major, debilitating events. “Some strokes resolve in a few days but we count them all the same.”

He ticked off a list of the other outcomes the traditional endpoints don’t account for: atrial fibrillation, kidney dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, cognitive changes, and vascular complications. They all can all have a significant impact on a patient’s QOL, Dr. Stone said.

“We’ve now entered an era that is much more patient centered,” Dr. Stone said. “My goal as a physician is to try to impart my knowledge of the evidence that’s out there so that the patient can make the decision that gives them the best chance of meeting their life goals and objectives. When you ask patients what they want, they all want to live longer and they want to live better.”

Mass General

MACE as a composite endpoint has its shortcomings, but using QOL can also be fraught with problems, said Suzanne Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

With regards to MACE, she echoed some of Dr. Stone’s concerns. “Patients and clinicians likely would not consider a repeat stenting procedure to be the same as having a stroke, and so weighting these two outcomes equally within a composite endpoint can potentially result in a skewed trial conclusion.”

One potential issue with QOL as an endpoint is that it can vary from day to day. “If quality of life is only measured at a few time points, such as annually, it is possible that those measurements may only reflect a small portion of the patient’s overall quality of life,” she said. “Accordingly, I think that it will be important to incorporate frequent assessments of a patient’s quality of life if these measures will be used as a primary endpoint in cardiac revascularization trials.”

And, in a cost-conscious health care system, quantity (length) of life tends to carry more weight than QOL, she said. “So it will be important that a trial using quality-of-life improvement as a primary endpoint mandates that the degree of improvement be large enough to ensure that the treatment remains high-value from a health economics standpoint.”

Dr. Stone disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Baron reported financial relationships with Abiomed, Acarix, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll Medical, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Janssen.
 

The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.

The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.

“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
 

Study results

The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).

Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.

Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.

One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”

However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.  

“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.

Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”

Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.

The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.

The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.

“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
 

Study results

The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).

Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.

Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.

One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”

However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.  

“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.

Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”

Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.

The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.

The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.

“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
 

Study results

The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).

Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.

Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.

One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”

However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.  

“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.

Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”

Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.