Attubato, Michael

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Background Bivalirudin may be an effective alternative anticoagulant to heparin for use in percutaneous peripheral interventions. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing percutaneous peripheral intervention. Methods For this meta-analysis and systematic review, we conducted a search in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for all the clinical studies in which bivalirudin was compared to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant in percutaneous peripheral interventions. Outcomes studied included all-cause mortality, all-bleeding, major and minor bleeding, and access site complications. Results Eleven studies were included in the analysis, totaling 20,137 patients. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.87), all-bleeding (risk ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.78), major bleeding (risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.96), minor bleeding (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.47–0.92), and access site complications (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.84). There was no significant difference in peri-procedural need for blood transfusions (risk ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.08), myocardial infarction (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.59–1.28), stroke (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–1.01), intracranial bleeding (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.29–2.02), or amputations (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53–1.05). Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that bivalirudin use for percutaneous peripheral interventions is associated with lower all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications as compared to heparin. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm the current results.

Background Studies have shown that chronic total occlusion ( CTO ) in a noninfarct‐related artery in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction is linked to increased mortality. It remains unclear whether staged revascularization of a noninfarct‐related artery CTO in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction translates to improved outcomes. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare outcomes between patients presenting with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with concurrent CTO who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of noninfarct‐related artery CTO versus those who did not. Method and Results We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary end points were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, and heart failure readmission. Odds ratios ( ORs ) and 95% confidence intervals ( CIs ) were computed. Random effects model was used and heterogeneity was considered if I 2 >25. Six studies (n=1253 patients) were included in the analysis. There was a significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events ( OR , 0.54; 95% CI , 0.32–0.91), cardiovascular mortality ( OR , 0.43; 95% CI , 0.20–0.95), and heart failure readmissions ( OR , 0.57; 95% CI , 0.36–0.89), favoring the patients in the CTO percutaneous coronary intervention group. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for all‐cause mortality ( OR , 0.47; 95% CI , 0.22–1.00), myocardial infarction ( OR , 0.78; 95% CI , 0.41–1.46), repeat revascularization ( OR , 1.13; 95% CI , 0.56–2.27), and stroke ( OR , 0.51; 95% CI , 0.20–1.33). Conclusions In this meta‐analysis, CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of the noninfarct‐related artery in patients presenting with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure readmissions.

Background —The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) included 4039 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease; 1829 consented to randomization, and 2010 did not but were followed up in a registry. Thus, we can evaluate the outcome of physician-guided versus random assignment of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Methods and Results —We compared the baseline features and outcomes for PTCA and CABG in the overall registry and its predesignated subgroups. We assessed the impact of treatment by choice versus random assignment by comparing the results in the registry with those of the randomized trial. Statistical adjustments for differences in baseline characteristics were made. Within the registry, nearly twice as many patients were selected for PTCA (1189) as CABG (625); mortality at 7 years was similar for PTCA (13.9%) and CABG (14.2%) ( P =0.66) before and after adjustment for baseline differences between patients selected for PTCA versus CABG (adjusted RR, 1.02; P =0.86). In contrast to the randomized trial, the 7-year mortality rate of treated diabetics in the registry was equally high (26%) with PTCA or CABG. Seven-year mortality was higher for patients undergoing PTCA in the randomized trial than in the registry (19.1% versus 13.9%, P <0.01) but not for those undergoing CABG (15.6% versus 14.2%, P =0.57). The adjusted relative mortality risk for PTCA in the randomized versus registry population was 1.17 ( P =0.16). Conclusions —BARI physicians were able to select PTCA rather than CABG for 65% of registry patients who underwent revascularization without compromising long-term survival either in the overall population or in treated diabetics.

Background Cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) rates are used to evaluate the efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). We compared 5-year cardiac mortality and MI rates in 1829 patients with multivessel disease randomized to CABG or PTCA. Methods and Results The 5-year cardiac mortality rate was 8.0% in patients assigned to PTCA compared with 4.9% in those assigned to CABG (relative risk [RR] of 1.55 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 1.07 to 2.23; P =.022). In a subgroup of 1476 nondiabetic patients, there were no significant differences between treatment groups in cardiac mortality either overall (4.6% versus 4.2%; RR=1.04, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.66; P =.908) or in subgroups based on symptoms, left ventricular function, number of diseased vessels, or stenotic proximal left anterior descending artery. The two treatment groups had similar event rates for the combined end point of cardiac death or MI. The RR for cardiac mortality in 264 patients who sustained an MI compared with those who did not was 5.9 ( P <.001). MIs were more common after CABG during index hospitalization ( P =.004), but in the PTCA group, they were more common after discharge ( P <.001). Conclusions The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) trial indicates 5-year cardiac mortality in patients with multivessel disease was significantly greater after initial treatment with PTCA than with CABG. The difference was manifest in diabetic patients on drug therapy. There were no significant differences overall for the composite end point of cardiac mortality or MI between treatment groups or for cardiac mortality in nondiabetic patients regardless of symptoms, left ventricular function, number of diseased vessels, or stenotic proximal left anterior descending artery.