Didier Carrié

Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) is an emerging intervention for the treatment of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and coexisting illnesses. We report the results of a prospective multicenter study of the French national transcatheter aortic-valve implantation registry, FRANCE 2. METHODS All TAVIs performed in France, as listed in the FRANCE 2 registry, were prospectively included in the study. The primary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS A total of 3195 patients were enrolled between January 2010 and October 2011 at 34 centers. The mean (±SD) age was 82.7±7.2 years; 49% of the patients were women. All patients were highly symptomatic and were at high surgical risk for aortic-valve replacement. Edwards SAPIEN and Medtronic CoreValve devices were implanted in 66.9% and 33.1% of patients, respectively. Approaches were either transarterial (transfemoral, 74.6%; subclavian, 5.8%; and other, 1.8%) or transapical (17.8%). The procedural success rate was 96.9%. Rates of death at 30 days and 1 year were 9.7% and 24.0%, respectively. At 1 year, the incidence of stroke was 4.1%, and the incidence of periprosthetic aortic regurgitation was 64.5%. In a multivariate model, a higher logistic risk score on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), New York Heart Association functional class III or IV symptoms, the use of a transapical TAVI approach, and a higher amount of periprosthetic regurgitation were significantly associated with reduced survival. CONCLUSIONS This prospective registry study reflected real-life TAVI experience in high-risk elderly patients with aortic stenosis, in whom TAVI appeared to be a reasonable option. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.).

A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Despite rapid dissemination of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold for treatment for coronary artery disease, no data from comparisons with its metallic stent counterpart are available. In a randomised controlled trial we aimed to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent. Here we report secondary clinical and procedural outcomes after 1 year of follow-up. METHODS In a single-blind, multicentre, randomised trial, we enrolled eligible patients aged 18-85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. We randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Randomisation was stratified by diabetes status and number of planned target lesions. The co-primary endpoints of this study are vasomotion (change in mean lumen diameter before and after nitrate administration at 3 years) and difference between minimum lumen diameter (after nitrate administration) after the index procedure and at 3 years. Secondary endpoints were procedural performance assessed by quantitative angiography and intravascular ultrasound; composite clinical endpoints based on death, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularisation; device and procedural success; and angina status assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire and exercise testing at 6 and 12 months. Cumulative angina rate based on adverse event reporting was analysed post hoc. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425281. FINDINGS Between Nov 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, we enrolled 501 patients and randomly assigned them to the bioresorbable scaffold group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the metallic stent group (166 patients, 182 lesions). Dilatation pressure and balloon diameter at the highest pressure during implantation or postdilatation were higher and larger in the metallic stent group, whereas the acute recoil post implantation was similar (0.19 mm for both, p=0.85). Acute lumen gain was lower for the bioresorbable scaffold by quantitative coronary angiography (1.15 mm vs 1.46 mm, p<0.0001) and quantitative intravascular ultrasound (2.85 mm(2)vs 3.60 mm(2), p<0.0001), resulting in a smaller lumen diameter or area post procedure. At 1 year, however, cumulative rates of first new or worsening angina from adverse event reporting were lower (72 patients [22%] in the bioresorbable scaffold group vs 50 [30%] in the metallic stent group, p=0.04), whereas performance during maximum exercise and angina status by SAQ were similar. The 1-year composite device orientated endpoint was similar between the bioresorbable scaffold and metallic stent groups (16 patients [5%] vs five patients [3%], p=0.35). Three patients in the bioresorbable scaffold group had definite or probable scaffold thromboses (one definite acute, one definite sub-acute, and one probable late), compared with no patients in the metallic stent group. There were 17 (5%) major cardiac adverse events in the bioresorbable scaffold group compared with five (3%) events in the metallic stent group, with the most common adverse events being myocardial infarction (15 cases [4%] vs two cases [1%], respectively) and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularisation (four cases [1%] vs three cases [2%], respectively). INTERPRETATION The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold showed similar 1-year composite secondary clinical outcomes to the everolimus-eluting metallic stent. FUNDING Abbott Vascular.

Early Increase of von Willebrand Factor Predicts Adverse Outcome in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease Beneficial Effects of Enoxaparin

BACKGROUND The pathogenesis of unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction is still poorly understood, and early evaluation of prognosis remains difficult. We therefore studied the predictive value of 5 biological indicators of inflammation, thrombogenesis, vasoconstriction, and myocardial necrosis, and we examined the effects of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin on these markers after 48 hours of treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS Sixty-eight patients with unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction randomized in the international ESSENCE trial participated in this French substudy. C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, von Willebrand factor antigen, endothelin-1 and troponin I were measured on admission and 48 hours later. The composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, recurrent angina, or revascularization was significantly lower at 14 and 30 days of follow-up in patients allocated to enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin. All acute-phase reactant proteins were elevated on admission and increased further at 48 hours. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the rise of von Willebrand factor over 48 hours was a significant and independent predictor of the composite end point at both 14 days and 30 days. Moreover the early increase of von Willebrand factor was more frequent and more severe with unfractionated heparin than with enoxaparin (mean change was +8.7+/-8.8% with enoxaparin versus +93.9+/-11.7% with unfractionated heparin, P<0.0001). The other clinical and biological variables did not predict outcome. CONCLUSIONS In patients with unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, the acute-phase proteins increase over the first 2 days despite medical treatment. The early rise of von Willebrand factor is an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcome at 14 days and at 30 days. Enoxaparin provides protection as evidenced by the reduced release of von Willebrand factor, which represents a favorable prognostic finding.

Polymer-free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk

BACKGROUND Patients at high risk for bleeding who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. We studied a polymer-free and carrier-free drug-coated stent that transfers umirolimus (also known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period of 1 month. METHODS In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who underwent PCI. All patients received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety end point, tested for both noninferiority and superiority, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization. RESULTS We enrolled 2466 patients. At 390 days, the primary safety end point had occurred in 112 patients (9.4%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to -1.0; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.005 for superiority). During the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patients (5.1%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to -2.6; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.69; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Among patients at high risk for bleeding who underwent PCI, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and efficacy end points when used with a 1-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy. (Funded by Biosensors Europe; LEADERS FREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01623180.).

Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial

BACKGROUND No medium-term data are available on the random comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents. The study aims to demonstrate two mechanistic properties of the bioresorbable scaffold: increase in luminal dimensions as a result of recovered vasomotion of the scaffolded vessel. METHODS The ABSORB II trial is a prospective, randomised, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel two-group, multicentre clinical trial. We enrolled eligible patients aged 18-85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Randomisation was stratified by diabetes status and number of planned target lesions. At 3 year follow-up, the primary endpoint was superiority of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold versus the Xience metallic stent in angiographic vasomotor reactivity after administration of intracoronary nitrate. The co-primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of angiographic late luminal loss. For the endpoint of vasomotion, the comparison was tested using a two-sided t test. For the endpoint of late luminal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority margin of 0·14 mm. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425281. FINDINGS Between Nov 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, we enrolled 501 patients and randomly assigned them to the Absorb group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the Xience group (166 patients, 182 lesions). The vasomotor reactivity at 3 years was not statistically different (Absorb group 0·047 mm [SD 0·109] vs Xience group 0·056 mm [0·117]; psuperiority=0·49), whereas the late luminal loss was larger in the Absorb group than in the Xience group (0·37 mm [0·45] vs 0·25 mm [0·25]; pnon-inferiority=0·78). This difference in luminal dimension was confirmed by intravascular ultrasound assessment of the minimum lumen area (4·32 mm2 [SD 1·48] vs 5·38 mm2 [1·51]; p<0·0001). The secondary endpoints of patient-oriented composite endpoint, Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, and exercise testing were not statistically different in both groups. However, a device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly different between the Absorb group and the Xience group (10% vs 5%, hazard ratio 2·17 [95% CI 1·01-4·70]; log-rank test p=0·0425), mainly driven by target vessel myocardial infarction (6% vs 1%; p=0·0108), including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%; p=0·16). INTERPRETATION The trial did not meet its co-primary endpoints of superior vasomotor reactivity and non-inferior late luminal loss for the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with respect to the metallic stent, which was found to have significantly lower late luminal loss than the Absorb scaffold. A higher rate of device-oriented composite endpoint due to target vessel myocardial infarction, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction, was observed in the Absorb group. The patient-oriented composite endpoint, anginal status, and exercise testing, were not statistically different between both devices at 3 years. Future studies should investigate the clinical impact of accurate intravascular imaging in sizing the device and in optimising the scaffold implantation. The benefit and need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable scaffold implantation could also become a topic for future clinical research. FUNDING Abbott Vascular.

Dual-antiplatelet treatment beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation (ARCTIC-Interruption): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND Optimum duration of dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) after coronary stenting remains uncertain, with an unknown efficacy to safety ratio of extended treatment leading to discrepancies between international guidelines and clinical practice. We assessed whether DAPT continuation beyond 1 year after coronary stenting is beneficial. METHODS This analysis was a planned extension of the previously published ARCTIC-Monitoring trial, in which we randomly allocated 2440 patients to a strategy of platelet function testing with antiplatelet treatment adjustment or a conventional strategy after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stent (DES). We recruited patients (aged 18 years or older) scheduled for planned DES implantation at 38 centres in France. After 1 year of follow-up, patients without contraindication to interruption of DAPT were eligible for a second randomisation to this second phase of the study (ARCTIC-Interruption). Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratified by centre), we allocated patients to a strategy of interruption of DAPT where the thienopyridine was interrupted and single aspirin antiplatelet treatment was maintained (interruption group) or a strategy of DAPT continuation for 6-18 months (continuation group). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularisation, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00827411. FINDINGS Between Jan 4, 2011, and March 3, 2012, 1259 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment in ARCTIC-Interruption: 624 to the interruption group and 635 to the continuation group. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 15-18), the primary endpoint occurred in 27 (4%) patients in the interruption group and 24 (4%) patients in the continuation group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·17 [95% CI 0·68-2·03]; p=0·58). STEEPLE major bleeding events occurred more often in the continuation group (seven [1%] patients) compared with the interruption group (one [<0·5%] patient; HR 0·15 [0·02-1·20]; p=0·073). Major or minor bleedings were also more common in the continuation group compared with the interruption group (12 [2%] patients vs three [1%] patients; HR 0·26 [0·07-0·91]; p=0·04). INTERPRETATION Our finding suggests no apparent benefit but instead harm with extension of DAPT beyond 1 year after stenting with DES when no event has occurred within the first year after stenting. No conclusion can be drawn for high-risk patients who could not be randomised. The consistency between findings from all trials of such interruption suggests the need for a reappraisal of guidelines for DAPT after coronary stenting towards shorter duration of treatment. FUNDING Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks (ACTION Study Group), Fondation de France, Sanofi-Aventis, Cordis, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Fondation SGAM.

A collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis on 1278 patients undergoing percutaneous drug-eluting stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease ☆

BACKGROUND Cardiac surgery is the standard treatment for unprotected left main disease (ULM). Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation has been recently reported in patients with ULM but with unclear results. We systematically reviewed outcomes of percutaneous DES implantation in ULM. METHODS Several databases were searched for clinical studies reporting on > or = 20 patients and > or = 6-month follow-up. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; ie, death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization [TVR]) at the longest follow-up. Incidence and adjusted risk estimates were pooled with generic inverse variance random-effect methods (95% CIs). RESULTS From 823 initial citations, 16 studies were included (1278 patients, median follow-up 10 months). Eight were uncontrolled registries, 5 nonrandomized comparisons between DES and bare-metal stents and 3 nonrandomized comparisons between DES and CABG, with no properly randomized trial. Meta-analysis for DES-based PCI showed, at the longest follow-up, rates of 16.5% (11.7%-21.3%) MACE, 5.5% (3.4%-7.7%) death, and 6.5% (3.7%-9.2%) TVR. Comparison of DES versus bare-metal stent disclosed adjusted odds ratios for MACE of 0.34 (0.16-0.71), and DES versus CABG showed adjusted odds ratios for MACE plus stroke of 0.46 (0.24-0.90). Meta-regression showed that disease location predicted MACE (P = .001) and TVR (P = .020), whereas high-risk features predicted death (P = .027). CONCLUSIONS Clinical studies report apparently favorable early and midterm results in selected patients with ULM. However, given their limitations in validity and the inherent risk for DES thrombosis, results from randomized trials are still needed to definitely establish the role of DES implantation instead of the reference treatment, surgery.

Randomized Comparison of the Nobori Biolimus A9-Eluting Coronary Stent With the Taxus Liberté Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent in Patients With Stenosis in Native Coronary Arteries The NOBORI 1 Trial—Phase 2

Background—The newly developed Nobori coronary stent coated with a bioresorbable polymer, polylactic acid, and the antiproliferative agent Biolimus A9 has the potential to reduce restenosis by suppressing neointima formation. Methods and Results—We conducted a randomized (2:1), controlled trial comparing the Biolimus A9-eluting stent Nobori and the paclitaxel-eluting stent Taxus Liberté, in 243 patients (153 Nobori and 90 Taxus) at 29 centers in Europe, Asia, and Australia. Patients with previously untreated lesions in up to 2 native coronary arteries were considered for enrollment. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 9 months, whereas secondary end points included other quantitative coronary angiography parameters, such as in-segment late loss and the rate of restenosis as well as key intravascular ultrasound parameters. Clinical secondary end points were stent thrombosis and composite of major adverse cardiac events comprising death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. At 9 months, the in-stent late loss was significantly lower in the Nobori group compared with the Taxus group (0.11±0.30 mm versus 0.32±0.50 mm) reaching both the primary hypothesis of noninferiority of Nobori stent versus Taxus Liberté stent (P<0.001) and the secondary hypothesis of superiority (P=0.001). This finding was confirmed by a significant reduction in binary restenosis from 6.2% in Taxus to 0.7% in Nobori (P=0.02) and neointimal volume obstruction, detected by intravascular ultrasound, from 5.5±7.2% in Taxus to 1.8±5.2% in Nobori (P=0.01). The major adverse cardiac events rate was 4.6% in the Nobori and 5.6% in the Taxus cohort of patients. The stent thrombosis rate was 0% in the Nobori arm and 4.4% in the Taxus arm. Conclusions—The NOBORI 1 clinical trial confirmed its primary hypothesis—noninferiority of the Nobori Biolimus A9-eluting stent versus the Taxus Liberté stent in reducing neointimal proliferation. Both stents showed a low major adverse cardiac events rate in the studied population.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the Edwards SAPIEN Versus the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System Devices A Multicenter Collaborative Study: The PRAGMATIC Plus Initiative (Pooled-RotterdAm-Milano-Toulouse In Collaboration)

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) versus the Edwards SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve (ESV) for severe aortic stenosis. BACKGROUND No large matched comparison study has been conducted so far evaluating both commercially available devices. METHODS The data from databases of 4 experienced European centers were pooled and analyzed. Due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics, propensity score matching was performed. Study objectives were Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS In total, 793 patients were included: 453 (57.1%) treated with the MCV and 340 (42.9%) with the ESV. After propensity matching, 204 patients were identified in each group. At 30 days, there were no differences in all-cause mortality (MCV, 8.8% vs. ESV, 6.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.422; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 2.984; p = 0.352), cardiovascular mortality (MCV, 6.9% vs. ESV, 6.4%; HR: 1.083; 95% CI: 0.496 to 2.364; p = 0.842), myocardial infarction (MCV, 0.5% vs. ESV, 1.5%; HR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.034 to 3.200; p = 0.339), stroke (MCV, 2.9% vs. ESV, 1.0%; HR: 3.061; 95% CI: 0.610 to 15.346; p = 0.174), or device success (MCV, 95.6% vs. ESV, 96.6%; HR: 0.770; 95% CI: 0.281 to 2.108; p = 0.611). Additionally, there were no differences in major vascular complications (MCV, 9.3% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 0.735; 95% CI: 0.391 to 1.382; p = 0.340) or life-threatening bleeding (MCV, 13.7% vs. ESV, 8.8%; HR: 1.644; 95% CI: 0.878 to 3.077; p = 0.120). MCV was associated with more permanent pacemakers (22.5% vs. 5.9%; HR: 4.634; 95% CI: 2.373 to 9.050; p < 0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences in all-cause (MCV, 16.2% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 1.374; 95% CI: 0.785 to 2.407; p = 0.266) or cardiovascular (MCV, 8.3% vs. ESV, 7.4%; HR: 1.145; 95% CI: 0.556 to 12.361; p = 0.713) mortality. CONCLUSIONS No differences between the 2 commercially available transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices were observed at the adjusted analysis in Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes except for the need for permanent pacemakers with the MCV.

Primary endpoint results of the EVOLVE trial: a randomized evaluation of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare the safety and efficacy of 2 dose formulations of SYNERGY, a novel bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) compared with the durable polymer PROMUS Element EES (Boston Scientific Corp.). BACKGROUND Durable polymer coatings on drug-eluting stents have been associated with chronic inflammation and impaired healing. Bioabsorbable polymer-coated drug-delivery systems may reduce the risk of late adverse events, including stent thrombosis, and thus the need for prolonged dual-antiplatelet therapy. METHODS A total of 291 patients with a de novo lesion ≤28 mm in length, in a coronary artery of ≥2.25 to ≤3.5 mm diameter, were enrolled in the EVOLVE study, a prospective, randomized, single-blind, noninferiority trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to PROMUS Element, SYNERGY, or SYNERGY half dose. The primary clinical endpoint was the 30-day rate of target lesion failure, defined as cardiac death or myocardial infarction related to the target vessel, or target lesion revascularization. The primary angiographic endpoint was 6-month in-stent late loss measured by quantitative coronary angiography. RESULTS The 30-day primary clinical endpoint of target lesion failure occurred in 0%, 1.1%, and 3.1% of patients in the PROMUS Element, SYNERGY, and SYNERGY half dose groups, respectively. The 6-month in-stent late loss was 0.15 ± 0.34 mm for PROMUS Element, 0.10 ± 0.25 mm for SYNERGY, and 0.13 ± 0.26 mm for SYNERGY half dose (SYNERGY, difference -0.06, upper 95.2% confidence limit: 0.02, p for noninferiority <0.001; SYNERGY half dose, difference -0.03, upper 95.2% confidence limit: 0.05, p for noninferiority <0.001). Clinical event rates remained low and comparable between groups, with no stent thromboses in any group at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS The EVOLVE trial confirms the effective delivery of everolimus by a unique directional bioabsorbable polymer system utilizing the SYNERGY stent. (A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Single-Blind Noninferiority Trial to Assess the Safety and Performance of the Evolution Everolimus-Eluting Monorail Coronary Stent System [Evolution Stent System] for the Treatment of a De Novo Atherosclerotic Lesion [EVOLVE]; NCT01135225).