Leon, Martin B.

Background— The higher risk of adverse outcomes after transapical (TA) versus transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) could be attributable to TA-TAVR being an open surgical procedure or to clinical differences between TA- and TF-TAVR patients. We compared outcomes after neutralizing patient differences using propensity score matching. Methods and Results— From April 2007 to February 2012, 1100 Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER)-I patients underwent TA-TAVR and 1521 underwent TF-TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN balloon-expandable bioprostheses. Propensity matching based on 111 preprocedural variables, exclusive of femoral access morphology, identified 501 well-matched patient pairs (46% of possible matches), 95% of whom had peripheral arterial disease. Matched TA-TAVR patients experienced more adverse procedural events, longer length of stay (5 versus 8 days; P <0.0001), and slower recovery (New York Heart Association class I, 31% versus 38% at 30 days, equalizing by 6 months at 51% versus 47%); stroke risk was similar (3.4% versus 3.3% at 30 days and 6.0% versus 6.7% at 3 years); mortality was elevated for the first 6 postprocedural months (19% versus 12%; P =0.01); but aortic regurgitation was less (34% versus 52% mild and 8.9% versus 12% moderate to severe at discharge, P =0.001; 36% versus 50% mild and 10% versus 15% moderate to severe at 6 months, P <0.0001). Conclusions— The likelihood of adverse periprocedural events and prolonged recovery is greater after TA-TAVR than TF-TAVR in vasculopathic patients after accounting for differences in cardiovascular risk factors, although stroke risk is equivalent and aortic regurgitation is less. As smaller delivery systems permit TF-TAVR in many of these patients, we recommend a TF-first access strategy for TAVR when anatomically feasible. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the balloon‐expandable Sapien transcatheter heart valve improves survival compared to standard therapy in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and is noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at high operative risk. Nonetheless, a significant proportion of patients may require pre‐emptive or emergent support with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and/or intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) during TAVR due to pre‐existing comorbid conditions or as a result of procedural complications. Objectives: We hypothesized that patients who required CPB or IABP would have increased periprocedural complications and reduced long‐term survival. In addition, we sought to determine whether preprocedural variables could predict the need for CPB and IABP. Methods: The study population included 2,525 patients in the PARTNER Trial (Cohort A and B) and the continuing access registry (CAR). Patients that received CPB or IABP were compared to patients that did not receive either, and then further divided into those that received support pre‐TAVR and those that were placed on support emergently. Results: One‐hundred sixty‐three patients (6.5%) were placed on CPB and/or IABP. The use of CPB or IABP was associated with higher 1 year mortality (49.1% vs. 21.6%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, utilization of CPB or IABP was an independent predictor of 30 day (HR 6.95) and 1‐year (HR 2.56) mortality. Although mortality was highest in emergent cases, mortality was also greater in planned CPB and IABP cases compared with non‐CPB/IABP cases (53.3% and 40.3% vs. 21.6%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings indicate that CPB and IABP use in TAVR portends a poor prognosis and its utilization, particularly in the setting of pre‐emptive use, needs reconsideration. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background— In patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improves survival when compared with nonsurgical therapy but with higher in-hospital and lifetime costs. Complications associated with TAVR may decrease with greater experience and improved devices, thereby reducing the overall cost of the procedure. Therefore, we sought to estimate the effect of periprocedural complications on in-hospital costs and length of stay of TAVR. Methods and Results— Using detailed cost data from 406 TAVR patients enrolled in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) I trial, we developed multivariable models to estimate the incremental cost and length of stay associated with specific periprocedural complications. Attributable costs and length of stay for each complication were calculated by multiplying the independent cost of each event by its frequency in the treatment group. Mean cost for the initial hospitalization was $79 619±40 570 ($50 891 excluding the valve); 49% of patients had ≥1 complication. Seven complications were independently associated with increased hospital costs, with major bleeding, arrhythmia, and death accounting for the largest attributable cost per patient. Renal failure and the need for repeat TAVR, although less frequent, were also associated with substantial incremental and attributable costs. Overall, complications accounted for $12 475 per patient in initial hospital costs and 2.4 days of hospitalization. Conclusions— In the PARTNER trial, periprocedural complications were frequent, costly, and accounted for ≈25% of non-implant–related hospital costs. Avoidance of complications should improve the cost-effectiveness of TAVR for inoperable and high-risk patients, but reductions in the cost of uncomplicated TAVR will also be necessary for optimal efficiency. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Background— The objective was to evaluate the effects of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in those patients included in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) randomized controlled trial cohort A and the nonrandomized continued access cohort. Methods and Results— Patients included the randomized controlled trial (n=574) and nonrandomized continued access (n=1358) cohorts were divided in tertiles according to aortic annulus diameter (small aortic annulus tertile, medium aortic annulus tertile, and large aortic annulus tertile [LAA], respectively) as measured by transthoracic echocardiography. Severe prosthesis–patient mismatch was defined as an effective aortic orifice area of <0.65 cm 2 /m 2 . In the randomized controlled trial cohort, patients in the small aortic annulus tertile who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement had a lower incidence of severe prosthesis–patient mismatch (19.7% versus 37.5%; P =0.03) and only a trend toward a higher incidence of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (5.7% versus 0%; P =0.06). In the LAA tertile, there were no differences in the rate of prosthesis–patient mismatch between groups, and a significant increase in moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks was associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (9% versus 0%; P =0.01). There were no differences in mortality between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. In the nonrandomized continued access cohort, there were no differences in prosthesis–patient mismatch between the small aortic annulus and LAA tertiles, but a higher rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks was observed in the LAA tertile (5.9% versus 11.5%; P =0.009). Patients in the LAA tertile had a higher mortality rate at 1-year follow-up ( P =0.02), and differences persisted in multivariable analysis ( P =0.048 for LAA versus medium aortic annulus tertile, P =0.035 for LAA versus small aortic annulus tertile). Conclusions— Aortic annulus size had a major impact on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. This study highlights the importance of considering aortic annulus size in the evaluation of high-risk patients who are candidates for aortic valve replacement. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

We compared measures of ID coronary atherosclerosis between diabetic and non-diabetic patients enrolled in a prospective multinational IVUS registry. The region of interest was the most diseased 10 mm segment of a single coronary artery. Coronary plaque was quantified using greyscale IVUS and further classified by phenotype (ID-adaptive intimal thickening, ID-pathological intimal thickening, ID-TCFA, ID-fibroatheroma, or ID-fibrocalcific) using VH-IVUS. There was a non-significant trend for greater total plaque volume in diabetic (n=191) compared with non-diabetic (n=584) patients (94.8 vs. 88.1 mm 3 , p=0.36, adjusted for multiple comparisons). There was a greater proportion of ID-TCFA among diabetic patients (21.6 vs. 13.6%, p=0.01 after adjustment for multiple comparisons; p=0.08 following multivariable adjustment for age and clinical demographics), while differences in pathological intimal thickening, fibroatheroma and fibrocalcific plaque were not significant between groups. ID-TCFA was more common in the most diseased 10 mm segment of diabetic than in non-diabetic coronary arteries. Multivariable adjustment demonstrated age and possibly the presence of diabetes to be independent predictors of ID-TCFA.

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— Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) reduce angiographic restenosis in patients with focal, native coronary artery stenoses. This study evaluated the usefulness of SESs in complex native-vessel lesions at high risk for restenosis. Methods and Results— Angiographic follow-up at 240 days was obtained in 701 patients with long (15- to 25-mm) lesions in small-diameter (2.5- to 3.5-mm) native vessels who were randomly assigned to treatment with SESs or bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the SIRIUS trial. Quantitative angiographic measurements of minimal lumen diameter and percent diameter stenosis were obtained within the treated segment, within the stent, and within its 5-mm proximal and distal edges. Patients treated with SESs had lower rates of binary (>50% diameter stenosis) angiographic restenosis within the segment (8.9% versus 36.3% with the BMS; P <0.001) and within the stent (3.2% versus 35.4% with the BMS; P <0.001). SESs were associated with significantly less late lumen loss within the treated segment, within the stent, and within its 5-mm proximal and distal edges (all P <0.001). The reduction of restenosis with the SES was consistent in patients at risk for restenosis, including those with small vessels, long lesions, and diabetes mellitus. The frequency of late aneurysms was similar in the 2 groups. Conclusions— Compared with BMSs, SESs reduced angiographic late lumen loss within the stent and its adjacent 5-mm margins in patients with complex native-vessel lesions.

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— A sirolimus-eluting stent (Cypher, Cordis Corp) has been reported to markedly decrease restenosis in selected lesions; higher-risk lesions, including coronary bifurcations, have not been studied. Methods and Results— This prospective study evaluated the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Patients were randomly assigned to either stenting of both branches (group A) or stenting of the main branch with provisional stenting of the side branch (SB) (group B). Eighty-five patients (86 lesions) were enrolled. There was 1 case of unsuccessful delivery of any device at the bifurcation site. Given the high crossover, more lesions were treated with 2 stents (n=63) than with stent/balloon (n=22). Clinical follow-up at 6 months was completed in all patients and angiographic follow-up in 53 patients in group A (85.5%) and 21 in group B (95.4%). One patient died suddenly 4.5 months after the procedure. There were 3 cases of stent thrombosis (3.5%). The total restenosis rate at 6 months was 25.7%, and it was not significantly different between the double-stenting (28.0%) and the provisional SB-stenting (18.7%) groups. Fourteen of the restenosis cases occurred at the ostium of the SB and were focal. Target lesion revascularization was performed in 7 cases; target vessel failure occurred in 15 cases (17.6%). Conclusions— These results are an improvement compared with historical controls using bare metal stents. Restenosis at the SB remains a problem. At this time, no statement can be made regarding the most appropriate technique to use when treating bifurcations with the Cypher stent.

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.