Peter Tadros

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis.

BACKGROUND We compared transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), using a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and an increased risk of death during surgery. METHODS We recruited patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk as determined by the heart team at each study center. Risk assessment included the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predictor Risk of Mortality estimate and consideration of other key risk factors. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to TAVR with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (TAVR group) or to surgical aortic-valve replacement (surgical group). The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause at 1 year, evaluated with the use of both noninferiority and superiority testing. RESULTS A total of 795 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. In the as-treated analysis, the rate of death from any cause at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgical group (14.2% vs. 19.1%), with an absolute reduction in risk of 4.9 percentage points (upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval, -0.4; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.04 for superiority). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis. In a hierarchical testing procedure, TAVR was noninferior with respect to echocardiographic indexes of valve stenosis, functional status, and quality of life. Exploratory analyses suggested a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and no increase in the risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Medtronic; U.S. CoreValve High Risk Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01240902.).

Health Status After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Increased Surgical Risk: Results From the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). BACKGROUND In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. METHODS Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. RESULTS Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaires physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. CONCLUSIONS Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).

Prosthesis–patient mismatch in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: A randomized trial of a self-expanding prosthesis

OBJECTIVES We compared the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a self-expanding bioprosthesis and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the CoreValve US High Risk Pivotal Trial. We sought to determine the influence of PPM on clinical outcomes. METHODS Patients with severe aortic stenosis and at increased risk for surgery were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined by the effective orifice area index (EOAi) as severe PPM (EOAi ≤ 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) and no severe PPM (EOAi > 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)); clinical outcomes were analyzed in the TAVR arm (n = 389) and SAVR arm (n = 353). Left ventricular mass index and regression were analyzed at baseline and 1 year. RESULTS The incidence of severe PPM in the SAVR group at 1 year was 25.7% versus 6.2% in the TAVR group (P < .0001). Left ventricular mass index regression at 1 year was 6.8% for TAVR and 15.1% for SAVR in patients with severe PPM. At 1 year the rate of all-cause mortality and acute kidney injury were significantly greater in all patients (TAVR + SAVR) with severe PPM compared with no severe PPM (20.6% vs 12.0% [P = .0145] for death and 19.2% vs 8.5% [P = .0008] for acute kidney injury). CONCLUSIONS In patients with high surgical risk and severe aortic stenosis, severe PPM is more common in patients treated with SAVR than those treated with TAVR. Patients with severe PPM are a greater risk for death and acute kidney injury than patients without severe PPM.

Expanded use of the TAXUS Express Stent: two-year safety insights from the 7,500 patient ARRIVE Registry programme

AIMS We report 2-year outcomes in a large unselected drug-eluting stent population (N=7,492) in the TAXUS Express2 ARRIVE post-market surveillance programme (101 U.S. sites). METHODS AND RESULTS No specific inclusion/exclusion criteria were mandated; patients enrolled at procedure initiation. Two-year follow-up was 94%, with independent adjudication of major cardiac events, monitoring of patients with cardiac events and an additional 10-20% sample by site. Most ARRIVE cases (64%, n=4,794) typified expanded use based on patient/lesion characteristics outside the simple use (single vessel/stent) pivotal trial populations. These expanded use patients had higher 2-year rates than simple use patients for mortality (7.8% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001), myocardial infarction (MI, 3.9% vs. 2.2%, P<0.001), target lesion revascularisation (TLR, 9.2% vs. 5.4%, P<0.001), and stent thrombosis (3.3% vs. 1.4%, P<0.001). Among subgroups with renal disease, chronic total occlusion (CTO), lesion >28 mm, reference vessel diameter (RVD) <2.5 mm, multivessel stenting, acute MI, bifurcation, vein graft, or in-stent restenosis, TLR ranged from 3.8% to 8.9% in year one, and from 1.3% to 6.0% during year two. CONCLUSIONS Mortality and stent-related events were higher in expanded use than simple use patients in the pivotal trials. ARRIVE provides a detailed estimate of procedural and 2-year outcomes in such real-world patients.

Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access sites in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed extreme risk of surgery

OBJECTIVES The CoreValve Extreme Risk US Pivotal Trial enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis deemed unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement. Implants were attempted using transfemoral access (n = 489) or an alternative access (n = 150). In present analysis, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access. METHODS The present study included 150 patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy who were treated with the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by way of the subclavian artery (n = 70) or a direct aortic approach (n = 80). The echocardiograms were read by an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months. RESULTS The preoperative aortic valve area was 0.72 ± 0.27 cm(2) and mean aortic valve gradient was 49.5 ± 17.0 mm Hg. After the transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the effective aortic valve area was 1.82 ± 0.64 cm(2) at 1 month and 1.85 ± 0.51 cm(2) at 12 months. The mean aortic valve gradient was 9.7 ± 5.8 mm Hg at 30 days and 9.5 ± 5.7 mm Hg at 12 months. The death or major stroke rate was 15.3% at 30 days and 39.4% at 12 months. The individual rate of all-cause mortality and major stroke was 11.3% and 7.5% at 30 days and 36.0% and 9.1% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS These data demonstrate that the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by an alternative access provides a suitable alternative for treatment of extreme risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, who have prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy and no surgical options.

Outcomes in the Randomized CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial in Patients With a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score of 7% or Less

Importance Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at increased operative risk. There is interest in whether TAVR would benefit patients at lower risk. Objective The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) has trended downward in US TAVR trials and the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. We hypothesized that if the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) alone is sufficient to define decreased risk, the contribution to survival based on the degree of invasiveness of the TAVR procedure will decrease, making it more difficult to show improved survival and benefit over SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent an attempted implant and had an STS PROM of 7% or less. The trial was performed at 45 US sites. Patients had severe aortic stenosis and were at increased surgical risk based on their STS PROM score and other risk factors. Interventions Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-expanding TAVR or to SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures We retrospectively stratified patients by the overall median STS PROM score (7%) and analyzed clinical outcomes and quality of life using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with an STS PROM score of 7% or less. Results The mean (SD) ages were 81.5 (7.6) years for the TAVR group and 81.2 years (6.6) for the SAVR group. A little more than half were men (57.9% in the TAVR group and 55.8% in the SAVR group). Of 750 patients who underwent attempted implantation, 383 (202 TAVR and 181 SAVR) had an STS PROM of 7% or less (median [interquartile range]: TAVR, 5.3% [4.3%-6.1%]; SAVR, 5.3% [4.1%-5.9%]). Two-year all-cause mortality for TAVR vs SAVR was 15.0% (95% CI, 8.9-10.0) vs 26.3% (95% CI, 19.7-33.0) (log rank P = .01). The 2-year rate of stroke for TAVR vs SAVR was 11.3% vs 15.1% (log rank P = .50). Quality of life by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score showed significant and equivalent increases in both groups at 2 years (mean [SD] TAVR, 20.0 [25.0]; SAVR, 18.6 [23.6]; P = .71; both P < .001 compared with baseline). Medical benefit, defined as alive with a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score of at least 60 and a less than 10-point decrease from baseline, was similar between groups at 2 years (TAVR, 51.0%; SAVR, 44.4%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance Self-expanding TAVR compares favorably with SAVR in high-risk patients with STS PROM scores traditionally considered intermediate risk. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

Cardiac catheterization in patients with end-stage liver disease: Safety and outcomes†

Introduction: Patients with end‐stage liver disease (ESLD) awaiting transplant are at increased risk of bleeding. Nevertheless, these patients routinely undergo cardiac catheterization for various indications. Safety and outcomes of cardiac catheterization in these patients are not well reported. Methods: In a case–control study 43 patients with ESLD who underwent angiography for liver transplant work‐up were compared to 43 age and gender‐matched controls with no liver dysfunction. In‐hospital outcomes and procedural variables were compared. Results: Patients with ESLD had a lower baseline hemoglobin (12.1 ± 2.1 vs. 13.7 ± 1.8, P < 0.0005), lower platelet counts (86.8 ± 66 vs. 247 ± 80, P < 0.0001) and higher international normalized ratio (INR) (1.4 ± 0.2 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2, P < 0.0001) than controls. Among ESLD group, five (11.6%) patients received platelet transfusions, one received blood transfusion, and three patients (7%) with INR > 1.6 received fresh frozen plasma (FFP) compared with none in the control group. Smaller size (four French) vascular sheaths were used more frequently in the group with ESLD (16% vs. 4%, P = 0.04). There were no significant vascular or bleeding complications in either group. Conclusions: Elective cardiac catheterization can be safely performed in patients with ESLD with outcomes (vascular and bleeding complications, length of hospital stay and in‐hospital mortality) similar to patients without liver disease despite significant thrombocytopenia and elevated INR in patients with ESLD. Practices such as platelet transfusion for platelets <60,000 μL, prophylactic FFP transfusion for INR ≥≥ 1.6, less frequent use of antiplatelet therapy and more frequent use of smaller vascular sheaths may have contributed to the safety of cardiac catheterization in ESLD patients.

Comparison of Accuracy of Two Different Methods to Determine Ankle-Brachial Index to Predict Peripheral Arterial Disease Severity Confirmed by Angiography

Ankle-brachial index (ABI) is conventionally derived as the ratio of higher of the 2 systolic ankle blood pressures to the higher brachial pressure (HABI method). Alternatively, ABI may be derived using the lower of the 2 systolic ankle pressures (LABI method). The objective of this study was to assess the utility and difference between 2 techniques in predicting peripheral artery disease (PAD). Participants who underwent both ABI measurement and arteriography from July 2005 to June 2010 were reviewed. Angiographic disease burden was scored semiquantitatively (0=<50%, 1=50% to 75%, and 2=>75% stenosis of any lower extremity arterial segment), and PAD by angiography was defined as >50% stenosis of any 1 lower extremity arterial segment. A combined PAD disease score was calculated for each leg. A total of 130 patients were enrolled (260 limbs). The ABI was <0.9 (abnormal) in 68% of patients by HABI method and in 84% by LABI. LABI method had higher sensitivity and overall accuracy to detect PAD compared with the HABI method. Regression analysis showed that an abnormal ABI detected by LABI method is more likely to predict angiographic PAD and total PAD burden compared with HABI. Moreover, abnormal ABI by LABI method had higher sensitivity and accuracy to detect PAD in patients with diabetes and below knee PAD compared with the HABI method. In conclusion, ABI determined by the LABI method has higher sensitivity and is a better predictor of PAD compared with the conventional (HABI) method.

Non-ST-segment elevation syndromes. Pharmacologic management, conservative versus early invasive approach.

PREVIEW Acute coronary syndromes include both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and the broad spectrum of non-ST-segment elevation syndromes. The latter comprise unstable angina and non-Q wave MI (ie, non-ST-segment elevation MI). Identification and management of this subset of syndromes remains a major challenge for primary care physicians, emergency medicine physicians, and cardiologists alike. In this article, Drs Santiago and Tadros review the available treatment options, evidence from major studies, and the current status of the ongoing debate over conservative versus early invasive management.

Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement or Surgical Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes

ISS Fro syl Ce D pa dio Ca og olo Un syl De of BACKGROUND The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial was the first randomized trial to show superior 1-year mortality of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among high operative mortality–risk patients. OBJECTIVES The authors sought to compare TAVR to SAVR for mid-term 5-year outcomes of safety, performance, and durability. METHODS Surgical high-risk patients were randomized (1:1) to TAVR with the self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR. VARC-1 (Valve Academic Research Consortium I) definitions were applied. Severe hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined as a mean gradient