Poulose, Anil

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.

AbstractObjectivesThis study sought to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed by sleep deprived and non‐sleep deprived operators.BackgroundInterventional cardiologists are at risk for sleep deprivation as they often have to perform emergent procedures at night, but the effects of sleep deprivation on clinical outcomes have received limited study.MethodsWe examined the frequency, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of daytime PCIs performed by sleep deprived and non‐sleep deprived operators at a tertiary medical center. Operators were considered sleep deprived when performing a daytime (7 am–11:59 pm) procedure preceded by a nighttime (12 am–6:59 am) procedure on the same date.ResultsOf the 12,680 daytime PCIs performed from 6/29/09 to 12/30/2016, 367 (2.9%) were performed by sleep deprived operators. Patients undergoing PCI performed by a sleep deprived operator were more likely to be younger, white, and to present with ST‐elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). The incidence of in‐hospital death (1.1% vs. 1.3%, P = 1.0) and bleeding within 72 hr (3.9% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.29) were similar for procedures performed by sleep‐deprived and non‐sleep deprived operators. When the sleep deprived group was further stratified based on degree of sleep deprivation or length of sleep interruption, differences in mortality and total bleeding remained non‐significant.ConclusionsIn this large single center study, operator sleep deprivation did not appear to adversely impact PCI outcomes.