Comparison of Outcome After Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair With the MitraClip in Patients With Versus Without Atrial Fibrillation

Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip is an established treatment for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) who are inoperable or at high risk for surgery. Atrial Fibrillation (AF) frequently coincides with MR, but only scarce data of the influence of AF on outcome after MitraClip is available. The aim of the current study was to compare the clinical outcome after MitraClip treatment in patients with versus without atrial fibrillation. Between January 2009 and January 2016, all consecutive patients treated with a MitraClip in 5 Dutch centers were included. Outcome measures were survival, symptoms, MR grade, and stroke incidence. In total, 618 patients were treated with a MitraClip. Patients with AF were older, had higher N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide levels, more tricuspid regurgitation, less often coronary artery disease and a better left ventricular function. Survival of patients treated with the MitraClip was similar for patients with AF (82%) and without AF (non-AF; 85%) after 1 year (p = 0.30), but significantly different after 5-year follow-up (AF 34%; non-AF 47%; p = 0.006). After 1 month, 64% of the patients with AF were in New York Heart Association class I or II, in contrast to 77% of the patients without AF (p = 0.001). The stroke incidence appeared not to be significantly different (AF 1.8%; non-AF 1.0%; p = 0.40). In conclusion, patients with AF had similar 1-year survival, MR reduction, and stroke incidence compared with non-AF patients. However, MitraClip patients with AF had reduced long-term survival and remained more symptomatic compared with those without AF.</p

Three-year clinical outcome in the Primary Stenting of Totally Occluded Native Coronary Arteries III (PRISON III) trial: a randomised comparison between sirolimus-eluting stent implantation and zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of total coronary occlusions

Aims: Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have been shown to be superior to Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and comparable to Resolute ZES at eight-month angiography in patients treated for total coronary occlusions (TCO). This study investigated clinical outcome at three-year follow-up. Methods and results: The PRISON III trial investigated the efficacy and safety of SES against ZES (Endeavor and Resolute) in two study phases. In the first phase, 51 patients were randomised to receive SES and 46 to Endeavor ZES. In the second phase, 103 and 104 patients were randomised to SES or Resolute ZES, respectively. Between one and three years there were only a few additional clinical events in all groups. As a result, the rates of target lesion revascularisation 12.2% vs. 19.6%, p=0.49, target vessel failure 14.3% vs. 19.6%, p=0.68, and definite or probable stent thrombosis 4.1% vs. 2.2% were comparable between SES and Endeavor ZES at three years. In the second study phase, the rates of target lesion revascularisation 10% vs. 5.9%, p=0.42, target vessel failure 10% vs. 7.9%, p=0.79 and definite or probable stent thrombosis 1.0% vs. 0% were similar between SES and Resolute ZES. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated a low incidence of clinical events between one- and three-year follow-up with either SES compared to Endeavor ZES or SES versus Resolute ZES in patients treated for total coronary occlusion

Primary Stenting of Totally Occluded Native Coronary Arteries III (PRISON III): a randomised comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation with zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of total coronary occlusions

We investigated whether sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are superior to next-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in treating patients with total coronary occlusions (TCO). In a prospective, randomised trial we compared the SES with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES; Endeavor or Resolute) after successful recanalisation of TCO. During the first phase of the trial, 51 patients were assigned to receive the SES and 46 patients to receive the Endeavor ZES. In the second phase we randomised 103 patients to the SES group and 104 patients to the Resolute ZES group. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss at eight-month follow-up. At eight months, patients in the SES group had less in-segment and in-stent late loss as compared to the Endeavor group: -0.13±0.3 mm vs. 0.27±0.6 mm (p=0.0002) and -0.13±0.5 mm vs. 0.54±0.5 mm (p <0.0001), respectively. In contrast, the SES and the Resolute ZES showed comparable amounts of in-segment (-0.03±0.7 mm vs. -0.10±0.7 mm, p=0.6) and in-stent (0.03±0.8 mm vs. 0.05±0.8 mm, p=0.9) late loss. In the treatment of TCOs, the SES was associated with superior angiographic outcomes compared to the Endeavor ZES. On the other hand, the SES and the Resolute ZES showed comparable angiographic outcome