Citations

Abstract Since its introduction in 2002, left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has rapidly expanded as an alternative to anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of stroke. Harmonized processes for data collection, analysis, and reporting in LAAC trials are essential to enhance research quality and improve clinical practice. The Left Atrial Appendage Academic Research Consortium (LAARC) initiative is an independent collaboration of academic research organizations, cardiology and neurology experts, clinical trialists, and regulatory authorities from the USA, Europe, and Asia. The consortium engaged clinical experts, regulators—including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Notified Bodies, and Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA)—and industry leaders to define standardized study elements and endpoints for LAAC trials. Key considerations included alignment with prior Academic Research Consortium initiatives, procedural and mechanistic insights, and clinical relevance. Consensus definitions were proposed for mortality, stroke, bleeding, and device performance, along with composite endpoints for safety and effectiveness. The proposed LAARC consensus definitions aim to standardize endpoint reporting, improve comparability across studies, and support regulatory and clinical trial applications for this evolving therapy through broad dissemination in the peer-reviewed literature.

Importance Sex-related disparities affect diagnosis, referral, and prognosis of aortic valvular diseases. Contemporary US data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) by sex are limited. Objective To characterize 10-year trends in TAVI use, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, stratified by sex. Design, Setting, and Participants This nationwide, retrospective, population-based cohort study used US Medicare claims data from fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged after TAVI from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. The median follow-up time was 2.19 (IQR, 0.94-3.79) years. Exclusions included patients who had concomitant valve surgery, infective endocarditis, valve-in-valve TAVI, transapical TAVI, TAVI for pure aortic insufficiency, or later conversion to Medicare Advantage. Analyses were conducted between October 1, 2024, and April 1, 2025. Exposure TAVI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural mortality, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding, stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), and hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and hazard ratios (AHRs) with 95% CIs were estimated. Results The study included 314 123 patients (141 233 women [45.0%] and 172 890 men [55.0%]). Women were older than men (mean [SD] age, female: 80.3 [7.8] years; male: 79.4 [7.7] years; standardized mean difference, 12%). The proportion of female patients who underwent TAVI declined from 47.6% in 2013 to 43.6% in 2022 ( P < .001). Compared with men, women had higher periprocedural mortality (2.5% vs 2.2%; AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.14-1.26]), vascular complications (5.8% vs 3.6%; AOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.60-1.71]), and bleeding (10.4% vs 6.8%; AOR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.62-1.71]) but less PPI (16.9% vs 20.0%; AOR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.79-0.82]). Long-term mortality was lower in female patients (AHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.93), although their risks of HF hospitalization, AMI, stroke, and bleeding were higher. Conclusions and Relevance Among Medicare beneficiaries, women constituted a progressively declining proportion of patients treated with TAVI, experienced more periprocedural complications, and demonstrated modestly better long-term survival compared with men. Further work is needed to understand factors influencing these trends and to refine sex-specific strategies for optimal outcomes.

Importance Historically, women with aortic stenosis have experienced worse outcomes and inadequate recognition compared to men, being both underdiagnosed and undertreated, while also facing underrepresentation in clinical trials. Objective To determine whether women with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement have better clinical and hemodynamic outcomes with a self-expanding valve (SEV) or balloon-expandable valve (BEV). Design, Setting, Participants The Small Annuli Randomized to Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART) was a large-scale randomized clinical trial focusing on patients with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, randomized to receive SEVs or BEVs and included 716 patients treated at 83 centers in Canada, Europe, Israel, and the US from April 2021 to October 2022. This prespecified secondary analysis reports clinical and hemodynamic findings for all 621 women enrolled in SMART. Data for this report were analyzed from February to April 2024. Interventions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with an SEV or a BEV. Main Outcomes and Measures The composite coprimary clinical end point comprised death, disabling stroke, or heart failure–related rehospitalization. The coprimary valve function end point was the incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, both assessed through 12 months. Secondary end points included the incidence of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Results A total of 621 women (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [6.2] years; 312 randomized to the SEV group and 309 to the BEV group) were included in the present analysis. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in the coprimary clinical end point between the SEV and BEV groups (9.4% vs 11.8%, absolute risk difference −2.3%; 95% CI −7.2 to 2.5, P = .35). However, SEV implantation was associated with less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (8.4% vs 41.8%; absolute risk difference, −33.4%; 95% CI, −40.4 to −26.4; P < .001). SEV implantation resulted in lower aortic valve gradients and larger effective orifice areas at 30 days and 12 months and less mild or greater aortic regurgitation at 12 months compared to BEV implantation. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower with SEVs, regardless of the definition used and adjustment for body mass index. Use of SEVs was associated with better quality of life outcomes as assessed by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 ordinal quality of life measure. Conclusions and Relevance Among women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the use of SEVs, compared to BEVs, resulted in similar clinical outcomes and a markedly reduced incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction through 12 months, including a lower risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and better 12-month quality of life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04722250

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

ImportanceRacial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients have been underrepresented in randomized clinical trials. Efforts have focused on enhancing inclusion of minority groups at sites participating at clinical trials; however, there may be differences in the patient populations of the sites that participate in clinical trials.ObjectiveTo identify any differences in the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic composition of patient populations among candidate sites in the US that did vs did not participate in trials for novel transcatheter therapies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional analysis used Medicare Provider Claims from 2019 for patients admitted to hospitals in the US. All clinical trials for transcatheter mitral and tricuspid valve therapies and the hospitals participating in each of the trials were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov. Hospitals with active cardiac surgical programs that did not participate in the trials were also identified. Data analysis was performed between July 2021 and July 2022.ExposuresMultivariable linear regression models were used to identify differences in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic characteristics among patients undergoing cardiac surgery or transcatheter aortic valve replacement at trial vs nontrial hospitals.Main Outcome and MeasuresThe main outcome of the study was participation in a clinical trial for novel transcatheter mitral or tricuspid valve therapies.ResultsA total of 1050 hospitals with cardiac surgery programs were identified, of which 121 (11.5%) participated in trials for transcatheter mitral or tricuspid therapies. Patients treated in trial hospitals had a higher median zip code–based household income (difference of $5261; 95% CI, $2986-$7537), a lower Distressed Communities Index score (difference of 5.37; 95% CI, 2.59-8.15), and no significant difference in the proportion of patients dual eligible for Medicaid (difference of 0.86; 95% CI, −2.38 to 0.66). After adjusting for each of the socioeconomic indicators separately, there was less than 1% difference in the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients cared for at hospitals participating vs not participating in clinical trials.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study among candidate hospitals for clinical trials for transcatheter mitral or tricuspid valve therapies, trial hospitals took care of a more socioeconomically advantaged population than nontrial hospitals, with a similar proportion of Black and Hispanic patients. These data suggest that site selection efforts may improve enrollment of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients but may not improve the enrollment of Black and Hispanic patients.

Abstract Aims Guidelines recommend the use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for the reduction of ischaemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, this comes at the expense of increased bleeding. A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed at evaluating the comparative safety and efficacy of guided vs. routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. Methods and results We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different oral P2Y12 inhibitors currently recommended for the treatment of patients with ACS (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor). RCTs including a guided approach (i.e. platelet function or genetic testing) vs. standard selection of P2Y12 inhibitors among patients with ACS were also included. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. P-scores were used to estimate hierarchies of efficacy and safety. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was all bleeding. A total of 61 898 patients from 15 RCTs were included. Clopidogrel was used as reference treatment. A guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced MACE (IRR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65–0.98) without any significant trade-off in all bleeding (IRR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.96–1.55). A guided approach and prasugrel were associated with reduced myocardial infarction. A guided approach, prasugrel, and ticagrelor were associated with reduced stent thrombosis. Ticagrelor was also associated with reduced total and cardiovascular mortality. Prasugrel was associated with increased major bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with increased minor bleeding. The incidence of stroke did not differ between treatments. Conclusion In patients with an ACS, compared with routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy (prasugrel or ticagrelor), a guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy is associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided approach for the selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. Study registration number This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021258603). Key Question A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy using platelet function or genetic testing improves outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Nevertheless, the comparative safety and efficacy of a guided versus routine selection of potent P2Y12-inhibiting therapy in acute coronary syndrome has not been explored. Key Finding In a comprehensive network meta-analysis including the totality of available evidence and using clopidogrel as treatment reference, a guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events without any significant trade-off in bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor increased bleeding and only ticagrelor reduced mortality. Take Home Message A guided selection of P2Y12-inhibiting therapy represents the strategy associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Thienopyridine administration has a class Ia recommendation in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Despite this many physicians withhold this treatment until after angiography because of concerns over the minority of patients who may require coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). We sought to evaluate the one year composite ischemic outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, revascularization) in ACS patients requiring CABG based on thienopyridine exposure and timing of CABG. Methods: In the ACUITY trial, thienopyridine administration and timing was left to investigators’ discretion. In the subset of patients requiring CABG, the one year composite ischemic outcome was compared in those not exposed to thienopyridines (group A), those who received thienopyridine and went to CABG ≤120 hours from the last dose (group B) and those who received thienopyridine and went to CABG >120 hours after the last dose (group C). Major bleeding was defined based on ACUITY definitions. Results: CABG was performed in 1539 (11.1%) patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the three groups. Mean time from angiography to CABG, major bleeding, and 1-year composite ischemia are presented in the table below. Conclusions: Based on our analysis of ACS patients undergoing CABG in the ACUITY trial, those who received thienopyridine preoperatively and went to CABG >120 hours from the last dose had improved one year composite ischemic outcomes compared to those not exposed or those who received thienopyridine and went to CABG ≤120 hours after the last dose.

Background: In the ACUITY Trial, patients (pts) with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) had significantly higher rates of ischemic events and major bleeding compared to pts without CRI at 30 days. Bivalirudin (Biv) monotherapy provided similar protection from ischemic events but with significantly less bleeding compared to heparin + a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor (Hep+GPI). The impact of a Biv alone strategy on one year mortality is unknown. Methods: Pts with moderate and high risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were randomized to Hep + GPI, Biv + GPI, or Biv monotherapy. CRI was defined as baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/min. We evaluated the impact of CRI and antithrombotic strategy on composite ischemia (death, MI, or revascularization) and mortality at one year. Results: Of the pts enrolled, 12,933 had baseline CrCl data: 2468 (19.1%) pts had CrCl ≥60 mL/min and 10,465 (80.9%) pts had CrCl <60 mL/min. Rates of major bleeding at 30 days in pts with CRI were significantly lower with Biv alone vs Hep+GPI (6.2% vs 9.8%, p<0.01). Pts with CRI had higher mortality at one year compared to those without CRI (8.7% vs 3.0%, p<0.001). There was no difference in composite ischemia for pts who received Biv monotherapy vs Hep + GPI (23.0% vs 21.4%, p=0.10). One year mortality by antithrombin strategy is shown in the Figure . Conclusions: CRI in pts with ACS is associated with higher rates of one year mortality. In these high risk pts, Biv monotherapy improved early clinical outcomes compared to Hep + GPI by reducing major bleeding, and resulted in similar rates of one year mortality. Cumulative Mortality at One Year, Patients with CRI

Abstract A substantial number of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) experience periprocedural myocardial injury or infarction. Accurate diagnosis of these PCI-related complications is required to guide further management given that their occurrence may be associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Due to lack of scientific data, the cut-off thresholds of post-PCI cardiac troponin (cTn) elevation used for defining periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction, have been selected based on expert consensus opinions, and their prognostic relevance remains unclear. In this Consensus Document from the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), we recommend, whenever possible, the measurement of baseline (pre-PCI) cTn and post-PCI cTn values in all CCS patients undergoing PCI. We confirm the prognostic relevance of the post-PCI cTn elevation &gt;5× 99th percentile URL threshold used to define type 4a myocardial infarction (MI). In the absence of periprocedural angiographic flow-limiting complications or electrocardiogram (ECG) and imaging evidence of new myocardial ischaemia, we propose the same post-PCI cTn cut-off threshold (&gt;5× 99th percentile URL) be used to define prognostically relevant ‘major’ periprocedural myocardial injury. As both type 4a MI and major periprocedural myocardial injury are strong independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year post-PCI, they may be used as quality metrics and surrogate endpoints for clinical trials. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment strategies for reducing the risk of major periprocedural myocardial injury, type 4a MI, and MACE in CCS patients undergoing PCI.