Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Donald E. Cutlip is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Donald E. Cutlip.


Circulation | 2007

Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials A Case for Standardized Definitions

Donald E. Cutlip; Stephan Windecker; Roxana Mehran; Ashley Boam; David J. Cohen; Gerrit-Anne van Es; P. Gabriel Steg; Marie-angèle Morel; Laura Mauri; Pascal Vranckx; Eugene McFadden; Alexandra J. Lansky; Martial Hamon; Mitchell W. Krucoff; Patrick W. Serruys

Background— Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. Methods and Results— The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. Conclusion— Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.


The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery | 2012

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

A. Pieter Kappetein; Stuart J. Head; Philippe Généreux; Nicolo Piazza; Nicolas M. Van Mieghem; Eugene H. Blackstone; Thomas G. Brott; David J. Cohen; Donald E. Cutlip; Gerrit Anne van Es; Rebecca T. Hahn; Ajay J. Kirtane; Mitchell W. Krucoff; Susheel Kodali; Michael J. Mack; Roxana Mehran; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Pascal Vranckx; John G. Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick W. Serruys; Martin B. Leon

OBJECTIVES The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. BACKGROUND A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. METHODS AND RESULTS Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2010

Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Treatment of Carotid-Artery Stenosis

Thomas G. Brott; Robert W. Hobson; George Howard; Gary S. Roubin; Wayne M. Clark; William Brooks; Ariane Mackey; Michael D. Hill; Pierre P. Leimgruber; Alice J. Sheffet; Virginia J. Howard; Wesley S. Moore; Jenifer H. Voeks; L. Nelson Hopkins; Donald E. Cutlip; David J. Cohen; Jeffrey J. Popma; Robert D. Ferguson; Stanley N. Cohen; Joseph L. Blackshear; Frank L. Silver; J. P. Mohr; Brajesh K. Lal; James F. Meschia

BACKGROUND Carotid-artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy are both options for treating carotid-artery stenosis, an important cause of stroke. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis to undergo carotid-artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. RESULTS For 2502 patients over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated 4-year rates of the primary end point between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.51; P=0.51). There was no differential treatment effect with regard to the primary end point according to symptomatic status (P=0.84) or sex (P=0.34). The 4-year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% with stenting and 4.7% with endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 1.50; P=0.03); the rates among symptomatic patients were 8.0% and 6.4% (hazard ratio, 1.37; P=0.14), and the rates among asymptomatic patients were 4.5% and 2.7% (hazard ratio, 1.86; P=0.07), respectively. Periprocedural rates of individual components of the end points differed between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group: for death (0.7% vs. 0.3%, P=0.18), for stroke (4.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.01), and for myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.03). After this period, the incidences of ipsilateral stroke with stenting and with endarterectomy were similarly low (2.0% and 2.4%, respectively; P=0.85). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death did not differ significantly in the group undergoing carotid-artery stenting and the group undergoing carotid endarterectomy. During the periprocedural period, there was a higher risk of stroke with stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction with endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.)


The New England Journal of Medicine | 1998

A Clinical Trial Comparing Three Antithrombotic-Drug Regimens after Coronary-Artery Stenting

Martin B. Leon; Donald S. Baim; Jeffrey J. Popma; Paul C. Gordon; Donald E. Cutlip; Kalon K.L. Ho; Alex Giambartolomei; Daniel J. Diver; David Lasorda; David O. Williams; Stuart J. Pocock; Richard E. Kuntz

Background Antithrombotic drugs are used after coronary-artery stenting to prevent stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of three antithrombotic-drug regimens — aspirin alone, aspirin and warfarin, and aspirin and ticlopidine — after coronary stenting. Methods Of 1965 patients who underwent coronary stenting at 50 centers, 1653 (84.1 percent) met angiographic criteria for successful placement of the stent and were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: aspirin alone (557 patients), aspirin and warfarin (550 patients), or aspirin and ticlopidine (546 patients). All clinical events reflecting stent thrombosis were included in the prespecified primary end point: death, revascularization of the target lesion, angiographically evident thrombosis, or myocardial infarction within 30 days. Results The primary end point was observed in 38 patients: 20 (3.6 percent) assigned to receive aspirin alone, 15 (2.7 percent) assigned to receive aspirin and warfarin, and 3 (0.5 percent) assigned to rece...


Circulation | 2011

Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials A Consensus Report From the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium

Roxana Mehran; Sunil V. Rao; Deepak L. Bhatt; C. Michael Gibson; Adriano Caixeta; John W. Eikelboom; Sanjay Kaul; Stephen D. Wiviott; Venu Menon; Eugenia Nikolsky; Victor L. Serebruany; Marco Valgimigli; Pascal Vranckx; David P. Taggart; Joseph F. Sabik; Donald E. Cutlip; Mitchell W. Krucoff; E. Magnus Ohman; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Harvey D. White

Advances in antithrombotic therapy, along with an early invasive strategy, have reduced the incidence of recurrent ischemic events and death in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS; unstable angina, non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction [MI], and ST-segment–elevation MI).1,–,4 However, the combination of multiple pharmacotherapies, including aspirin, platelet P2Y12 inhibitors, heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, direct thrombin inhibitors, and the increasing use of invasive procedures, has also been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Editorial see p 2664 Bleeding complications have been associated with an increased risk of subsequent adverse outcomes, including MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and death, in patients with ACS and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI),5,–,10 as well as in the long-term antithrombotic setting.11,12 Thus, balancing the anti-ischemic benefits against the bleeding risk of antithrombotic agents and interventions is of paramount importance in assessing new therapies and in managing patients. Prior randomized trials comparing antithrombotic agents suggest that a reduction in bleeding events is associated with improved survival.13,14 Because prevention of major bleeding may represent an important step in improving outcomes by balancing safety and efficacy in the contemporary treatment of ACS, bleeding events have been systematically identified as a crucial end point for the assessment of the safety of drugs during the course of randomized clinical trials, and are an important aspect of the evaluation of new devices and interventional therapies.15 Unlike ischemic clinical events (eg, cardiac death, MI, stent thrombosis), for which there is now general consensus on end-point definitions,16,17 there is substantial heterogeneity among the many bleeding definitions currently in use. Lack of standardization makes it difficult to optimally organize key clinical trial processes such as adjudication, and even more difficult to interpret relative …


European Heart Journal | 2011

Standardized Endpoint Definitions for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Clinical Trials : A Consensus Report From the Valve Academic Research Consortium

Martin B. Leon; Nicolo Piazza; Eugenia Nikolsky; Eugene H. Blackstone; Donald E. Cutlip; Arie Pieter Kappetein; Mitchell W. Krucoff; Michael J. Mack; Roxana Mehran; Craig S. Miller; Marie-Angèle Morel; John R. Petersen; Jeffrey J. Popma; Johanna J.M. Takkenberg; Alec Vahanian; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Pascal Vranckx; John G. Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick Serruys

Objectives To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health. Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a worthwhile less invasive treatment in many patients with severe aortic stenosis and since its introduction to the medical community in 2002, there has been an explosive growth in procedures. The integration of TAVI into daily clinical practice should be guided by academic activities, which requires a harmonized and structured process for data collection, interpretation, and reporting during well-conducted clinical trials. Methods and results The Valve Academic Research Consortium established an independent collaboration between Academic Research organizations and specialty societies (cardiology and cardiac surgery) in the USA and Europe. Two meetings, in San Francisco, California (September 2009) and in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (December 2009), including key physician experts, and representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and device manufacturers, were focused on creating consistent endpoint definitions and consensus recommendations for implementation in TAVI clinical research programs. Important considerations in developing endpoint definitions included (i) respect for the historical legacy of surgical valve guidelines; (ii) identification of pathophysiological mechanisms associated with clinical events; (iii) emphasis on clinical relevance. Consensus criteria were developed for the following endpoints: mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, and prosthetic valve performance. Composite endpoints for TAVI safety and effectiveness were also recommended. Conclusion Although consensus criteria will invariably include certain arbitrary features, an organized multidisciplinary process to develop specific definitions for TAVI clinical research should provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of this new important catheter-based therapy. The broadly based consensus endpoint definitions described in this document may be useful for regulatory and clinical trial purposes.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2014

Twelve or 30 Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Drug-Eluting Stents

Laura Mauri; Robert W. Yeh; Priscilla Driscoll-Shempp; Donald E. Cutlip; P. Gabriel Steg; Sharon-Lise T. Normand; Eugene Braunwald; Stephen D. Wiviott; David J. Cohen; David R. Holmes; Mitchell W. Krucoff; James B. Hermiller; Harold L. Dauerman; Daniel I. Simon; David E. Kandzari; Kirk N. Garratt; David P. Lee; Thomas K. Pow; Peter Ver Lee; Michael J. Rinaldi; Joseph M. Massaro

BACKGROUND Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended after coronary stenting to prevent thrombotic complications, yet the benefits and risks of treatment beyond 1 year are uncertain. METHODS Patients were enrolled after they had undergone a coronary stent procedure in which a drug-eluting stent was placed. After 12 months of treatment with a thienopyridine drug (clopidogrel or prasugrel) and aspirin, patients were randomly assigned to continue receiving thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo for another 18 months; all patients continued receiving aspirin. The coprimary efficacy end points were stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during the period from 12 to 30 months. The primary safety end point was moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS A total of 9961 patients were randomly assigned to continue thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo. Continued treatment with thienopyridine, as compared with placebo, reduced the rates of stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.4%; hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.17 to 0.48]; P<0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.3% vs. 5.9%; hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85]; P<0.001). The rate of myocardial infarction was lower with thienopyridine treatment than with placebo (2.1% vs. 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.47; P<0.001). The rate of death from any cause was 2.0% in the group that continued thienopyridine therapy and 1.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.85]; P=0.05). The rate of moderate or severe bleeding was increased with continued thienopyridine treatment (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P=0.001). An elevated risk of stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction was observed in both groups during the 3 months after discontinuation of thienopyridine treatment. CONCLUSIONS Dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after placement of a drug-eluting stent, as compared with aspirin therapy alone, significantly reduced the risks of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. (Funded by a consortium of eight device and drug manufacturers and others; DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00977938.).


Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2012

Updated Standardized Endpoint Definitions for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

A. Pieter Kappetein; Stuart J. Head; Philippe Généreux; Nicolo Piazza; Nicolas M. Van Mieghem; Eugene H. Blackstone; Thomas G. Brott; David J. Cohen; Donald E. Cutlip; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Rebecca T. Hahn; Ajay J. Kirtane; Mitchell W. Krucoff; Susheel Kodali; Michael J. Mack; Roxana Mehran; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Pascal Vranckx; John G. Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick W. Serruys; Martin B. Leon

OBJECTIVES The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. BACKGROUND A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. METHODS AND RESULTS Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiography recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2010

Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease.

Gregg W. Stone; Ali Rizvi; William P. Newman; Kourosh Mastali; John C. Wang; Ronald P. Caputo; Julie Doostzadeh; Sherry Cao; Charles A. Simonton; Krishnankutty Sudhir; Alexandra J. Lansky; Donald E. Cutlip

BACKGROUND Previous studies have established the superiority of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic findings. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in clinical end points. METHODS We randomly assigned 3687 patients at 66 U.S. sites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angiography. The primary end point was the 1-year composite rate of target-lesion failure (defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization). RESULTS Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point of target-lesion failure (4.2% vs. 6.8%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.82; P=0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents were also superior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were noninferior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year composite rate of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.09 for superiority). The 1-year rates of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were also lower with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myocardial infarction; 0.17% vs. 0.85%, P=0.004 for stent thrombosis). Target-lesion failure was consistently reduced with everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups, except in the subgroup of patients with diabetes (6.4% vs. 6.9%, P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year, results that were consistent in all patients except those with diabetes, in whom the results were nonsignificantly different. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307047.)


Circulation | 2001

Stent Thrombosis in the Modern Era

Donald E. Cutlip; Donald S. Baim; Kalon K.L. Ho; Jeffrey J. Popma; Alexandra J. Lansky; David J. Cohen; Joseph P. Carrozza; Manish S. Chauhan; Orlando Rodriguez; Richard E. Kuntz

Background—There are limited studies of stent thrombosis in the modern era of second-generation stents, high-pressure deployment, and current antithrombotic regimens. Methods and Results—Six recently completed coronary stent trials and associated nonrandomized registries that enrolled 6186 patients (6219 treated vessels) treated with ≥1 coronary stent followed by antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and ticlopidine were pooled for this analysis. Within 30 days, clinical stent thrombosis developed in 53 patients (0.9%). The variables most significantly associated with the probability of stent thrombosis were persistent dissection NHLBI grade B or higher after stenting (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.9 to 7.7), total stent length (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.5 per 10 mm), and final minimal lumen diameter within the stent (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.7 per 1 mm). Stent thrombosis was documented by angiography in 45 patients (0.7%). Clinical consequences of angiographic stent thrombosis included 64.4% incidence of death or myoc...

Collaboration


Dive into the Donald E. Cutlip's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Laura Mauri

Brigham and Women's Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David J. Cohen

University of Missouri–Kansas City

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jeffrey J. Popma

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Richard E. Kuntz

Brigham and Women's Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Kalon K.L. Ho

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Martin B. Leon

Columbia University Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Donald S. Baim

Brigham and Women's Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Robert W. Yeh

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge