Teirstein, Paul S.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis, but data are limited on younger, low-risk patients. This analysis compares outcomes in low-surgical-risk patients aged <75 years receiving TAVR versus surgery. METHODS: The Evolut Low Risk Trial randomized 1414 low-risk patients to treatment with a supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR or surgery. We compared rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, associated clinical outcomes, and bioprosthetic valve performance at 3 years between TAVR and surgery patients aged <75 years. RESULTS: In patients <75 years, 352 were randomized to TAVR and 351 to surgery. Mean age was 69.1±4.0 years (minimum 51 and maximum 74); Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 1.7±0.6%. At 3 years, all-cause mortality or disabling stroke for TAVR was 5.7% and 8.0% for surgery ( P =0.241). Although there was no difference between TAVR and surgery in all-cause mortality, the incidence of disabling stroke was lower with TAVR (0.6%) than surgery (2.9%; P =0.019), while surgery was associated with a lower incidence of pacemaker implantation (7.1%) compared with TAVR (21.0%; P <0.001). Valve reintervention rates (TAVR 1.5%, surgery 1.5%, P =0.962) were low in both groups. Valve performance was significantly better with TAVR than surgery with lower mean aortic gradients ( P <0.001) and lower rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch ( P <0.001). Rates of valve thrombosis and endocarditis were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of residual ≥moderate paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk patients <75 years treated with supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR had comparable 3-year all-cause mortality and lower disabling stroke compared with patients treated with surgery. There was significantly better valve performance in patients treated with TAVR. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02701283.

Background— Observed rates of restenosis after drug-eluting stenting are low (<10%). Identification of a reliable and powerful angiographic end point will be useful in future trials. Methods and Results— Late loss (postprocedural minimum lumen diameter minus 8-month minimum lumen diameter) was measured in the angiographic cohorts of the SIRIUS (n=703) and E-SIRIUS (n=308) trials. Two techniques, the standard normal approximation and an optimized power transformation, were used to predict binary angiographic restenosis rates and compare them with observed restenosis rates. The mean in-stent late loss observed in the SIRIUS trial was 0.17±0.45 mm (sirolimus) versus 1.00±0.70 mm (control). If a normal distribution was assumed, late loss accurately estimated in-stent binary angiographic restenosis for the control arm (predicted 35.4% versus observed 35.4%) but underestimated it in the sirolimus arm (predicted 0.6% versus observed 3.2%). Power transformation improved the reliability of the estimate in the sirolimus arm (predicted 3.2% [CI 1.0% to 6.7%]) with similar improvements in the E-SIRIUS trial (predicted 4.0% [CI 1.2% to 7.0%] versus observed 3.9%). In the sirolimus-eluting stent arm, in-stent late loss correlated better with target-lesion revascularization than in-segment late loss (c-statistic=0.915 versus 0.665). Conclusions— Because distributions of late loss with a low mean are right-skewed, the use of a transformation improves the accuracy of predicting low binary restenosis rates. Late loss is monotonically correlated with the probability of restenosis and yields a more efficient estimate of the restenosis process in the era of lower binary restenosis rates.

Background— Revascularization strategies often hinge on the presence and degree of left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) stenosis. A decision for bypass surgery is often based on the durability of surgical LAD revascularization compared with percutaneous approaches. By decreasing restenosis, drug-eluting stents may have reduced the “reintervention gap” between surgery and percutaneous intervention, making the percutaneous route preferable. Methods and Results— Of the 1101 patients in the SIRIUS trial, 459 with an LAD stenosis were randomized to percutaneous intervention with either sirolimus-eluting or bare-metal stents. Baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic data were obtained. Patients had 1-year clinical and 8-month angiographic follow-up. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The majority of lesions were tubular type B lesions (69.7%) with a mean diameter of 2.73 mm and a mean length of 14.0 mm. The binary in-stent restenosis rate was 2% for the sirolimus stent group and 41.6% for the bare-metal arm (relative risk, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.1; P <0.001). One-year major adverse events (defined as cardiac death, Q-wave and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was decreased 59% in the sirolimus-stent group (9.8% versus 24.9%; relative risk, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.61; P <0.001). Subgroup analysis of 135 patients with proximal LAD lesions showed similar benefits. In-stent restenosis was 0 in the proximal LAD sirolimus-eluting group (n=67), compared with 38% in the bare-metal arm (n=68), and major adverse events demonstrated a similar trend, with a 50% decrease compared with control patients (10.4% versus 20.6%, P =NS). Conclusions— Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly decrease revascularization rates in LAD lesions. At 1 year, sirolimus-eluting stent revascularization rates are comparable to historic single vessel bypass surgery revascularization rates.

Background— Although 192 Ir intracoronary brachytherapy has been demonstrated to dramatically reduce the recurrence of in-stent restenosis, up to 24% of these patients will still require repeat target-vessel revascularization. The short- and long-term outcomes of repeat percutaneous intervention in this population have not been characterized. Methods and Results— Analysis was performed of all patients enrolled in the GAMMA-I and GAMMA-II brachytherapy trials who underwent repeat percutaneous target lesion revascularization (TLR) because of restenosis. Subjects were divided into 2 cohorts: those who had received 192 Ir brachytherapy and those randomized to placebo. Forty-five (17.6%) of a total of 256 patients whose index treatment was intracoronary radiation therapy and 36 (29.8%) of 121 patients whose index treatment was placebo required repeat percutaneous TLR. The mean time to this first TLR was 295±206 days in the irradiated group and 202±167 days in the placebo group ( P =0.03). Acute procedural success occurred in 100% of irradiated patients and 94% of placebo controls ( P =0.19). After the first TLR, a subsequent TLR was required in 15 (33.3%) of 45 brachytherapy patients versus 17 (47.2%) of 36 placebo failure patients ( P =0.26). There was no significant difference in time to second TLR between the 2 groups. Other long-term major adverse event rates in both groups were comparable to those of other contemporary angioplasty/stenting series. Conclusions— In those patients who “fail” 192 Ir intracoronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis, treatment with 192 Ir delays the time to first TLR. Additionally, repeat percutaneous intervention in these patients is safe and efficacious in the short term, with acceptable long-term results.