One-year outcomes from an international study of the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System for endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveThis study evaluated 1-year safety and effectiveness outcomes of the United States regulatory trial for the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System (TriVascular Inc, Santa Rosa, Calif) for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial was conducted at 36 sites in the United States, Germany, and Chile to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Ovation stent graft. From November 2009 to May 2011, 161 patients (88% males; mean age, 73 ± 8 years) with AAAs (mean diameter, 54 ± 9 mm) were treated with the Ovation stent graft. The main body is a modular two-docking limb device with a 14F outer diameter delivery system, active suprarenal fixation, and polymer-filled proximal rings that accommodate the aortic neck for seal. Main inclusion criteria included proximal aortic neck length ≥7 mm, inner neck diameter between 16 and 30 mm, distal iliac landing zones length ≥10 mm, and diameter between 8 and 20 mm. Patients were treated under a common protocol, including clinical and imaging follow-up at discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and annually through 5 years. A Clinical Events Committee adjudicated adverse events, an independent imaging core laboratory analyzed imaging, and a Data Safety and Monitoring Board provided study oversight. Complete 1-year follow-up data were available for this report.ResultsThe Ovation stent graft was implanted successfully in 161 patients (100%), including 69 (42.9%) by percutaneous access. General anesthesia was used in 106 patients (65.8%). Technical success was 100%, and mean procedure time was 110 minutes. Median procedural blood loss was 150 mL, and median hospital stay was 1 day. The 30-day major adverse event rate was 2.5%. At 1 year, AAA-related and all-cause mortality were 0.6% and 2.5%, respectively. Major adverse event and serious adverse event rates through 1 year were 6.2% and 38.5%, respectively. The 1-year treatment success rate was 99.3%. The imaging core laboratory reported no stent graft migration or type I, III, or IV endoleaks. At 1 year, type II endoleaks were identified in 34% of patients, and AAA enlargement was identified in one patient (0.7%). No AAA rupture or conversion to open surgery was reported. AAA-related secondary procedures were performed in 10 patients (6.2%) for 12 findings, including endoleak (six), aortic main body stenosis (three), and iliac limb stenosis or occlusion (three).ConclusionsThe 1-year results of the Ovation Abdominal Stent Graft System demonstrate excellent safety and effectiveness in treatment of patients with AAAs, particularly in patients with challenging anatomic characteristics, including short aortic necks and narrow iliac arteries. Longer-term follow-up is needed

Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that, in a randomized trial, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid artery disease at 30 days and at 1 year. We now report the 3-year results. METHODS: The trial evaluated carotid artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device as compared with endarterectomy in 334 patients at increased risk for complications from endarterectomy who had either a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50% of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80%. The prespecified major secondary end point at 3 years was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the procedure or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1080 days (3 years). RESULTS: At 3 years, data were available for 260 patients (77.8%), including 85.6% of patients in the stenting group and 70.1% of those in the endarterectomy group. The prespecified major secondary end point occurred in 41 patients in the stenting group (cumulative incidence, 24.6%; Kaplan-Meier estimate, 26.2%) and 45 patients in the endarterectomy group (cumulative incidence, 26.9%; Kaplan-Meier estimate, 30.3%) (absolute difference in cumulative incidence for the stenting group, -2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -11.8 to 7.0). There were 15 strokes in each of the two groups, of which 11 in the stenting group and 9 in the endarterectomy group were ipsilateral. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial of patients with severe carotid artery stenosis and increased surgical risk, no significant difference could be shown in long-term outcomes between patients who underwent carotid artery stenting with an emboli-protection device and those who underwent endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00231270 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

Long-term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Lotus Valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR: A Secondary Analysis of the REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is of interest given that longitudinal data on mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves are limited. The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System - Randomized Clinical Evaluation) randomized clinical trial compared the mechanically expanded Lotus valve with the self-expanding CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Objective: To describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial.Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis assessed the final 5-year clinical, functional, and echocardiographic outcomes of 912 patients from the REPRISE III trial, which was conducted at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015. Patients had high risk for aortic stenosis or severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2014, to May 21, 2021. Intervention: Lotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms.Main Outcomes and Measures: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up.Results: A total of 912 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.8 [7.3] years; 463 women [50.8%]) were randomized to either the Lotus valve group (n = 607) or CoreValve/EvolutR group (n = 305), with a baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 6.8%. Clinical follow-up data from the REPRISE III trial were available for 581 patients (95.7%) in the Lotus valve group and 285 patients (93.4%) in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. At 5 years, the cumulative event rate for all-cause mortality was 50.9% in the Lotus valve group vs 52.8% in the CoreValve/EvolutR group (P =.59). Disabling stroke was less frequent with the Lotus valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR (cumulative event rates, 8.3% vs 12.2%; P =.04), whereas the cumulative event rates for overall stroke were similar in both groups (14.1% vs 15.3%; P =.38). Insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (38.9% vs 27.3%; P Conclusions and Relevance: The REPRISE III trial found that, at 5 years, the clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve were comparable to those of the CoreValve/EvolutR and that the Lotus valve was safe and effective.</p

Long-term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Lotus Valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR : A Secondary Analysis of the REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is of interest given that longitudinal data on mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves are limited. The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) randomized clinical trial compared the mechanically expanded Lotus valve with the self-expanding CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Objective: To describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis assessed the final 5-year clinical, functional, and echocardiographic outcomes of 912 patients from the REPRISE III trial, which was conducted at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015. Patients had high risk for aortic stenosis or severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2014, to May 21, 2021. Intervention: Lotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up. Results: A total of 912 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.8 [7.3] years; 463 women [50.8%]) were randomized to either the Lotus valve group (n = 607) or CoreValve/EvolutR group (n = 305), with a baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 6.8%. Clinical follow-up data from the REPRISE III trial were available for 581 patients (95.7%) in the Lotus valve group and 285 patients (93.4%) in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. At 5 years, the cumulative event rate for all-cause mortality was 50.9% in the Lotus valve group vs 52.8% in the CoreValve/EvolutR group (P = .59). Disabling stroke was less frequent with the Lotus valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR (cumulative event rates, 8.3% vs 12.2%; P = .04), whereas the cumulative event rates for overall stroke were similar in both groups (14.1% vs 15.3%; P = .38). Insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (38.9% vs 27.3%; P < .001) and detection of prosthetic aortic valve thrombosis (5.8% vs 1.8%; P = .007) were more common in the Lotus valve group than in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. A smaller proportion of patients who received the Lotus valve experienced valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and required the use of a second valve (1.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001) during the procedure compared with those who received the CoreValve/EvolutR. Compared with the Lotus valve group, the CoreValve/EvolutR group had a significantly lower mean (SD) aortic gradient (7.8 [4.2] mm Hg vs 12.6 [6.7] mm Hg; P < .001) and larger valve areas (1.57 [0.56] cm2 vs 1.42 [0.42] cm2; P = .10). After 5 years, the proportion of patients with moderate or greater paravalvular leak was not significantly higher with the CoreValve/EvolutR than with the Lotus valve (1.9% vs 0%; P = .31); however, the proportion of patients with mild paravalvular leak was higher in the CoreValve/EvolutR group compared with the Lotus valve group (23.1% vs 7.8%; P = .006). Long-term, similar improvements in New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score were observed in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: The REPRISE III trial found that, at 5 years, the clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve were comparable to those of the CoreValve/EvolutR and that the Lotus valve was safe and effective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434

Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy is more effective than medical management in the prevention of stroke in patients with severe symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis. Stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is a less invasive revascularization strategy than endarterectomy in carotid-artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial comparing carotid-artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device to endarterectomy in 334 patients with coexisting conditions that potentially increased the risk posed by endarterectomy and who had either a symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis of at least 50 percent of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80 percent. The primary end point of the study was the cumulative incidence of a major cardiovascular event at 1 year--a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the intervention or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the less invasive strategy, stenting, was not inferior to endarterectomy. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 20 patients randomly assigned to undergo carotid-artery stenting with an emboli-protection device (cumulative incidence, 12.2 percent) and in 32 patients randomly assigned to undergo endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 20.1 percent; absolute difference, -7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, -16.4 to 0.7 percentage points; P=0.004 for noninferiority, and P=0.053 for superiority). At one year, carotid revascularization was repeated in fewer patients who had received stents than in those who had undergone endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 0.6 percent vs. 4.3 percent; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe carotid-artery stenosis and coexisting conditions, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs self-expanding valves: The REPRISE III randomized clinical trial

Importance: To our knowledge, REPRISE III is the first large randomized comparison of 2 different transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms: the mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific) and self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic). Objective: To evaluate outcomes of Lotus vs CoreValve after 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 912 patients with high/extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, were randomized 2:1 to receive Lotus (607 [66.6%]) or CoreValve (305 [33.4%] at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia. The first 2-year visit occurred on October 17, 2016, and the last was conducted on April 12, 2018. Clinical and echocardiographic assessments are complete through 2 years and will continue annually through 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Other clinical factors included overall stroke, disabling stroke, repeated procedures, rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation. Echocardiographic analyses included effective orifice area, mean gradient, and paravalvular leaks (PVLs). Results: Of 912 participants, the mean (SD) age was 82.8 (7.3) years, 465 (51%) were women, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 6.8% (4.0%). At 2 years, all-cause death was 21.3% with Lotus vs 22.5% with CoreValve (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26; P = .67) and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 22.8% with Lotus and 27.0% with CoreValve (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07; P = .14). Overall stroke was 8.4% vs 11.4% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; P = .21); disabling stroke was more frequent with CoreValve vs Lotus (4.7% Lotus vs 8.6% CoreValve; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.93; P = .02). More Lotus patients received a new permanent pacemaker (41.7% vs 26.1%; HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.41-2.49; P \u3c .01) or had a valve thrombosis (3.0% vs 0.0%; P \u3c .01) compared with CoreValve. More patients who received CoreValve experienced a repeated procedure (0.6% Lotus vs 2.9% CoreValve; HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.70; P \u3c .01), valve migration (0.0% vs 0.7%; P = .05), or embolization (0.0% vs 2.0%; P \u3c .01) than Lotus. Valve areas remained significantly larger and the mean gradient was lower with CoreValve than Lotus (valve area, mean [SD]: Lotus, 1.53 [0.49] cm2 vs CoreValve, 1.76 [0.51] cm2; P \u3c .01; valve gradient, mean [SD]: Lotus, 13.0 [6.7] mm Hg vs 8.1 [3.7] mm Hg; P \u3c .01). Moderate or greater PVL was more frequent with CoreValve (0.3% Lotus vs 3.8% CoreValve; P \u3c .01) at 2 years. Larger improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were observed with Lotus compared with CoreValve (improved by ≥1 NYHA class: Lotus, 338 of 402 [84.1%] vs CoreValve, 143 of 189 [75.7%]; P = .01; improved by ≥2 NYHA classes: 122 of 402 [37.3%] vs 65 of 305 [21.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: After 2 years, all-cause mortality rates, mortality or disabling stroke were similar between Lotus and CoreValve. Disabling stroke, functional class, valve migration, and PVL favored the Lotus arm whereas valve hemodynamics, thrombosis, and new pacemaker implantation favored the CoreValve arm. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434