OBJECTIVES The present study aimed to investigate the difference in target lesion failure (TLF) at 3 years after double kissing (DK) crush stenting versus provisional stenting (PS) for unprotected left main distal bifurcation (UPLMb) lesions. BACKGROUND The multicenter and randomized DKCRUSH-V (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting for Left Main Distal Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-V Randomized Trial) study showed fewer 1-year TLF after DK crush for UPLMb lesions compared with PS. The study reports the 3-year clinical outcome of the DKCRUSH-V study. METHODS A total of 482 patients with UPLMb lesions who were randomly assigned to either the DK crush group (DK group) or PS group in the DKCRUSH-V study were followed for 3 years. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a TLF at 3 years. Stent thrombosis (ST) was the safety endpoint. Patients were classified by lesion's complexity and NERS (New Risk Stratification) II or SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) score. RESULTS At 3 years, TLF occurred in 41 (16.9%) patients in the PS group and in 20 (8.3%) patients in the DK group (p = 0.005), mainly driven by increased target vessel myocardial infarction (5.8% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.017) and target lesion revascularization (10.3% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.029). Definite or probable ST rate at 3 years was 4.1% in the PS group and 0.4% in the DK group (p = 0.006). Notably, DK crush was associated with a significant reduction in both primary and secondary endpoints for patients with complex lesions or at high risk. CONCLUSIONS Provisional stenting for UPLMb lesions was associated with significantly increased rates of TLF and ST over 3 years of follow-up. Further randomized study is warranted to confirm the benefits of DK crush stenting for complex UPLMb lesions. (Double Kissing and Double Crush versus Provisional T Stenting Technique for the Treatment of Unprotected Distal Left Main True Bifurcation Lesions: A Randomized, International, Multi-center Clinical Trial; ChiCTR-TRC-11001213). (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
OBJECTIVES The authors sought to assess the benefits of pulmonary artery denervation (PADN) among combined pre- and post-capillary pulmonary hypertension (CpcPH) patients in a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled trial. BACKGROUND PADN has been shown to improve hemodynamics of pulmonary arterial hypertension in a series of patients. Additionally, benefits of targeted medical therapy for patients with CpcPH secondary to left-sided heart failure are unknown. |METHODS Ninety-eight CpcPH patients, defined as mean pulmonary arterial pressure >= 25 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure >15 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >3.0 Wood units (WU), were randomly assigned to PADN or sildenafil plus sham PADN. Standard medical therapy for heart failure was administered to all patients in both groups. The primary endpoint was the increase in the 6-min walk distance at the 6-month follow-up. The secondary endpoint was change in PVR. Clinical worsening was assessed in a post hoc analysis. The main safety endpoint was occurrence of pulmonary embolism. RESULTS At 6 months, the mean increases in the 6-min walk distance were 83 m in the PADN group and 15 m in the sildenafil group (least square mean difference 66 m, 95% confidence interval: 38.2 to 98.8 m; p < 0.001). PADN treatment was associated with a significantly lower PVR than in the sildenafil group (4.2 +/- 1.5 WU vs. 6.1 +/- 2.9 WU; p = 0.001). Clinical worsening was less frequent in the PADN group compared with the sildenafil group (16.7% vs. 40%; p = 0.014). At the end of the study, there were 7 all-cause deaths and 2 cases of pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS PADN is associated with significant improvements in hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients with CpcPH. Further studies are warranted to define its precise role in the treatment of this patient population. (Pulmonary Arterial Denervation in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension Associated With the Left Heart Failure [PADN-5]; NCT02220335) (c) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the operability, 6-month efficacy, and safety of the novel sirolimus-eluting iron bioresorbable coronary scaffold (IBS) system compared with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (XIENCE Prime stent) in porcine coronary arteries. BACKGROUND Bioresorbable scaffolds have been considered the fourth revolution in percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the first-generation bioresorbable scaffold showed suboptimal results. METHODS Forty-eight IBS and 48 EES were randomly implanted into nonatherosclerotic swine. The operability, efficacy, and safety of the IBS and EES were evaluated using coronary angiography, optical coherence tomography, micro-computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy, and histopathologic evaluation at 7, 14, 28, 90, and 180 days after implantation. RESULTS The operability of the ultrathin IBS (similar to 70 mu m) was comparable with that of the EES, except for its visibility. There was no statistically significant difference in area stenosis between the IBS and EES from 28 to 180 days. The IBS maintained its integrity up to 90 days without corrosion, while corrosion was observed in a few struts in 2 of 10 IBS at 180 days. The percentage of endothelialization of IBS was higher than that of XIENCE Prime stents within 14 days after implantation. The fibrin score was higher in the IBS group at 28 days but comparable with the EES group at 90 and 180 days. No scaffold or stent thrombosis was seen in either group. No abnormal histopathologic changes in scaffolded or stented vessel segments and 5 main remote organs were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS Preclinical results suggest that the novel IBS has comparable operability, mid-term efficacy, and safety with the EES, and its corrosion profile in porcine coronary arteries is reasonable, which could support initial clinical study of the IBS. (c) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to investigate the trends, predictors, and outcomes of delayed discharge (> 72 h) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. BACKGROUND Length of stay post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement may have significant clinical and administrative implications. METHODS Data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were used to identify patients undergoing nonaborted transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement who survived to discharge, and data linked from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were used to provide 1-year events. Patients were categorized to early discharge (# 72 h) versus delayed discharge (> 72 h). The trends, predictors, and adjusted 1-year outcomes were compared in both groups. RESULTS From 2011 to 2015, a total of 13,389 patients (55.1%) were discharged within 72 h, whereas 10,896 patients (44.9%) were discharged beyond 72 h. There was a significant decline in rates of delayed discharge across the study period (62% vs. 34%; p < 0.01). This remained unchanged when stratified by Transcatheter Valve Therapy risk scores. Several factors were identified as independent predictors of early and delayed discharge. After adjustment for in-hospital complications, delayed discharge was an independent predictor of 1-year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.30 to 1.60; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Rates of delayed discharge have declined from 2011 to 2015. Delayed discharge is associated with a significant increase in mortality even after adjusting for in-hospital complications. Further work is necessary to determine if predictors of early discharge could be used to develop length of stay scores that might be instrumental in administrative, financial, or clinical policy development. (c) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
OBJECTIVES In this propensity-matched analysis of post-left atrial appendage closure antithrombotic therapy, the safety and effectiveness of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and antiplatelet therapy (APT) were compared. BACKGROUND Left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device is an alternative to OAC in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, who are at high bleeding risk. Initial trials included 45 days of post-implantation OAC, but registry data suggest that APT may suffice. METHODS Patients from the PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), PREVAIL (Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy), CAP (Continued Access to PROTECT-AF), CAP2 (Continued Access to PREVAIL), ASAP (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology), and EWOLUTION (Registry on WATCHMAN Outcomes in Real-Life Utilization) trials receiving either OAC or APT post-implantation were matched and compared for nonprocedural bleeding and stroke or systemic thromboembolism over 6 months following implantation. Each patient on APT was matched with 2 patients on OAC, with propensity scores derived from age, sex, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, prior transient ischemic attack or stroke, peripheral vascular disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, renal impairment, and different atrial fibrillation subtypes. RESULTS The cohort on OAC (n = 1,018; 95% receiving warfarin and 5% receiving nonwarfarin OAC) was prescribed 45-day OAC post-implantation (92% also received single APT), followed by 6-month single or dual APT. The cohort on APT (n = 509; 91% receiving dual APT and 9% receiving single APT) received APT for variable durations. Six-month freedom from nonprocedural major bleeding was similar (OAC, 95.7%; APT, 95.5%; p = 0.775) despite more early bleeds with OAC. Freedom from thromboembolism beyond 7 days was similar between groups (OAC, 98.8%; APT, 99.4%; p = 0.089). However, device-related thrombosis was more frequent with APT (OAC, 1.4%; APT, 3.1%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS After left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN, although device-related thrombosis was more common with APT, both APT and OAC strategies resulted in similar safety and efficacy endpoints. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
OBJECTIVES The authors sought to better understand the stent geometry of the Lotus valve after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and its potential implications for valve size selection. BACKGROUND The authors hypothesized that the greatest interference between the frame and aortic valvar complex occurs across the aortic valve leaflets. METHODS The authors retrospectively analyzed the multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scans of 32 consecutive patients undergoing Lotus valve (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) implantation. The prosthesis cross section was analyzed at 3-mm increments along its length. The plane where the frame had the smallest area was defined as the waist. The corresponding plane of the waist on pre-procedural MDCT was identified by surrounding structures such as calcium deposits, commissural fusion, and commissural gaps, and was referred to as the supra-annulus. The spline of the supra-annulus was circumscribed with reference to the post-implant stent geometry at the waist. RESULTS The waist was 5.8 +/- 1.7 mm higher than the native annulus on post-procedural MDCT. The waist had a nearly 2-fold larger compression rate than the stent at the native annulus level (36.3 +/- 10.4% vs. 18.9 +/- 9.6%; p < 0.01), irrespective of valve morphologies. The supra-annulus was 5.9 +/- 1.6 mm higher than the annulus on pre-procedural MDCT. Patients had an approximately 17% decrease in area from the annulus to the supra-annulus (18.3 +/- 4.4% for bicuspid morphology and 16.0 +/- 3.5% for tricuspid morphology). CONCLUSIONS Major interference between the implanted prosthesis and anatomy occurred at a level above the annulus. The decrease in area from the annulus to supra-annulus may explain the feasibility of implanting a smaller valve than that suggested by traditional annular measurements. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.