CRT-700.34 Short-Term Outcomes Among Aortic Valve Stenosis Patients Undergoing Impella-Supported High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), severe aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Although the use of mechanical circulatory support with Impella has been shown to improve 90-day outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk PCI (HRPCI), there is little information about the safety of this approach in pts with severe AS. We, therefore, sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety outcomes of Impella-supported HRPCI among patients with varying severity of AS. Methods: We studied patients enrolled in PROTECT III—a multicenter study of patients undergoing Impella-supported HRPCI. Patients were classified according to the severity of AS: none/trivial, mild, moderate, and severe. The primary outcome was the rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 90 days, defined as the composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke/ TIA, and revascularization. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital PCI-related complications, stroke/TIA, and vascular complications requiring surgery. Results: Of 596 patients with echocardiographic data, 490 had no/trivial AS, and 34, 27, and 45 had mild, moderate, or severe AS, respectively. Patients with AS were older, less likely to have diabetes, more likely to have left main disease, and had higher left ventricular ejection fractions (Table). Severely calcified lesions and the use of atherectomy were more frequent among patients with moderate or severe AS. There were no differences in rates of PCI-related complications, stroke/TIA, 30-day MACCE, or 90-day MACCE according to AS severity. Rates of transfusion were higher among patients with AS—regardless of severity. Conclusion: Among patients undergoing Impella-supported HRPCI, PCI-related complications and 90-day outcomes did not differ based on AS status or severity

Life Expectancy After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked DownloadBackground: Surgical risk, age, perceived life expectancy, and valve durability influence the choice between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The contemporaneous life expectancy after SAVR, in relation to surgical risk and age, is unknown. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine median survival time in relation to surgical risk and chronological age in SAVR patients. Methods: Patients ≥60 years with aortic stenosis who underwent isolated SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 8,353) were risk-stratified before surgery into low, intermediate, or high surgical risk using the logistic EuroSCORE (2001-2011) or EuroSCORE II (2012-2017) and divided into age groups. Median survival time and cumulative 5-year mortality were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox regression analysis was used to further determine the importance of age. Results: There were 7,123 (85.1%) low-risk patients, 942 (11.3%) intermediate-risk patients, and 288 (3.5%) high-risk patients. Median survival time was 10.9 years (95% confidence interval: 10.6-11.2 years) in low-risk, 7.3 years (7.0-7.9 years) in intermediate-risk, and 5.8 years (5.4-6.5 years) in high-risk patients. The 5-year cumulative mortality was 16.5% (15.5%-17.4%), 30.7% (27.5%-33.7%), and 43.0% (36.8%-48.7%), respectively. In low-risk patients, median survival time ranged from 16.2 years in patients aged 60 to 64 years to 6.1 years in patients aged ≥85 years. Age was associated with 5-year mortality only in low-risk patients (interaction P < 0.001). Conclusions: Eighty-five percent of SAVR patients receiving bioprostheses have low surgical risk. Estimated survival is substantial following SAVR, especially in younger, low-risk patients, which should be considered in Heart Team discussions. Keywords: aortic stenosis; aortic valve replacement; epidemiology; valvular heart disease.Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation Swedish government Swedish county councils concerning economic support of research and education of doctors (ALF agreement) ALFGBG-725131 Vastra Gotaland Region Family Nils Winberg's Foundatio

Comparing results of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease by surgical revascularization pump strategy

Objective: We performed a post hoc analysis of the Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial to determine the effect an on-versus off-pump strategy had on outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods:All randomized patients in EXCEL (n = 1905) were included. The outcomes of interest were the primary end point composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; the composite study end point or ischemia-driven revascularization; and the rate of death from any cause at 5 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan–Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. Results: Propensity matching resulted in groups of 1142 patients (571 each) for on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention and 472 patients (236 each) for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention. In the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point was similar (18.0% vs 22.1%, P = .19) and the composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (23.3% vs 31.0%, P = .01) was lower, and mortality (7.6% vs 11.8%, P = .025) was lower in the on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting group at 5 years. In the off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention matched groups, the composite end point (19.4% vs 22.2%, P = .47), composite end point or ischemia-driven revascularization (25.9% vs 34.2%, P = .07), and mortality (12.5% vs 14.2%, P = .59) were similar at 5 years. Conclusions: In the EXCEL trial, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a decreased 5-year rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization, and decreased mortality when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were similar to percutaneous coronary intervention.</p

CRT-700.05 Impella Utilization in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Mitigates the Risks of Procedural and Clinical Adverse Events Independent of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: The Protect III Study

Background: Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is associated with an increased risk of adverse events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the impact of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) on the outcomes of Impella-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) is unknown. Methods: Patients enrolled in the prospective, multicenter, and observational PROTECT III study from March 2017 to March 2020 who underwent Impella-supported HRPCI at the operator’s discretion (non-cardiogenic shock). Patients were divided into three tertiles (T) based on baseline LVEF: T1 (the lowest), T2, and T3 (the highest). The primary outcome is the rate of 90-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and repeated revascularization as adjudicated by an independent CEC. Results: Of 1237 patients, 940 with available baseline LVEF were analyzed. T1 included 353 patients (mean LVEF 19.6±4.7), T2 included 274 patients (mean LVEF 32.2±3.5), and T3 included 313 patients (mean LVEF 52.6±9.2). Patients in the higher tertiles were older, more likely to be females, presented more with acute coronary syndrome, and had more frequent left main disease. Also, severely calcified lesions and atherectomy utilization were more frequent in the higher tertiles. The rates of 90-day MACCE were comparable across all tertiles. Furthermore, PCI-related complications and 1-year mortality were also comparable (Table). After multivariable adjustment, 90-day MACCE was not significantly different between the LVEF tertiles (p=0.32). Conclusion: In patients with HRPCI supported by Impella, the rates of in-hospital adverse events, PCI-related complications, 90-day MACCE, and 1-year mortality were comparable among the different LVEF tertiles

Utility of the ACC/AHA Lesion Classification to Predict Outcomes After Contemporary DES Treatment:Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis From 7 Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND: Use of the modified American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) lesion classification as a prognostic tool to predict short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in the modern drug‐eluting stent era is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient‐level data from 7 prospective, randomized trials were pooled. Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing single lesion percutaneous coronary intervention with second‐generation drug‐eluting stent were analyzed according to modified ACC/AHA lesion class. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF: composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization). Clinical outcomes to 5 years were compared between patients treated for noncomplex (class A/B1) versus complex (class B2/C) lesions. Eight thousand five hundred sixteen patients (age 63.1±10.8 years, 70.5% male) were analyzed. Lesions were classified as A, B1, B2, and C in 7.9%, 28.5%, 33.7%, and 30.0% of cases, respectively. Target lesion failure was higher in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of complex versus noncomplex lesions at 30 days (2.0% versus 1.1%, P=0.004), at 1 year (4.6% versus 3.0%, P=0.0005), and at 5 years (12.4% versus 9.2%, P=0.0001). By multivariable analysis, treatment of ACC/AHA class B2/C lesions was significantly associated with higher rate of 5‐year target lesion failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.17–1.64], P=0.0001) driven by significantly higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled large‐scale analysis, treating complex compared with noncomplex lesions according to the modified ACC/AHA classification with second‐generation drug‐eluting stent was associated with worse 5‐year clinical outcomes. This historical classification system may be useful in the contemporary era for predicting early and late outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention

Characterization of the Average Daily Ischemic and Bleeding Risk After Primary PCI for STEMI.

BACKGROUND: The risk of recurrent ischemic and bleeding events after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may not be uniform over time, which may affect the benefit-to-risk ratio of guideline-recommended antithrombotic therapies in different intervals. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize the average daily ischemic rates (ADIRs) and average daily bleeding rates (ADBRs) within the first year after primary PCI for STEMI. METHODS: Among 3,602 patients with STEMI who were enrolled in the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, all ischemic and bleeding events, including recurrent events, were classified according to the timing of their occurrence as acute (?24 h after PCI), subacute (1 day to 30 days), and late (30 days to 1 year). Patients were treated with aspirin and clopidogrel for the entire year. ADIRs included cardiac death, reinfarction, and definite stent thrombosis. ADBRs included non-coronary artery bypass graft-related Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major and minor bleeding. ADIRs and ADBRs were calculated as the total number of events divided by the number of patient-days of follow-up in each interval assuming a Poisson distribution. Generalized estimating equations were used to test the absolute least square mean differences (LSMD) between ADIRs and ADBRs. RESULTS: The ADIR and ADBR both exponentially decreased from the acute to the late periods (p < 0.0001). Although there were no significant differences in ADIR and ADBR in the acute phase (LSMD: +0.11%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.35% to 0.58%; p = 0.63), the ADBR was greater than the ADIR in the subacute phase (LSMD: -0.39%; 95% CI: -0.58% to -0.20%; p < 0.0001). In the late phase, the ADIR exceeded the ADBR (LSMD: +1.51%; 95% CI: 1.04% to 1.98%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: After primary PCI, the ADIR and ADBR both markedly decreased over time. Although the rates for bleeding exceeded those for ischemia within 30 days, the daily risk of ischemia significantly exceeded the daily risk of bleeding beyond 30 days, supporting the use of intensified platelet inhibition during the first year after STEMI

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial

Background: There is limited information on the incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence of NOAF following PCI and CABG for LMCAD and its effect on 3-year cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. Outcomes were analyzed according to the development of NOAF during the initial hospitalization following revascularization. Results: Among 1,812 patients without atrial fibrillation on presentation, NOAF developed at a mean of 2.7 ± 2.5 days after revascularization in 162 patients (8.9%), including 161 of 893 (18.0%) CABG-treated patients and 1 of 919 (0.1%) PCI-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Older age, greater body mass index, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of NOAF in patients undergoing CABG. Patients with versus without NOAF had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization, were more likely to be discharged on anticoagulant therapy, and had an increased 30-day rate of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (14.2% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.0001). By multivariable analysis, NOAF after CABG was an independent predictor of 3-year stroke (6.6% vs. 2.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74 to 10.11; p = 0.001), death (11.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.60 to 5.70; p = 0.0006), and the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke (22.6% vs. 12.8%; adjusted HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.25; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: In patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization in the EXCEL trial, NOAF was common after CABG but extremely rare after PCI. The development of NOAF was strongly associated with subsequent death and stroke in CABG-treated patients. Further studies are warranted to determine whether prophylactic strategies to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation may improve prognosis in patients with LMCAD who are undergoing CABG. (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularizatio

B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Assessment in Patients Undergoing Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND: Elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is reflective of impaired cardiac function and is associated with worse prognosis among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to assess the association between baseline BNP, adverse outcomes, and the relative efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main CAD. METHODS: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) randomized patients with left main CAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the associations between normal versus elevated BNP (≥100 pg/mL), randomized treatment, and the 3-year risk of adverse events. RESULTS: BNP at baseline was elevated in 410 of 1037 (39.5%) patients enrolled in EXCEL. Patients with elevated BNP levels were older and more frequently had additional cardiovascular risk factors and lower left ventricular ejection fraction than those with normal BNP, but had similar SYNTAX scores. Patients with elevated BNP had significantly higher 3-year rates of the primary end point (18.6% versus 11.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.28; P=0.005) and higher mortality (11.5% versus 3.9%; adjusted HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.48-4.19; P=0.0006), both from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes. In contrast, there were no significant differences in the risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, graft occlusion, or major bleeding. A significant interaction ( Pinteraction=0.03) was present between elevated versus normal BNP and treatment with PCI versus CABG for the adjusted risk of the primary composite end point at 3 years among patients with elevated BNP (adjusted HR for PCI versus CABG, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.96-2.47) versus normal BNP (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.46-1.20). This interaction was stronger when log(BNP) was modeled as a continuous variable ( Pinteraction=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, elevated baseline BNP levels in patients with left main CAD undergoing revascularization were independently associated with long-term mortality but not nonfatal adverse ischemic or bleeding events. The relative long-term outcomes after PCI versus CABG for revascularization of left main CAD may be conditioned by the baseline BNP level. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01205776

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials: strengthening the concept through a robust international collaborative network: PRIME-9-pragmatic research and innovation through multinational experimentation.

In an era focused on value-based healthcare, the quality of healthcare and resource allocation should be underpinned by empirical evidence. Pragmatic clinical trials (pRCTs) are essential in this endeavor, providing randomized controlled trial (RCT) insights that encapsulate real-world effects of interventions. The rising popularity of pRCTs can be attributed to their ability to mirror real-world practices, accommodate larger sample sizes, and provide cost advantages over traditional RCTs. By harmonizing efficacy with effectiveness, pRCTs assist decision-makers in prioritizing interventions that have a substantial public health impact and align with the tenets of value-based health care. An international network for pRCT provides several advantages, including larger and diverse patient populations, access to a broader range of healthcare settings, sharing knowledge and expertise, and overcoming ethical and regulatory barriers. The hypothesis and study design of pRCT answers the decision-maker's questions. pRCT compares clinically relevant alternative interventions, recruits participants from diverse practice settings, and collects data on various health outcomes. They are scarce because the medical products industry typically does not fund pRCT. Prioritizing these studies by expanding the infrastructure to conduct clinical research within the healthcare delivery system and increasing public and private funding for these studies will be necessary to facilitate pRCTs. These changes require more clinical and health policy decision-makers in clinical research priority setting, infrastructure development, and funding. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of pRCTs, emphasizing their importance in evidence-based medicine and the advantages of an international collaborative network for their execution. It details the development of PRIME-9, an international initiative across nine countries to advance pRCTs, and explores various statistical approaches for these trials. The paper underscores the need to overcome current challenges, such as funding limitations and infrastructural constraints, to leverage the full potential of pRCTs in optimizing healthcare quality and resource utilization