User login
FFR stumbles in revascularization deferral decisions for ACS
Paris – One-year outcomes were significantly worse in patients with acute coronary syndrome whose revascularization was deferred based upon the results of fractional flow reserve than with instantaneous wave-free ratio, in the largest-ever study of patients whose revascularization decision was guided by physiologic measurements obtained via a pressure guidewire.
“The hypothesis that some authors have put forth – that in an ACS the hyperemic response of the myocardium is blunted by the ACS, and that this will affect the FFR hyperemic index – is now strengthened,” Javier Escaned, MD, said in presenting the study results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
The study was a pooled, patient-level meta-analysis of the 4,529 participants with angiographically determined intermediate-risk stenoses in the previously reported randomized DEFINE FLAIR (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376[19]:1824-34) and iFR SWEDEHEART (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376[19]:1813-23) studies. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, nonfatal MI, or unplanned coronary revascularization within 12 months. And while the analysis brought unwelcome news for proponents of FFR with regard to the subset of patients with ACS, such patients comprised only 17% of the total study population.
“I think that overall these results are very reassuring. The big finding is that we have dramatically improved the safety of deferral of revascularization using pressure guidewires. If you look at the MACE [major adverse cardiovascular event] rate in the deferred ACS group, it was about 6%, which is much less than the event rate at 1 year with deferral in patients with stable coronary disease in the pivotal DEFER trial [Circulation. 2001 Jun 19;103(24):2928-34], which was our former standard,” observed Dr. Escaned, an interventional cardiologist at San Carlos Hospital in Madrid and a DEFER coinvestigator.
He attributed these greatly improved outcomes of physiologically guided revascularization during the past 15 years to vastly improved stent technology and more effective optimal medical management.
Among the key findings of the combined analysis of DEFINE FLAIR and iFR SWEDEHEART:
• More patients were deferred from PCI when iFR was used for decision-making: 50%, compared with 45% in the FFR arm. Yet 1-year outcomes were as good in the deferred iFR group as in the FFR group overall, and better than with FFR in the deferred ACS patients.
• Event rates were significantly higher in deferred ACS patients overall than in deferred patients with stable coronary disease: 5.9% versus 3.6%. But the deferral tool made a difference: When iFR was utilized, the 1-year event rate was 5.4% in deferred ACS patients, not significantly different from the 3.8% rate in deferred patients with stable coronary disease. In contrast, the event rate in ACS patients with FFR-based deferral was 6.4%, significantly higher than the 3.4% rate in FFR-deferred patients with stable coronary disease.
Dr. Escaned noted that this finding is consistent with the cautionary results of several recent studies, including one, albeit tenfold smaller, in which ACS patients in whom revascularization was deferred based on FFR had a 25% rate of major adverse cardiovascular events at 3.4 years, compared with a 12% rate in patients with stable coronary disease (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep 13;68[11]:1181-91).
Discussant Peter Jüni, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said “the main results of your study show in a completely waterproof fashion that there is no signal of harm with the experimental strategy” of deferred revascularization based on physiologic measurements, at least in patients with stable ischemic coronary disease.
The results, however, also raise the question of whether physiology-based revascularization decision-making in ACS patients is the best strategy.
“Considering that the event rate in the deferred ACS group was nearly twice as high compared with stable patients, my question to you is: Should we ignore any functional testing in ACS patients and just say, ‘Let’s move forward with revascularization because this clinical presentation is a very good clinical characteristic for risk stratification?’ ”
Dr. Escaned rejected that option. He noted that both the European and U.S. guidelines now state that it’s inappropriate to base a revascularization decision solely on a coronary vessel’s angiographic appearance, because that has been shown to result in unnecessary treatment, which causes harm. Adoption of pressure guidewires to assist in revascularization decision making, whether by FFR or iFR, is still limited in interventional cardiology. The priority in the field now should be to encourage more widespread use of this technology, regardless of which method is selected, he argued.
“The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement,” the cardiologist mused.
“I think one of the real problems that’s impeding adoption of physiologic testing is that many physicians are still afraid of leaving a stenosis without treatment,” he continued. “It’s strange: If you perform angioplasty and it wasn’t indicated and there is a complication, physicians seem to have some type of peace of mind that they did their best and they were trying to help the patient. That’s why it’s so important to establish that deferring revascularization – not treating when it is not needed – is safe.”
The DEFINE FLAIR and iFR SWEDEHEART studies were funded by unrestricted grants from Philips Volcano. Dr. Escaned reported serving as a consultant to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Philips Healthcare.
Paris – One-year outcomes were significantly worse in patients with acute coronary syndrome whose revascularization was deferred based upon the results of fractional flow reserve than with instantaneous wave-free ratio, in the largest-ever study of patients whose revascularization decision was guided by physiologic measurements obtained via a pressure guidewire.
“The hypothesis that some authors have put forth – that in an ACS the hyperemic response of the myocardium is blunted by the ACS, and that this will affect the FFR hyperemic index – is now strengthened,” Javier Escaned, MD, said in presenting the study results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
The study was a pooled, patient-level meta-analysis of the 4,529 participants with angiographically determined intermediate-risk stenoses in the previously reported randomized DEFINE FLAIR (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376[19]:1824-34) and iFR SWEDEHEART (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376[19]:1813-23) studies. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, nonfatal MI, or unplanned coronary revascularization within 12 months. And while the analysis brought unwelcome news for proponents of FFR with regard to the subset of patients with ACS, such patients comprised only 17% of the total study population.
“I think that overall these results are very reassuring. The big finding is that we have dramatically improved the safety of deferral of revascularization using pressure guidewires. If you look at the MACE [major adverse cardiovascular event] rate in the deferred ACS group, it was about 6%, which is much less than the event rate at 1 year with deferral in patients with stable coronary disease in the pivotal DEFER trial [Circulation. 2001 Jun 19;103(24):2928-34], which was our former standard,” observed Dr. Escaned, an interventional cardiologist at San Carlos Hospital in Madrid and a DEFER coinvestigator.
He attributed these greatly improved outcomes of physiologically guided revascularization during the past 15 years to vastly improved stent technology and more effective optimal medical management.
Among the key findings of the combined analysis of DEFINE FLAIR and iFR SWEDEHEART:
• More patients were deferred from PCI when iFR was used for decision-making: 50%, compared with 45% in the FFR arm. Yet 1-year outcomes were as good in the deferred iFR group as in the FFR group overall, and better than with FFR in the deferred ACS patients.
• Event rates were significantly higher in deferred ACS patients overall than in deferred patients with stable coronary disease: 5.9% versus 3.6%. But the deferral tool made a difference: When iFR was utilized, the 1-year event rate was 5.4% in deferred ACS patients, not significantly different from the 3.8% rate in deferred patients with stable coronary disease. In contrast, the event rate in ACS patients with FFR-based deferral was 6.4%, significantly higher than the 3.4% rate in FFR-deferred patients with stable coronary disease.
Dr. Escaned noted that this finding is consistent with the cautionary results of several recent studies, including one, albeit tenfold smaller, in which ACS patients in whom revascularization was deferred based on FFR had a 25% rate of major adverse cardiovascular events at 3.4 years, compared with a 12% rate in patients with stable coronary disease (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep 13;68[11]:1181-91).
Discussant Peter Jüni, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said “the main results of your study show in a completely waterproof fashion that there is no signal of harm with the experimental strategy” of deferred revascularization based on physiologic measurements, at least in patients with stable ischemic coronary disease.
The results, however, also raise the question of whether physiology-based revascularization decision-making in ACS patients is the best strategy.
“Considering that the event rate in the deferred ACS group was nearly twice as high compared with stable patients, my question to you is: Should we ignore any functional testing in ACS patients and just say, ‘Let’s move forward with revascularization because this clinical presentation is a very good clinical characteristic for risk stratification?’ ”
Dr. Escaned rejected that option. He noted that both the European and U.S. guidelines now state that it’s inappropriate to base a revascularization decision solely on a coronary vessel’s angiographic appearance, because that has been shown to result in unnecessary treatment, which causes harm. Adoption of pressure guidewires to assist in revascularization decision making, whether by FFR or iFR, is still limited in interventional cardiology. The priority in the field now should be to encourage more widespread use of this technology, regardless of which method is selected, he argued.
“The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement,” the cardiologist mused.
“I think one of the real problems that’s impeding adoption of physiologic testing is that many physicians are still afraid of leaving a stenosis without treatment,” he continued. “It’s strange: If you perform angioplasty and it wasn’t indicated and there is a complication, physicians seem to have some type of peace of mind that they did their best and they were trying to help the patient. That’s why it’s so important to establish that deferring revascularization – not treating when it is not needed – is safe.”
The DEFINE FLAIR and iFR SWEDEHEART studies were funded by unrestricted grants from Philips Volcano. Dr. Escaned reported serving as a consultant to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Philips Healthcare.
Paris – One-year outcomes were significantly worse in patients with acute coronary syndrome whose revascularization was deferred based upon the results of fractional flow reserve than with instantaneous wave-free ratio, in the largest-ever study of patients whose revascularization decision was guided by physiologic measurements obtained via a pressure guidewire.
“The hypothesis that some authors have put forth – that in an ACS the hyperemic response of the myocardium is blunted by the ACS, and that this will affect the FFR hyperemic index – is now strengthened,” Javier Escaned, MD, said in presenting the study results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
The study was a pooled, patient-level meta-analysis of the 4,529 participants with angiographically determined intermediate-risk stenoses in the previously reported randomized DEFINE FLAIR (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376[19]:1824-34) and iFR SWEDEHEART (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376[19]:1813-23) studies. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, nonfatal MI, or unplanned coronary revascularization within 12 months. And while the analysis brought unwelcome news for proponents of FFR with regard to the subset of patients with ACS, such patients comprised only 17% of the total study population.
“I think that overall these results are very reassuring. The big finding is that we have dramatically improved the safety of deferral of revascularization using pressure guidewires. If you look at the MACE [major adverse cardiovascular event] rate in the deferred ACS group, it was about 6%, which is much less than the event rate at 1 year with deferral in patients with stable coronary disease in the pivotal DEFER trial [Circulation. 2001 Jun 19;103(24):2928-34], which was our former standard,” observed Dr. Escaned, an interventional cardiologist at San Carlos Hospital in Madrid and a DEFER coinvestigator.
He attributed these greatly improved outcomes of physiologically guided revascularization during the past 15 years to vastly improved stent technology and more effective optimal medical management.
Among the key findings of the combined analysis of DEFINE FLAIR and iFR SWEDEHEART:
• More patients were deferred from PCI when iFR was used for decision-making: 50%, compared with 45% in the FFR arm. Yet 1-year outcomes were as good in the deferred iFR group as in the FFR group overall, and better than with FFR in the deferred ACS patients.
• Event rates were significantly higher in deferred ACS patients overall than in deferred patients with stable coronary disease: 5.9% versus 3.6%. But the deferral tool made a difference: When iFR was utilized, the 1-year event rate was 5.4% in deferred ACS patients, not significantly different from the 3.8% rate in deferred patients with stable coronary disease. In contrast, the event rate in ACS patients with FFR-based deferral was 6.4%, significantly higher than the 3.4% rate in FFR-deferred patients with stable coronary disease.
Dr. Escaned noted that this finding is consistent with the cautionary results of several recent studies, including one, albeit tenfold smaller, in which ACS patients in whom revascularization was deferred based on FFR had a 25% rate of major adverse cardiovascular events at 3.4 years, compared with a 12% rate in patients with stable coronary disease (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep 13;68[11]:1181-91).
Discussant Peter Jüni, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said “the main results of your study show in a completely waterproof fashion that there is no signal of harm with the experimental strategy” of deferred revascularization based on physiologic measurements, at least in patients with stable ischemic coronary disease.
The results, however, also raise the question of whether physiology-based revascularization decision-making in ACS patients is the best strategy.
“Considering that the event rate in the deferred ACS group was nearly twice as high compared with stable patients, my question to you is: Should we ignore any functional testing in ACS patients and just say, ‘Let’s move forward with revascularization because this clinical presentation is a very good clinical characteristic for risk stratification?’ ”
Dr. Escaned rejected that option. He noted that both the European and U.S. guidelines now state that it’s inappropriate to base a revascularization decision solely on a coronary vessel’s angiographic appearance, because that has been shown to result in unnecessary treatment, which causes harm. Adoption of pressure guidewires to assist in revascularization decision making, whether by FFR or iFR, is still limited in interventional cardiology. The priority in the field now should be to encourage more widespread use of this technology, regardless of which method is selected, he argued.
“The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement,” the cardiologist mused.
“I think one of the real problems that’s impeding adoption of physiologic testing is that many physicians are still afraid of leaving a stenosis without treatment,” he continued. “It’s strange: If you perform angioplasty and it wasn’t indicated and there is a complication, physicians seem to have some type of peace of mind that they did their best and they were trying to help the patient. That’s why it’s so important to establish that deferring revascularization – not treating when it is not needed – is safe.”
The DEFINE FLAIR and iFR SWEDEHEART studies were funded by unrestricted grants from Philips Volcano. Dr. Escaned reported serving as a consultant to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Philips Healthcare.
AT EUROPCR
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In patients with acute coronary syndrome, the 1-year adverse event rate in patients with FFR-based deferral was 6.4%, significantly higher than the 3.4% rate in patients with FFR-based deferral with stable coronary disease.
Data source: A pooled patient-level meta-analysis of the 4,529 participants with angiographically intermediate-risk stenoses in two previously reported randomized trials of physiologic assessment of lesions by fractional flow reserve or instantaneous wave-free ratio.
Disclosures: The DEFINE FLAIR and iFR SWEDEHEART studies were funded by unrestricted grants from Philips Volcano. The presenter reported serving as a consultant to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Philips Healthcare.
Points/Counterpoint: Should surgeons operate on functional tricuspid regurgitation?
Yes, functional TR is worth repairing (David H. Adams, MD)
Functional tricuspid regurgitation is a common finding in patients undergoing degenerative mitral valve repair. Severe tricuspid regurgitation is unusual, and clearly there is little debate on the merits of concomitant tricuspid repair for these patients. Moderate tricuspid regurgitation is identified preoperatively in around 15% of patients undergoing degenerative mitral repair (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:608-13), and concomitant tricuspid repair in these patients is certainly supported by both the American and European guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.011; Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2451-96).
What experience and evidence has led us to a more aggressive approach? One of the most important influences on our early adoption of tricuspid repair at the time of mitral surgery was linked to observations that tricuspid regurgitation (TR) sometimes progressed after isolated mitral valve repair (MVR), with some patients developing moderate or worse insufficiency. Certainly, the impact of significant tricuspid regurgitation on the quality and length of patients’ lives and the challenges of reoperation for isolated tricuspid regurgitation are well known to all surgeons.
Consequently, the importance of treating significant annular dilatation, even without significant tricuspid regurgitation, is supported by the guidelines. Our own experience with an aggressive approach to functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR) at the time of mitral surgery put an exclamation point on this (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1931-8). We found that concomitant tricuspid repair in patients who were worse off before surgery with more TR and higher rates of atrial fibrillation and right-sided dysfunction, actually did better during 5 years of follow-up than the isolated mitral repair patients who started with completely normal tricuspid valve anatomy and ventricular function.
Benign neglect is always an option (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154:125-6), but we agree with Roberto Dion, MD – despite our friends’ opinions in Toronto and Rochester – we would much prefer to have minimal TR and a normal sized tricuspid valve after MVR. Ask yourself: would you rather have no TR and a normal sized tricuspid valve after you undergo a mitral operation, or a very dilated annulus and perhaps moderate FTR? I am pretty sure I know the answer, but if you are not sure, read our paper.
Dr. Adams is cardiac surgeon-in-chief, Mount Sinai Health System, and Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Professor and Chairman, department of cardiovascular surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and The Mount Sinai Hospital, and president-elect of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery. He disclosed he is the national co-principal investigator for the Medtronic NeoChord trial, and receives royalties from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai receives royalty payments from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic for intellectual property related to Dr. Adams’ involvement in the development of 2 mitral valve repair rings and 1 tricuspid valve repair ring.
No, a patient with FTR does not necessarily need repair (Tirone David, MD)
In our clinic, a patient who undergoes MVR and has FTR generally goes home without an annuloplasty. We now have 12 years or more of follow-up in these patients, and they do not develop TR if their MVR is competent. We have reported that preoperative TR in patients who had MVR is associated with mitral valve disease and often improves after the operation (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154:110-22). New postoperative TR is uncommon.
Ninety percent of my mitral valve repair patients today have no symptoms. Of those patients, a small proportion have moderate TR.
Dr. David is a professor of surgery at Toronto General Hospital. He reported no financial relationships.
Yes, but repair of FTR requires caution (Gilles Dreyfus, MD)
The controversy surrounding the legitimacy of concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty for functional TR during MVR begs for a clinical trial, but before we can conduct a clinical trial, we must define the primary and secondary endpoints. We’ve seen recent prospective, randomized trials that have reported faulty conclusions because the primary endpoints were wrong.
We need a strong debate to agree on those endpoints. Mortality as an endpoint will probably take a very long time to arrive at.
We’re mixing up many different factors. We’re mixing up TR grading, and we know that grading is unreliable. We have all seen patients with full-fledged TR, and after we put them on Lasix (furosemide, Sanofi), 3 days later they have mild TR. So the same patient with no treatment becomes let’s say a “Dreyfus indication,” and then suddenly in 3 days the patient doesn’t need surgery. At any further stage of his life this patient can experience severe TR again; tricuspid annuloplasty will prevent that from happening.
Moderate TR according to the common definition does not exist. If you look at the reports in echocardiography and if you ask any cardiologist, everything between no TR and severe TR is considered moderate. We have proposed a new staging system for evaluating FTR that uses three factors: TR severity; annular dilatation; and extent of tethering, or mode of leaflet coaptation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2331-6).
Dr. Dreyfus is director of the medical and surgical team at the Cardiothoracic Centre of Monaco in Monte Carlo and professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Paris V University and the Imperial College of London. He disclosed receiving speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, LivaNova, and Medtronic.
No, few FTR patients at risk after MVR (Hartzell Schaff, MD)
Echocardiography can provide a great deal of information about when concomitant repair for TR is indicated during MVR. We’ve found that if the patient has no right-sided signs, has normal right atrial pressure, and has mild or mild/moderate TR at the time of repair to the journey mitral valve, the chance of him returning for a tricuspid valve procedure is near zero.
A few patients do return after MVR. They develop atrial fibrillation and may need a pacemaker, but we see very few patients return for tricuspid surgery.
It’s fair to say we cannot demonstrate any benefit of correcting functional mitral regurgitation. Why would we think there’s a benefit of correcting FTR? We can say we’re going to look at grade of TR down the road, or we could look at some other endpoint, but think about it this way: If we cannot prove that correcting functional mitral regurgitation is helpful, why is correcting FTR going to help?
Dr. Schaff is a cardiothoracic surgeon at Mayo Clinic Foundation, Rochester, Minn. He reported no financial relationships.
Yes, functional TR is worth repairing (David H. Adams, MD)
Functional tricuspid regurgitation is a common finding in patients undergoing degenerative mitral valve repair. Severe tricuspid regurgitation is unusual, and clearly there is little debate on the merits of concomitant tricuspid repair for these patients. Moderate tricuspid regurgitation is identified preoperatively in around 15% of patients undergoing degenerative mitral repair (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:608-13), and concomitant tricuspid repair in these patients is certainly supported by both the American and European guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.011; Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2451-96).
What experience and evidence has led us to a more aggressive approach? One of the most important influences on our early adoption of tricuspid repair at the time of mitral surgery was linked to observations that tricuspid regurgitation (TR) sometimes progressed after isolated mitral valve repair (MVR), with some patients developing moderate or worse insufficiency. Certainly, the impact of significant tricuspid regurgitation on the quality and length of patients’ lives and the challenges of reoperation for isolated tricuspid regurgitation are well known to all surgeons.
Consequently, the importance of treating significant annular dilatation, even without significant tricuspid regurgitation, is supported by the guidelines. Our own experience with an aggressive approach to functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR) at the time of mitral surgery put an exclamation point on this (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1931-8). We found that concomitant tricuspid repair in patients who were worse off before surgery with more TR and higher rates of atrial fibrillation and right-sided dysfunction, actually did better during 5 years of follow-up than the isolated mitral repair patients who started with completely normal tricuspid valve anatomy and ventricular function.
Benign neglect is always an option (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154:125-6), but we agree with Roberto Dion, MD – despite our friends’ opinions in Toronto and Rochester – we would much prefer to have minimal TR and a normal sized tricuspid valve after MVR. Ask yourself: would you rather have no TR and a normal sized tricuspid valve after you undergo a mitral operation, or a very dilated annulus and perhaps moderate FTR? I am pretty sure I know the answer, but if you are not sure, read our paper.
Dr. Adams is cardiac surgeon-in-chief, Mount Sinai Health System, and Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Professor and Chairman, department of cardiovascular surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and The Mount Sinai Hospital, and president-elect of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery. He disclosed he is the national co-principal investigator for the Medtronic NeoChord trial, and receives royalties from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai receives royalty payments from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic for intellectual property related to Dr. Adams’ involvement in the development of 2 mitral valve repair rings and 1 tricuspid valve repair ring.
No, a patient with FTR does not necessarily need repair (Tirone David, MD)
In our clinic, a patient who undergoes MVR and has FTR generally goes home without an annuloplasty. We now have 12 years or more of follow-up in these patients, and they do not develop TR if their MVR is competent. We have reported that preoperative TR in patients who had MVR is associated with mitral valve disease and often improves after the operation (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154:110-22). New postoperative TR is uncommon.
Ninety percent of my mitral valve repair patients today have no symptoms. Of those patients, a small proportion have moderate TR.
Dr. David is a professor of surgery at Toronto General Hospital. He reported no financial relationships.
Yes, but repair of FTR requires caution (Gilles Dreyfus, MD)
The controversy surrounding the legitimacy of concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty for functional TR during MVR begs for a clinical trial, but before we can conduct a clinical trial, we must define the primary and secondary endpoints. We’ve seen recent prospective, randomized trials that have reported faulty conclusions because the primary endpoints were wrong.
We need a strong debate to agree on those endpoints. Mortality as an endpoint will probably take a very long time to arrive at.
We’re mixing up many different factors. We’re mixing up TR grading, and we know that grading is unreliable. We have all seen patients with full-fledged TR, and after we put them on Lasix (furosemide, Sanofi), 3 days later they have mild TR. So the same patient with no treatment becomes let’s say a “Dreyfus indication,” and then suddenly in 3 days the patient doesn’t need surgery. At any further stage of his life this patient can experience severe TR again; tricuspid annuloplasty will prevent that from happening.
Moderate TR according to the common definition does not exist. If you look at the reports in echocardiography and if you ask any cardiologist, everything between no TR and severe TR is considered moderate. We have proposed a new staging system for evaluating FTR that uses three factors: TR severity; annular dilatation; and extent of tethering, or mode of leaflet coaptation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2331-6).
Dr. Dreyfus is director of the medical and surgical team at the Cardiothoracic Centre of Monaco in Monte Carlo and professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Paris V University and the Imperial College of London. He disclosed receiving speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, LivaNova, and Medtronic.
No, few FTR patients at risk after MVR (Hartzell Schaff, MD)
Echocardiography can provide a great deal of information about when concomitant repair for TR is indicated during MVR. We’ve found that if the patient has no right-sided signs, has normal right atrial pressure, and has mild or mild/moderate TR at the time of repair to the journey mitral valve, the chance of him returning for a tricuspid valve procedure is near zero.
A few patients do return after MVR. They develop atrial fibrillation and may need a pacemaker, but we see very few patients return for tricuspid surgery.
It’s fair to say we cannot demonstrate any benefit of correcting functional mitral regurgitation. Why would we think there’s a benefit of correcting FTR? We can say we’re going to look at grade of TR down the road, or we could look at some other endpoint, but think about it this way: If we cannot prove that correcting functional mitral regurgitation is helpful, why is correcting FTR going to help?
Dr. Schaff is a cardiothoracic surgeon at Mayo Clinic Foundation, Rochester, Minn. He reported no financial relationships.
Yes, functional TR is worth repairing (David H. Adams, MD)
Functional tricuspid regurgitation is a common finding in patients undergoing degenerative mitral valve repair. Severe tricuspid regurgitation is unusual, and clearly there is little debate on the merits of concomitant tricuspid repair for these patients. Moderate tricuspid regurgitation is identified preoperatively in around 15% of patients undergoing degenerative mitral repair (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:608-13), and concomitant tricuspid repair in these patients is certainly supported by both the American and European guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.011; Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2451-96).
What experience and evidence has led us to a more aggressive approach? One of the most important influences on our early adoption of tricuspid repair at the time of mitral surgery was linked to observations that tricuspid regurgitation (TR) sometimes progressed after isolated mitral valve repair (MVR), with some patients developing moderate or worse insufficiency. Certainly, the impact of significant tricuspid regurgitation on the quality and length of patients’ lives and the challenges of reoperation for isolated tricuspid regurgitation are well known to all surgeons.
Consequently, the importance of treating significant annular dilatation, even without significant tricuspid regurgitation, is supported by the guidelines. Our own experience with an aggressive approach to functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR) at the time of mitral surgery put an exclamation point on this (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1931-8). We found that concomitant tricuspid repair in patients who were worse off before surgery with more TR and higher rates of atrial fibrillation and right-sided dysfunction, actually did better during 5 years of follow-up than the isolated mitral repair patients who started with completely normal tricuspid valve anatomy and ventricular function.
Benign neglect is always an option (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154:125-6), but we agree with Roberto Dion, MD – despite our friends’ opinions in Toronto and Rochester – we would much prefer to have minimal TR and a normal sized tricuspid valve after MVR. Ask yourself: would you rather have no TR and a normal sized tricuspid valve after you undergo a mitral operation, or a very dilated annulus and perhaps moderate FTR? I am pretty sure I know the answer, but if you are not sure, read our paper.
Dr. Adams is cardiac surgeon-in-chief, Mount Sinai Health System, and Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Professor and Chairman, department of cardiovascular surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and The Mount Sinai Hospital, and president-elect of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery. He disclosed he is the national co-principal investigator for the Medtronic NeoChord trial, and receives royalties from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai receives royalty payments from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic for intellectual property related to Dr. Adams’ involvement in the development of 2 mitral valve repair rings and 1 tricuspid valve repair ring.
No, a patient with FTR does not necessarily need repair (Tirone David, MD)
In our clinic, a patient who undergoes MVR and has FTR generally goes home without an annuloplasty. We now have 12 years or more of follow-up in these patients, and they do not develop TR if their MVR is competent. We have reported that preoperative TR in patients who had MVR is associated with mitral valve disease and often improves after the operation (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154:110-22). New postoperative TR is uncommon.
Ninety percent of my mitral valve repair patients today have no symptoms. Of those patients, a small proportion have moderate TR.
Dr. David is a professor of surgery at Toronto General Hospital. He reported no financial relationships.
Yes, but repair of FTR requires caution (Gilles Dreyfus, MD)
The controversy surrounding the legitimacy of concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty for functional TR during MVR begs for a clinical trial, but before we can conduct a clinical trial, we must define the primary and secondary endpoints. We’ve seen recent prospective, randomized trials that have reported faulty conclusions because the primary endpoints were wrong.
We need a strong debate to agree on those endpoints. Mortality as an endpoint will probably take a very long time to arrive at.
We’re mixing up many different factors. We’re mixing up TR grading, and we know that grading is unreliable. We have all seen patients with full-fledged TR, and after we put them on Lasix (furosemide, Sanofi), 3 days later they have mild TR. So the same patient with no treatment becomes let’s say a “Dreyfus indication,” and then suddenly in 3 days the patient doesn’t need surgery. At any further stage of his life this patient can experience severe TR again; tricuspid annuloplasty will prevent that from happening.
Moderate TR according to the common definition does not exist. If you look at the reports in echocardiography and if you ask any cardiologist, everything between no TR and severe TR is considered moderate. We have proposed a new staging system for evaluating FTR that uses three factors: TR severity; annular dilatation; and extent of tethering, or mode of leaflet coaptation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2331-6).
Dr. Dreyfus is director of the medical and surgical team at the Cardiothoracic Centre of Monaco in Monte Carlo and professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Paris V University and the Imperial College of London. He disclosed receiving speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, LivaNova, and Medtronic.
No, few FTR patients at risk after MVR (Hartzell Schaff, MD)
Echocardiography can provide a great deal of information about when concomitant repair for TR is indicated during MVR. We’ve found that if the patient has no right-sided signs, has normal right atrial pressure, and has mild or mild/moderate TR at the time of repair to the journey mitral valve, the chance of him returning for a tricuspid valve procedure is near zero.
A few patients do return after MVR. They develop atrial fibrillation and may need a pacemaker, but we see very few patients return for tricuspid surgery.
It’s fair to say we cannot demonstrate any benefit of correcting functional mitral regurgitation. Why would we think there’s a benefit of correcting FTR? We can say we’re going to look at grade of TR down the road, or we could look at some other endpoint, but think about it this way: If we cannot prove that correcting functional mitral regurgitation is helpful, why is correcting FTR going to help?
Dr. Schaff is a cardiothoracic surgeon at Mayo Clinic Foundation, Rochester, Minn. He reported no financial relationships.
AT THE AATS MITRAL CONCLAVE 2017
Age, anticoagulation prime issues in choice of mechanical valves
NEW YORK – While bioprosthetic valves have become the predominant choice for cardiothoracic surgeons performing heart valve replacement, situations exist in which a mechanical valve may be a better choice. Young and middle-aged adults are the ideal candidates for mechanical valves, but achieving long-term success with mechanical valves also depends on a patient’s circumstances, according to an expert panel at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017 here.
“I think we should put in more mechanical valves,” said panel chair Thoralf M. Sundt III, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and former AATS president. “I think mechanical valves have gotten a bad rap. If patients have a supportive, stable social structure and they can manage their anticoagulation, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a mechanical valve. I think the pendulum has swung too far.”
Anelechi C. Anyanwu, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System, New York, acknowledged another patient factor that would enter his calculus for recommending a mechanical mitral valve. “We would consider a mechanical valve in the patient who is compliant [and] well informed and understands well the requirements and implications of long-term anticoagulation,” he said. In another scenario – “the patient who’s had multiple reoperations – we may consider a mechanical valve.” Particularly, the patient who has had a reoperation for a bioprosthetic valve resulting from early degeneration will merit consideration of a mechanical prosthesis, Dr. Anyanwu said.
Michael A. Borger, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, agreed that the younger patient who has had a series of operations is a good candidate for a mechanical mitral valve. “In addition, the mechanical valve does have some hemodynamic advantages over bioprosthetic valves,” Dr. Borger said. “If a surgeon implants a 25-mm tissue valve with a plan for the patient to undergo a series of valve-in-valve operations in the future, mitral stenosis will definitely become a factor at some point.”
Pedro J. del Nido, MD, a pediatric cardiac surgeon at Children’s Hospital, Boston, expanded on that point. “We very, very rarely use mechanical valves in young patients,” Dr. del Nido said. “In very young patients, the reoperation rates for mechanical or biological valves are not much different. We still have to reoperate on both sets of patients. But, the reoperation itself for a mechanical valve is more difficult, and there is the need for full anticoagulation.”
Instead, Dr. del Nido has used the bovine Melody valve (Medtronic) in the mitral position for these patients because it accommodates some growth. Typically, the only time Dr. del Nido considers a mechanical valve in these young patients is for an aortic valve replacement.
Another younger patient that may be a good candidate for a mechanical valve is the 25-year-old male with rheumatic mitral stenosis. “I would err on the side of the mechanical valve in this patient if I were to make a choice, but I would present the patient with informed data on the outcomes of both mechanical valve and bioprosthesis,” according to Dr. Anyanwu
For even younger patients, Dr. del Nido bases his valve choice on their activity level. “I have a lot of young teenagers, and my decision is entirely based on what their background is like – what their regular life is like,” he said. “If they have a support structure than can help them manage anticoagulation, absolutely the mechanical valve is probably the best thing.”
However, there are exceptions because the couching of the device can change over time. “Eventually that 12-year-old [or] that 15-year-old is going to decide he can still snowboard or ride a motorcycle, and that’s when he’s going to get into trouble,” Dr. del Nido said. “If a reoperation is not problematic, I would still say it’s a tossup between the mechanical and biological valve. I would still offer the possibility of a bioprosthesis knowing that they’ll be back in 6, 8, or 10 years.”
Bleeding risk is another factor that can influence valve choice, as mechanical valve recipients must stay on anticoagulation. “The bleeding complication rates are very low when patients are younger, in their 40s or 50s, but the bleeding rates increase exponentially with warfarin for patients in their 80s and 90s,” Dr. Borger said. “The older you are, the more difficult it is to manage anticoagulation. In addition, the ability to stop anticoagulants because of bleeding is different for the two types of prostheses. If a patient develops bleeding during anticoagulation for leaflet immobility after a tissue valve-in-valve procedure, the physician can simply stop the warfarin. But, if you have a mechanical mitral valve in place that’s not an option.”
That’s not necessarily a bad problem to have, Dr. Sundt said, quoting Steven Bolling, MD, of the University of Michigan. “If you’re 25 and you’ve had your valve replaced and you’re worried about bleeding at the age of 80, I call that a success.”
Dr. Borger disclosed he is a speaker for and consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and CryoLife; a speaker for St. Jude; and a recipient of research support from NeoChord. Dr. Lange disclosed he is a consultant and speaker for Medtronic, St. Jude/Abbott, LivaNova and NeoChord and cofounder of HighLife. Dr. Anyanwu, Dr. del Nido, and Dr. Sundt reported no relevant financial relationships.
NEW YORK – While bioprosthetic valves have become the predominant choice for cardiothoracic surgeons performing heart valve replacement, situations exist in which a mechanical valve may be a better choice. Young and middle-aged adults are the ideal candidates for mechanical valves, but achieving long-term success with mechanical valves also depends on a patient’s circumstances, according to an expert panel at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017 here.
“I think we should put in more mechanical valves,” said panel chair Thoralf M. Sundt III, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and former AATS president. “I think mechanical valves have gotten a bad rap. If patients have a supportive, stable social structure and they can manage their anticoagulation, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a mechanical valve. I think the pendulum has swung too far.”
Anelechi C. Anyanwu, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System, New York, acknowledged another patient factor that would enter his calculus for recommending a mechanical mitral valve. “We would consider a mechanical valve in the patient who is compliant [and] well informed and understands well the requirements and implications of long-term anticoagulation,” he said. In another scenario – “the patient who’s had multiple reoperations – we may consider a mechanical valve.” Particularly, the patient who has had a reoperation for a bioprosthetic valve resulting from early degeneration will merit consideration of a mechanical prosthesis, Dr. Anyanwu said.
Michael A. Borger, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, agreed that the younger patient who has had a series of operations is a good candidate for a mechanical mitral valve. “In addition, the mechanical valve does have some hemodynamic advantages over bioprosthetic valves,” Dr. Borger said. “If a surgeon implants a 25-mm tissue valve with a plan for the patient to undergo a series of valve-in-valve operations in the future, mitral stenosis will definitely become a factor at some point.”
Pedro J. del Nido, MD, a pediatric cardiac surgeon at Children’s Hospital, Boston, expanded on that point. “We very, very rarely use mechanical valves in young patients,” Dr. del Nido said. “In very young patients, the reoperation rates for mechanical or biological valves are not much different. We still have to reoperate on both sets of patients. But, the reoperation itself for a mechanical valve is more difficult, and there is the need for full anticoagulation.”
Instead, Dr. del Nido has used the bovine Melody valve (Medtronic) in the mitral position for these patients because it accommodates some growth. Typically, the only time Dr. del Nido considers a mechanical valve in these young patients is for an aortic valve replacement.
Another younger patient that may be a good candidate for a mechanical valve is the 25-year-old male with rheumatic mitral stenosis. “I would err on the side of the mechanical valve in this patient if I were to make a choice, but I would present the patient with informed data on the outcomes of both mechanical valve and bioprosthesis,” according to Dr. Anyanwu
For even younger patients, Dr. del Nido bases his valve choice on their activity level. “I have a lot of young teenagers, and my decision is entirely based on what their background is like – what their regular life is like,” he said. “If they have a support structure than can help them manage anticoagulation, absolutely the mechanical valve is probably the best thing.”
However, there are exceptions because the couching of the device can change over time. “Eventually that 12-year-old [or] that 15-year-old is going to decide he can still snowboard or ride a motorcycle, and that’s when he’s going to get into trouble,” Dr. del Nido said. “If a reoperation is not problematic, I would still say it’s a tossup between the mechanical and biological valve. I would still offer the possibility of a bioprosthesis knowing that they’ll be back in 6, 8, or 10 years.”
Bleeding risk is another factor that can influence valve choice, as mechanical valve recipients must stay on anticoagulation. “The bleeding complication rates are very low when patients are younger, in their 40s or 50s, but the bleeding rates increase exponentially with warfarin for patients in their 80s and 90s,” Dr. Borger said. “The older you are, the more difficult it is to manage anticoagulation. In addition, the ability to stop anticoagulants because of bleeding is different for the two types of prostheses. If a patient develops bleeding during anticoagulation for leaflet immobility after a tissue valve-in-valve procedure, the physician can simply stop the warfarin. But, if you have a mechanical mitral valve in place that’s not an option.”
That’s not necessarily a bad problem to have, Dr. Sundt said, quoting Steven Bolling, MD, of the University of Michigan. “If you’re 25 and you’ve had your valve replaced and you’re worried about bleeding at the age of 80, I call that a success.”
Dr. Borger disclosed he is a speaker for and consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and CryoLife; a speaker for St. Jude; and a recipient of research support from NeoChord. Dr. Lange disclosed he is a consultant and speaker for Medtronic, St. Jude/Abbott, LivaNova and NeoChord and cofounder of HighLife. Dr. Anyanwu, Dr. del Nido, and Dr. Sundt reported no relevant financial relationships.
NEW YORK – While bioprosthetic valves have become the predominant choice for cardiothoracic surgeons performing heart valve replacement, situations exist in which a mechanical valve may be a better choice. Young and middle-aged adults are the ideal candidates for mechanical valves, but achieving long-term success with mechanical valves also depends on a patient’s circumstances, according to an expert panel at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017 here.
“I think we should put in more mechanical valves,” said panel chair Thoralf M. Sundt III, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and former AATS president. “I think mechanical valves have gotten a bad rap. If patients have a supportive, stable social structure and they can manage their anticoagulation, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a mechanical valve. I think the pendulum has swung too far.”
Anelechi C. Anyanwu, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System, New York, acknowledged another patient factor that would enter his calculus for recommending a mechanical mitral valve. “We would consider a mechanical valve in the patient who is compliant [and] well informed and understands well the requirements and implications of long-term anticoagulation,” he said. In another scenario – “the patient who’s had multiple reoperations – we may consider a mechanical valve.” Particularly, the patient who has had a reoperation for a bioprosthetic valve resulting from early degeneration will merit consideration of a mechanical prosthesis, Dr. Anyanwu said.
Michael A. Borger, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, agreed that the younger patient who has had a series of operations is a good candidate for a mechanical mitral valve. “In addition, the mechanical valve does have some hemodynamic advantages over bioprosthetic valves,” Dr. Borger said. “If a surgeon implants a 25-mm tissue valve with a plan for the patient to undergo a series of valve-in-valve operations in the future, mitral stenosis will definitely become a factor at some point.”
Pedro J. del Nido, MD, a pediatric cardiac surgeon at Children’s Hospital, Boston, expanded on that point. “We very, very rarely use mechanical valves in young patients,” Dr. del Nido said. “In very young patients, the reoperation rates for mechanical or biological valves are not much different. We still have to reoperate on both sets of patients. But, the reoperation itself for a mechanical valve is more difficult, and there is the need for full anticoagulation.”
Instead, Dr. del Nido has used the bovine Melody valve (Medtronic) in the mitral position for these patients because it accommodates some growth. Typically, the only time Dr. del Nido considers a mechanical valve in these young patients is for an aortic valve replacement.
Another younger patient that may be a good candidate for a mechanical valve is the 25-year-old male with rheumatic mitral stenosis. “I would err on the side of the mechanical valve in this patient if I were to make a choice, but I would present the patient with informed data on the outcomes of both mechanical valve and bioprosthesis,” according to Dr. Anyanwu
For even younger patients, Dr. del Nido bases his valve choice on their activity level. “I have a lot of young teenagers, and my decision is entirely based on what their background is like – what their regular life is like,” he said. “If they have a support structure than can help them manage anticoagulation, absolutely the mechanical valve is probably the best thing.”
However, there are exceptions because the couching of the device can change over time. “Eventually that 12-year-old [or] that 15-year-old is going to decide he can still snowboard or ride a motorcycle, and that’s when he’s going to get into trouble,” Dr. del Nido said. “If a reoperation is not problematic, I would still say it’s a tossup between the mechanical and biological valve. I would still offer the possibility of a bioprosthesis knowing that they’ll be back in 6, 8, or 10 years.”
Bleeding risk is another factor that can influence valve choice, as mechanical valve recipients must stay on anticoagulation. “The bleeding complication rates are very low when patients are younger, in their 40s or 50s, but the bleeding rates increase exponentially with warfarin for patients in their 80s and 90s,” Dr. Borger said. “The older you are, the more difficult it is to manage anticoagulation. In addition, the ability to stop anticoagulants because of bleeding is different for the two types of prostheses. If a patient develops bleeding during anticoagulation for leaflet immobility after a tissue valve-in-valve procedure, the physician can simply stop the warfarin. But, if you have a mechanical mitral valve in place that’s not an option.”
That’s not necessarily a bad problem to have, Dr. Sundt said, quoting Steven Bolling, MD, of the University of Michigan. “If you’re 25 and you’ve had your valve replaced and you’re worried about bleeding at the age of 80, I call that a success.”
Dr. Borger disclosed he is a speaker for and consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and CryoLife; a speaker for St. Jude; and a recipient of research support from NeoChord. Dr. Lange disclosed he is a consultant and speaker for Medtronic, St. Jude/Abbott, LivaNova and NeoChord and cofounder of HighLife. Dr. Anyanwu, Dr. del Nido, and Dr. Sundt reported no relevant financial relationships.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE 2017 MITRAL VALVE CONCLAVE
Shift to minimally invasive MV surgery picks up
NEW YORK – An analysis of a Society of Thoracic Surgeons database has identified a significant increase in volumes for isolated mitral valve surgery and leaflet prolapse this decade, with a shift toward minimally invasive approaches, according to a study of trends in mitral valve surgery in the United States presented here at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017.
James Gammie, MD, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, reported on the analysis of the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database in which more than 90% of the adult cardiac surgery centers in North America participate.
“Degenerative disease remains the most common reason patients are referred for surgery,” Dr. Gammie said, noting that 60.7% of patients with an identified etiology had degenerative leaflet prolapse (etiology was unknown in 31% of the patients in the dataset).
“The operative approach has changed and continues to shift toward a less invasive approach,” Dr. Gammie said. Overall, 74.1% of operations involved sternotomy, but only 67.5% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup, with less invasive operations comprising 23% of all operations and 29.1% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup. From 2011 to 2016, total mitral surgical volume grew at a rate of 1.1% annually, but the volume for isolated MV operations grew 4.4% annually while leaflet prolapse procedures increased 7.6% annually, Dr. Gammie said.
Dr. Gammie described surgeons’ decision to perform ablation for preoperative AF during MV surgery a “coin toss.” One-third (34%) had AF, but only 51.2% of patients with AF in the total cohort and 54.4% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup got ablation. The overall MV repair rate was 65% for the total cohort but 83% for those with leaflet prolapse. For those who had MV replacement, the share of bioprosthetic devices increased steadily through the study period, from around 65% to 75.8%, Dr. Gammie said.
In the leaflet prolapse subgroup, 96.1% had annuloplasty and 29.2% had artificial chords implanted, with an average of two chords per operation. “There’s an increasing use of artificial ePTFE chords,” Dr. Gammie said. He noted the leaflet prolapse subgroup was composed of low-risk healthy patients. The mean ejection fraction (EF) for the cohort was 57%, and 47% of patients had EF of less than 60%. The overwhelming majority of patients (88%) had Class I indications for surgery with the remainder having Class IIa indications.
Dr. Gammie noted a few other emerging trends of MV surgery during the study period. “Patients with functional mitral regurgitation are rarely referred for operation: these patients made up fewer than 5% of patients undergoing mitral valve operations during the study period,” he said.;
With regard to outcomes, Dr. Gammie said, “There remain substantial differences between repair and replacement.” Replacement had almost twice the rate of reoperation for bleeding than repair (4.1% vs. 2.1%) and renal failure (3.4% vs. 1.4%).
“We observed that a substantial number of patients have an unsuccessful attempt at mitral valve repair before undergoing replacement – 16 % of the overall replacement group and 27% of patients having replacement for degenerative leaflet prolapse,” he said. “This does not appear to penalize patients in terms of outcome.”
The rate of permanent pacemaker was also significantly higher in the replacement cohort, 9.8% vs. 3.8% for repair operations, as was operative mortality, 3.7% vs. 1.1%. Said Dr. Gammie.
“This is something to think about as we move to less invasive approaches and overall operative mortality remains over threefold higher for replacement than repair.”
The leaflet prolapse subgroup showed similar disparities between replacement and repair groups. “The increased application of repair when feasible will be of value to improve outcomes, as will referral of patients earlier in the disease process ,” Dr. Gammie said.
“In our own STS database, about one-third of patients who were coded as having AF had no evidence of it, and that’s why in our institution they don’t get treated.” He added, “I’m not that surprised at the low repair rate when the average surgeon in the United States does five mitral repairs a year.”
Dr. Gammie disclosed that he is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and has an ownership interest in Harpoon Medical. Dr. Damiano disclosed that he is a speaker for LivaNova and a consultant to and a research grant recipient of Atricure.
NEW YORK – An analysis of a Society of Thoracic Surgeons database has identified a significant increase in volumes for isolated mitral valve surgery and leaflet prolapse this decade, with a shift toward minimally invasive approaches, according to a study of trends in mitral valve surgery in the United States presented here at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017.
James Gammie, MD, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, reported on the analysis of the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database in which more than 90% of the adult cardiac surgery centers in North America participate.
“Degenerative disease remains the most common reason patients are referred for surgery,” Dr. Gammie said, noting that 60.7% of patients with an identified etiology had degenerative leaflet prolapse (etiology was unknown in 31% of the patients in the dataset).
“The operative approach has changed and continues to shift toward a less invasive approach,” Dr. Gammie said. Overall, 74.1% of operations involved sternotomy, but only 67.5% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup, with less invasive operations comprising 23% of all operations and 29.1% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup. From 2011 to 2016, total mitral surgical volume grew at a rate of 1.1% annually, but the volume for isolated MV operations grew 4.4% annually while leaflet prolapse procedures increased 7.6% annually, Dr. Gammie said.
Dr. Gammie described surgeons’ decision to perform ablation for preoperative AF during MV surgery a “coin toss.” One-third (34%) had AF, but only 51.2% of patients with AF in the total cohort and 54.4% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup got ablation. The overall MV repair rate was 65% for the total cohort but 83% for those with leaflet prolapse. For those who had MV replacement, the share of bioprosthetic devices increased steadily through the study period, from around 65% to 75.8%, Dr. Gammie said.
In the leaflet prolapse subgroup, 96.1% had annuloplasty and 29.2% had artificial chords implanted, with an average of two chords per operation. “There’s an increasing use of artificial ePTFE chords,” Dr. Gammie said. He noted the leaflet prolapse subgroup was composed of low-risk healthy patients. The mean ejection fraction (EF) for the cohort was 57%, and 47% of patients had EF of less than 60%. The overwhelming majority of patients (88%) had Class I indications for surgery with the remainder having Class IIa indications.
Dr. Gammie noted a few other emerging trends of MV surgery during the study period. “Patients with functional mitral regurgitation are rarely referred for operation: these patients made up fewer than 5% of patients undergoing mitral valve operations during the study period,” he said.;
With regard to outcomes, Dr. Gammie said, “There remain substantial differences between repair and replacement.” Replacement had almost twice the rate of reoperation for bleeding than repair (4.1% vs. 2.1%) and renal failure (3.4% vs. 1.4%).
“We observed that a substantial number of patients have an unsuccessful attempt at mitral valve repair before undergoing replacement – 16 % of the overall replacement group and 27% of patients having replacement for degenerative leaflet prolapse,” he said. “This does not appear to penalize patients in terms of outcome.”
The rate of permanent pacemaker was also significantly higher in the replacement cohort, 9.8% vs. 3.8% for repair operations, as was operative mortality, 3.7% vs. 1.1%. Said Dr. Gammie.
“This is something to think about as we move to less invasive approaches and overall operative mortality remains over threefold higher for replacement than repair.”
The leaflet prolapse subgroup showed similar disparities between replacement and repair groups. “The increased application of repair when feasible will be of value to improve outcomes, as will referral of patients earlier in the disease process ,” Dr. Gammie said.
“In our own STS database, about one-third of patients who were coded as having AF had no evidence of it, and that’s why in our institution they don’t get treated.” He added, “I’m not that surprised at the low repair rate when the average surgeon in the United States does five mitral repairs a year.”
Dr. Gammie disclosed that he is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and has an ownership interest in Harpoon Medical. Dr. Damiano disclosed that he is a speaker for LivaNova and a consultant to and a research grant recipient of Atricure.
NEW YORK – An analysis of a Society of Thoracic Surgeons database has identified a significant increase in volumes for isolated mitral valve surgery and leaflet prolapse this decade, with a shift toward minimally invasive approaches, according to a study of trends in mitral valve surgery in the United States presented here at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave 2017.
James Gammie, MD, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, reported on the analysis of the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database in which more than 90% of the adult cardiac surgery centers in North America participate.
“Degenerative disease remains the most common reason patients are referred for surgery,” Dr. Gammie said, noting that 60.7% of patients with an identified etiology had degenerative leaflet prolapse (etiology was unknown in 31% of the patients in the dataset).
“The operative approach has changed and continues to shift toward a less invasive approach,” Dr. Gammie said. Overall, 74.1% of operations involved sternotomy, but only 67.5% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup, with less invasive operations comprising 23% of all operations and 29.1% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup. From 2011 to 2016, total mitral surgical volume grew at a rate of 1.1% annually, but the volume for isolated MV operations grew 4.4% annually while leaflet prolapse procedures increased 7.6% annually, Dr. Gammie said.
Dr. Gammie described surgeons’ decision to perform ablation for preoperative AF during MV surgery a “coin toss.” One-third (34%) had AF, but only 51.2% of patients with AF in the total cohort and 54.4% of those in the leaflet prolapse subgroup got ablation. The overall MV repair rate was 65% for the total cohort but 83% for those with leaflet prolapse. For those who had MV replacement, the share of bioprosthetic devices increased steadily through the study period, from around 65% to 75.8%, Dr. Gammie said.
In the leaflet prolapse subgroup, 96.1% had annuloplasty and 29.2% had artificial chords implanted, with an average of two chords per operation. “There’s an increasing use of artificial ePTFE chords,” Dr. Gammie said. He noted the leaflet prolapse subgroup was composed of low-risk healthy patients. The mean ejection fraction (EF) for the cohort was 57%, and 47% of patients had EF of less than 60%. The overwhelming majority of patients (88%) had Class I indications for surgery with the remainder having Class IIa indications.
Dr. Gammie noted a few other emerging trends of MV surgery during the study period. “Patients with functional mitral regurgitation are rarely referred for operation: these patients made up fewer than 5% of patients undergoing mitral valve operations during the study period,” he said.;
With regard to outcomes, Dr. Gammie said, “There remain substantial differences between repair and replacement.” Replacement had almost twice the rate of reoperation for bleeding than repair (4.1% vs. 2.1%) and renal failure (3.4% vs. 1.4%).
“We observed that a substantial number of patients have an unsuccessful attempt at mitral valve repair before undergoing replacement – 16 % of the overall replacement group and 27% of patients having replacement for degenerative leaflet prolapse,” he said. “This does not appear to penalize patients in terms of outcome.”
The rate of permanent pacemaker was also significantly higher in the replacement cohort, 9.8% vs. 3.8% for repair operations, as was operative mortality, 3.7% vs. 1.1%. Said Dr. Gammie.
“This is something to think about as we move to less invasive approaches and overall operative mortality remains over threefold higher for replacement than repair.”
The leaflet prolapse subgroup showed similar disparities between replacement and repair groups. “The increased application of repair when feasible will be of value to improve outcomes, as will referral of patients earlier in the disease process ,” Dr. Gammie said.
“In our own STS database, about one-third of patients who were coded as having AF had no evidence of it, and that’s why in our institution they don’t get treated.” He added, “I’m not that surprised at the low repair rate when the average surgeon in the United States does five mitral repairs a year.”
Dr. Gammie disclosed that he is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and has an ownership interest in Harpoon Medical. Dr. Damiano disclosed that he is a speaker for LivaNova and a consultant to and a research grant recipient of Atricure.
AT THE AATS MITRAL CONCLAVE 2017
Key clinical point: The volume of mitral valve surgery has increased substantially, according to an analysis of the Society for Thoracic Surgery database, and an increasing percentage of procedures are minimally invasive in nature.
Major finding: Sternotomy continues to be the most widely used approach for mitral valve surgery, but less invasive options most recently comprised 23% of the overall group and 29.1% of those with isolated leaflet prolapse.
Data source: Retrospective study of 15,360 isolated mitral valve operations performed from July 2011 to September 2016 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database.
Disclosures: Dr. Gammie reported being a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and having an ownership interest in Harpoon Medical.
Fewer early neurologic complications with TAVR than SAVR
PARIS – Patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate operative risk have a significantly lower 30-day risk of stroke and other neurologic complications with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical replacement, according to new results from the landmark SURTAVI trial.
“This is the first time the stroke rate has been shown to be lower with TAVR than with surgery,” A. Pieter Kappetein, MD, noted in presenting the results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
It’s a finding that adds to the momentum for studying TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients, he added.
“As we move toward lower-risk patients it will become even more important to see whether there is a difference in stroke. Suppose the stroke rate in SURTAVI had been a little higher with TAVR than SAVR? It would really make us more cautious about moving toward lower-risk patients. Now that we see that in intermediate-risk patients the stroke rate is actually a little bit lower than with surgery, I think we’ll feel more comfortable moving toward lower-risk patients,” according to Dr. Kappetein, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam.
SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) involved randomization of 1,660 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis to TAVR or SAVR. All participants were deemed to be at intermediate operative risk based upon a predicted surgical mortality of 3%-15%. The primary outcome -- a composite of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke at 2 years -- was presented at the 2017 meeting of the American College of Cardiology and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2017 Apr 6;376(14):1321-1331). The rate was 12.6% with TAVR using the self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R bioprosthesis and noninferior at 14% with SAVR.
Dr. Kappetein presented a prespecified secondary analysis of the 30-day rate of all neurologic complications, including nondisabling strokes and encephalopathy. He and the other SURTAVI organizers felt this was an important outcome because these early neurologic events have a major impact upon quality of life, including whether a patient will be discharged home or to a rehabilitation clinic or skilled nursing facility following aortic valve replacement.
The 30-day incidence of all stroke was 3.3% in the TAVR patients, significantly lower than the 5.4% rate in the SAVR group. By the 2-year mark, however, the difference was no longer statistically significant, with a rate of 6.3% in the TAVR group compared with 8.0% with SAVR.
Ninety-five percent of the early strokes were ischemic.
The 30-day incidence of disabling stroke was 1.2% with TAVR and 2.4% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant (P=0.057). The 2-year rate was 2.4% in the TAVR arm and 4.5% with SAVR, again not significantly different.
Half of the strokes in the TAVR group had a modified Rankin score of 0-1 at 30 days, meaning no or only minimal signs of stroke. In contrast, most of the strokes in the SAVR group were disabling, with a modified Rankin score of 2-6.
Only 36% of patients who had an early stroke were discharged home, compared with 87% of patients without a stroke. Not surprisingly, quality of life as assessed using the SF-36 physical summary was significantly worse in the early-stroke group. However, with or without stroke, TAVR patients recovered quality of life faster than SAVR patients.
He noted that the timing of the early strokes differed between the two groups. The great majority of both disabling and nondisabling strokes in the TAVR patients were periprocedural, occurring on the day of TAVR or the next day. Strokes in the SAVR group occurred then as well, but also on days 2-6.
One reason why SURTAVI is the first study to show a lower stroke risk with TAVR is that it was the first TAVR-versus-SAVR study to feature comprehensive neurologic testing pre- and post-procedure, along with evaluation of all suspected events by a neurologist or stroke specialist, according to Dr. Kappetein.
“As surgeons we all have said the stroke rate after SAVR is 1%-1.5%, but only when the patient wasn’t waving to us the next morning would we say, ‘Oh, that patient may have a stroke.’ Then we would call a neurologist. So there were many more subtle strokes that we never actually detected. If you do a proper examination of the patient before and after the procedure you’ll find many more strokes,” he said.
He and his coinvestigators systematically searched in vain for predictors of increased stroke risk among the TAVR and SAVR patients.
“Actually, the stroke risk is present for every patient we treat with TAVR or SAVR,” the surgeon continued.
However, discussant Adnan Kastrati, MD, chief physician at the German Heart Center in Munich, thought he spied in the SURTAVI data a potential opportunity to reduce early strokes in SAVR patients. He noted that new-onset atrial fibrillation is consistently more common in SAVR than TAVR patients, and that many of the strokes in the SAVR group occurred on days 2-6. When do heart surgeons typically start oral anticoagulation in their patients with postsurgical atrial fibrillation? he asked.
Not until after 48 hours, Dr. Kappetein replied.
“Those strokes on days 4, 5, and 6 might have to do with atrial fibrillation, and we may need to be more aggressive as surgeons in anticoagulating patients with atrial fibrillation after surgery,” he said.
Dr. Kappetein reported receiving research grant support from Medtronic, sponsor of SURTAVI.
This article was updated July 28, 2107.
PARIS – Patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate operative risk have a significantly lower 30-day risk of stroke and other neurologic complications with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical replacement, according to new results from the landmark SURTAVI trial.
“This is the first time the stroke rate has been shown to be lower with TAVR than with surgery,” A. Pieter Kappetein, MD, noted in presenting the results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
It’s a finding that adds to the momentum for studying TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients, he added.
“As we move toward lower-risk patients it will become even more important to see whether there is a difference in stroke. Suppose the stroke rate in SURTAVI had been a little higher with TAVR than SAVR? It would really make us more cautious about moving toward lower-risk patients. Now that we see that in intermediate-risk patients the stroke rate is actually a little bit lower than with surgery, I think we’ll feel more comfortable moving toward lower-risk patients,” according to Dr. Kappetein, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam.
SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) involved randomization of 1,660 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis to TAVR or SAVR. All participants were deemed to be at intermediate operative risk based upon a predicted surgical mortality of 3%-15%. The primary outcome -- a composite of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke at 2 years -- was presented at the 2017 meeting of the American College of Cardiology and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2017 Apr 6;376(14):1321-1331). The rate was 12.6% with TAVR using the self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R bioprosthesis and noninferior at 14% with SAVR.
Dr. Kappetein presented a prespecified secondary analysis of the 30-day rate of all neurologic complications, including nondisabling strokes and encephalopathy. He and the other SURTAVI organizers felt this was an important outcome because these early neurologic events have a major impact upon quality of life, including whether a patient will be discharged home or to a rehabilitation clinic or skilled nursing facility following aortic valve replacement.
The 30-day incidence of all stroke was 3.3% in the TAVR patients, significantly lower than the 5.4% rate in the SAVR group. By the 2-year mark, however, the difference was no longer statistically significant, with a rate of 6.3% in the TAVR group compared with 8.0% with SAVR.
Ninety-five percent of the early strokes were ischemic.
The 30-day incidence of disabling stroke was 1.2% with TAVR and 2.4% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant (P=0.057). The 2-year rate was 2.4% in the TAVR arm and 4.5% with SAVR, again not significantly different.
Half of the strokes in the TAVR group had a modified Rankin score of 0-1 at 30 days, meaning no or only minimal signs of stroke. In contrast, most of the strokes in the SAVR group were disabling, with a modified Rankin score of 2-6.
Only 36% of patients who had an early stroke were discharged home, compared with 87% of patients without a stroke. Not surprisingly, quality of life as assessed using the SF-36 physical summary was significantly worse in the early-stroke group. However, with or without stroke, TAVR patients recovered quality of life faster than SAVR patients.
He noted that the timing of the early strokes differed between the two groups. The great majority of both disabling and nondisabling strokes in the TAVR patients were periprocedural, occurring on the day of TAVR or the next day. Strokes in the SAVR group occurred then as well, but also on days 2-6.
One reason why SURTAVI is the first study to show a lower stroke risk with TAVR is that it was the first TAVR-versus-SAVR study to feature comprehensive neurologic testing pre- and post-procedure, along with evaluation of all suspected events by a neurologist or stroke specialist, according to Dr. Kappetein.
“As surgeons we all have said the stroke rate after SAVR is 1%-1.5%, but only when the patient wasn’t waving to us the next morning would we say, ‘Oh, that patient may have a stroke.’ Then we would call a neurologist. So there were many more subtle strokes that we never actually detected. If you do a proper examination of the patient before and after the procedure you’ll find many more strokes,” he said.
He and his coinvestigators systematically searched in vain for predictors of increased stroke risk among the TAVR and SAVR patients.
“Actually, the stroke risk is present for every patient we treat with TAVR or SAVR,” the surgeon continued.
However, discussant Adnan Kastrati, MD, chief physician at the German Heart Center in Munich, thought he spied in the SURTAVI data a potential opportunity to reduce early strokes in SAVR patients. He noted that new-onset atrial fibrillation is consistently more common in SAVR than TAVR patients, and that many of the strokes in the SAVR group occurred on days 2-6. When do heart surgeons typically start oral anticoagulation in their patients with postsurgical atrial fibrillation? he asked.
Not until after 48 hours, Dr. Kappetein replied.
“Those strokes on days 4, 5, and 6 might have to do with atrial fibrillation, and we may need to be more aggressive as surgeons in anticoagulating patients with atrial fibrillation after surgery,” he said.
Dr. Kappetein reported receiving research grant support from Medtronic, sponsor of SURTAVI.
This article was updated July 28, 2107.
PARIS – Patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate operative risk have a significantly lower 30-day risk of stroke and other neurologic complications with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical replacement, according to new results from the landmark SURTAVI trial.
“This is the first time the stroke rate has been shown to be lower with TAVR than with surgery,” A. Pieter Kappetein, MD, noted in presenting the results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
It’s a finding that adds to the momentum for studying TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients, he added.
“As we move toward lower-risk patients it will become even more important to see whether there is a difference in stroke. Suppose the stroke rate in SURTAVI had been a little higher with TAVR than SAVR? It would really make us more cautious about moving toward lower-risk patients. Now that we see that in intermediate-risk patients the stroke rate is actually a little bit lower than with surgery, I think we’ll feel more comfortable moving toward lower-risk patients,” according to Dr. Kappetein, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam.
SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) involved randomization of 1,660 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis to TAVR or SAVR. All participants were deemed to be at intermediate operative risk based upon a predicted surgical mortality of 3%-15%. The primary outcome -- a composite of all-cause mortality and disabling stroke at 2 years -- was presented at the 2017 meeting of the American College of Cardiology and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2017 Apr 6;376(14):1321-1331). The rate was 12.6% with TAVR using the self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R bioprosthesis and noninferior at 14% with SAVR.
Dr. Kappetein presented a prespecified secondary analysis of the 30-day rate of all neurologic complications, including nondisabling strokes and encephalopathy. He and the other SURTAVI organizers felt this was an important outcome because these early neurologic events have a major impact upon quality of life, including whether a patient will be discharged home or to a rehabilitation clinic or skilled nursing facility following aortic valve replacement.
The 30-day incidence of all stroke was 3.3% in the TAVR patients, significantly lower than the 5.4% rate in the SAVR group. By the 2-year mark, however, the difference was no longer statistically significant, with a rate of 6.3% in the TAVR group compared with 8.0% with SAVR.
Ninety-five percent of the early strokes were ischemic.
The 30-day incidence of disabling stroke was 1.2% with TAVR and 2.4% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant (P=0.057). The 2-year rate was 2.4% in the TAVR arm and 4.5% with SAVR, again not significantly different.
Half of the strokes in the TAVR group had a modified Rankin score of 0-1 at 30 days, meaning no or only minimal signs of stroke. In contrast, most of the strokes in the SAVR group were disabling, with a modified Rankin score of 2-6.
Only 36% of patients who had an early stroke were discharged home, compared with 87% of patients without a stroke. Not surprisingly, quality of life as assessed using the SF-36 physical summary was significantly worse in the early-stroke group. However, with or without stroke, TAVR patients recovered quality of life faster than SAVR patients.
He noted that the timing of the early strokes differed between the two groups. The great majority of both disabling and nondisabling strokes in the TAVR patients were periprocedural, occurring on the day of TAVR or the next day. Strokes in the SAVR group occurred then as well, but also on days 2-6.
One reason why SURTAVI is the first study to show a lower stroke risk with TAVR is that it was the first TAVR-versus-SAVR study to feature comprehensive neurologic testing pre- and post-procedure, along with evaluation of all suspected events by a neurologist or stroke specialist, according to Dr. Kappetein.
“As surgeons we all have said the stroke rate after SAVR is 1%-1.5%, but only when the patient wasn’t waving to us the next morning would we say, ‘Oh, that patient may have a stroke.’ Then we would call a neurologist. So there were many more subtle strokes that we never actually detected. If you do a proper examination of the patient before and after the procedure you’ll find many more strokes,” he said.
He and his coinvestigators systematically searched in vain for predictors of increased stroke risk among the TAVR and SAVR patients.
“Actually, the stroke risk is present for every patient we treat with TAVR or SAVR,” the surgeon continued.
However, discussant Adnan Kastrati, MD, chief physician at the German Heart Center in Munich, thought he spied in the SURTAVI data a potential opportunity to reduce early strokes in SAVR patients. He noted that new-onset atrial fibrillation is consistently more common in SAVR than TAVR patients, and that many of the strokes in the SAVR group occurred on days 2-6. When do heart surgeons typically start oral anticoagulation in their patients with postsurgical atrial fibrillation? he asked.
Not until after 48 hours, Dr. Kappetein replied.
“Those strokes on days 4, 5, and 6 might have to do with atrial fibrillation, and we may need to be more aggressive as surgeons in anticoagulating patients with atrial fibrillation after surgery,” he said.
Dr. Kappetein reported receiving research grant support from Medtronic, sponsor of SURTAVI.
This article was updated July 28, 2107.
AT EUROPCR
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The combined incidence of disabling and nondisabling stroke within 30 days of TAVR was 3.3%, significantly better than the 5.4% rate in patients who underwent SAVR.
Data source: SURTAVI was a multicenter trial which included 1,660 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at intermediate operative risk and were randomized to TAVR or SAVR.
Disclosures: The study presenter reported receiving research grant support from Medtronic, sponsor of the SURTAVI trial.
In 8 years, TMVR means more procedures
NEW YORK – Since the commercialization of transcatheter mitral valve repair, the share of these procedures among all mitral operations has grown exponentially and has also contributed to an increase in the number of overall mitral procedures, including surgical repair, according to an analysis of a national German database reported at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave here.
Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) using the MitraClip device (Abbott Vascular) was first commercialized in Germany in 2008, and in the years since the share of TMVR procedures among all mitral operations increased from 0.3% to 18.1% in 2015 throughout Germany, said Lenard Conradi, MD, surgical director of minimally-invasive and transcatheter heart valve procedures at the University Heart Center Hamburg.
The goal of the study was to gain insights into how cardiothoracic surgeons in Germany and at Dr. Conradi’s center in particular were approaching TMVR and what types of patients were having the procedure, Dr. Conradi said.
“While the EuroSCORE I of patients we operated on didn’t change at all between these two time frames, there were subtle changes in the patients that we operated on,” he said. “Before the commercialization of TMVR, we tended to have a ratio of organic vs. functional MR [mitral regurgitation] of 50-50; after commercialization of TMVR, many of the functional MR patients were allocated to TMVR.”
Dr. Conradi noted the profile of patients who had mitral valve repair also changed once the transcatheter approach became available. “Ischemic disease with coronary artery disease, previous infarction, or previous cardiac surgery – mostly coronary artery bypass grafting – were much less prevalent in this surgery population after TMVR became available,” he said.
The study also found that 30-day mortality declined from 7% to 4% during the study period. “That was probably due to more adequate patient selection because we had a more appropriate treatment that we could offer these high-risk patients as an alternative to high-risk surgical approaches,” Dr. Conradi said.
The analysis stratified procedure volumes and growth by four age groups: younger than 65 years; 65-74; 75-84; and greater than ore equal to 85. Older patients were more likely to have TMVR. Surgical procedure volumes increased most in the less than 65 group and least in the greater than or equal to 85 group.
In Germany, transcatheter mitral valve procedures are reimbursed at a higher rate than surgical procedures, but that doesn’t fully explain the uptake in TMVR, Dr. Conradi said. “The patients receiving the transcatheter approach vs. surgery still differ fundamentally, but the addition of an interventional program decreases the surgical patient’s mean risk profile and thus optimizes surgical results,” he said. “I think this can only happen if surgeons are closely involved. The indications will broaden for these therapies. There’s no doubt about that.”
Dr. Conradi disclosed receiving travel support and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular.
NEW YORK – Since the commercialization of transcatheter mitral valve repair, the share of these procedures among all mitral operations has grown exponentially and has also contributed to an increase in the number of overall mitral procedures, including surgical repair, according to an analysis of a national German database reported at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave here.
Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) using the MitraClip device (Abbott Vascular) was first commercialized in Germany in 2008, and in the years since the share of TMVR procedures among all mitral operations increased from 0.3% to 18.1% in 2015 throughout Germany, said Lenard Conradi, MD, surgical director of minimally-invasive and transcatheter heart valve procedures at the University Heart Center Hamburg.
The goal of the study was to gain insights into how cardiothoracic surgeons in Germany and at Dr. Conradi’s center in particular were approaching TMVR and what types of patients were having the procedure, Dr. Conradi said.
“While the EuroSCORE I of patients we operated on didn’t change at all between these two time frames, there were subtle changes in the patients that we operated on,” he said. “Before the commercialization of TMVR, we tended to have a ratio of organic vs. functional MR [mitral regurgitation] of 50-50; after commercialization of TMVR, many of the functional MR patients were allocated to TMVR.”
Dr. Conradi noted the profile of patients who had mitral valve repair also changed once the transcatheter approach became available. “Ischemic disease with coronary artery disease, previous infarction, or previous cardiac surgery – mostly coronary artery bypass grafting – were much less prevalent in this surgery population after TMVR became available,” he said.
The study also found that 30-day mortality declined from 7% to 4% during the study period. “That was probably due to more adequate patient selection because we had a more appropriate treatment that we could offer these high-risk patients as an alternative to high-risk surgical approaches,” Dr. Conradi said.
The analysis stratified procedure volumes and growth by four age groups: younger than 65 years; 65-74; 75-84; and greater than ore equal to 85. Older patients were more likely to have TMVR. Surgical procedure volumes increased most in the less than 65 group and least in the greater than or equal to 85 group.
In Germany, transcatheter mitral valve procedures are reimbursed at a higher rate than surgical procedures, but that doesn’t fully explain the uptake in TMVR, Dr. Conradi said. “The patients receiving the transcatheter approach vs. surgery still differ fundamentally, but the addition of an interventional program decreases the surgical patient’s mean risk profile and thus optimizes surgical results,” he said. “I think this can only happen if surgeons are closely involved. The indications will broaden for these therapies. There’s no doubt about that.”
Dr. Conradi disclosed receiving travel support and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular.
NEW YORK – Since the commercialization of transcatheter mitral valve repair, the share of these procedures among all mitral operations has grown exponentially and has also contributed to an increase in the number of overall mitral procedures, including surgical repair, according to an analysis of a national German database reported at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Mitral Conclave here.
Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) using the MitraClip device (Abbott Vascular) was first commercialized in Germany in 2008, and in the years since the share of TMVR procedures among all mitral operations increased from 0.3% to 18.1% in 2015 throughout Germany, said Lenard Conradi, MD, surgical director of minimally-invasive and transcatheter heart valve procedures at the University Heart Center Hamburg.
The goal of the study was to gain insights into how cardiothoracic surgeons in Germany and at Dr. Conradi’s center in particular were approaching TMVR and what types of patients were having the procedure, Dr. Conradi said.
“While the EuroSCORE I of patients we operated on didn’t change at all between these two time frames, there were subtle changes in the patients that we operated on,” he said. “Before the commercialization of TMVR, we tended to have a ratio of organic vs. functional MR [mitral regurgitation] of 50-50; after commercialization of TMVR, many of the functional MR patients were allocated to TMVR.”
Dr. Conradi noted the profile of patients who had mitral valve repair also changed once the transcatheter approach became available. “Ischemic disease with coronary artery disease, previous infarction, or previous cardiac surgery – mostly coronary artery bypass grafting – were much less prevalent in this surgery population after TMVR became available,” he said.
The study also found that 30-day mortality declined from 7% to 4% during the study period. “That was probably due to more adequate patient selection because we had a more appropriate treatment that we could offer these high-risk patients as an alternative to high-risk surgical approaches,” Dr. Conradi said.
The analysis stratified procedure volumes and growth by four age groups: younger than 65 years; 65-74; 75-84; and greater than ore equal to 85. Older patients were more likely to have TMVR. Surgical procedure volumes increased most in the less than 65 group and least in the greater than or equal to 85 group.
In Germany, transcatheter mitral valve procedures are reimbursed at a higher rate than surgical procedures, but that doesn’t fully explain the uptake in TMVR, Dr. Conradi said. “The patients receiving the transcatheter approach vs. surgery still differ fundamentally, but the addition of an interventional program decreases the surgical patient’s mean risk profile and thus optimizes surgical results,” he said. “I think this can only happen if surgeons are closely involved. The indications will broaden for these therapies. There’s no doubt about that.”
Dr. Conradi disclosed receiving travel support and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular.
AT THE AATS MITRAL CONCLAVE 2017
Key clinical point: Since its commercialization, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has accounted for an increasing share of all mitral surgeries in Germany and driven greater mitral surgery volume overall.
Major finding: Volume of surgical mitral valve procedures increased 70% overall and TMVR procedures 57% in Germany since 2008.
Data source: Analysis of data from German Federal statistics office.
Disclosures: Dr. Conradi reported receiving travel support and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular.
HFrEF mortality halved when treatment matches guidelines
PARIS – Heart failure patients who received guideline-directed pharmacotherapy, at dosages that approached guideline-directed levels, had roughly half the 6-month mortality as did similar patients who did not receive this level of treatment in a real-world, observational study with more than 6,000 patients.
Adherence to pharmacologic treatment guidelines for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) “was strongly associated with clinical outcomes during 6-month follow-up,” Michel Komajda, MD, said at a meeting held by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. The findings highlight the importance of closely following guideline recommendations in routine practice.
[polldaddy:9772629]
The analysis used data collected in the QUALIFY (Quality of Adherence to Guideline Recommendations for Life-Saving Treatment in Heart Failure: an International Survey) registry, which enrolled 7,127 HFrEF patients during September 2013–December 2014 at 547 centers in 36 countries, mostly in Europe, Asia, and Africa but also in Canada, Ecuador, and Australia. All enrolled patients had to have been hospitalized for worsening heart failure at least once during the 1-15 months before they entered QUALIFY.
Dr. Komajda and his associates assessed each enrolled patient at baseline by their treatment with each of four guideline-recommended drug classes: an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker; a beta-blocker; an aldosterone receptor antagonist (ARA) if the patient’s functional status was rated as New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV; and ivabradine (Corlanor) if the patient was in NYHA class II, III, or IV, in sinus rhythm, had a heart rate of at least 70 beats per minute, and if the patient was in a country where ivabradine was available. Because patient enrollment occurred in 2013 and 2014, the study couldn’t include the new formulation of sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto) in its analysis.
For each eligible drug class a patient received 1 point if their daily prescribed dosage was at least 50% of the recommended dosage (or 100% for an ARA), 0.5 points if the patient received the recommended drug but at a lower dosage, and no points if the drug wasn’t given. A patient also received 1 point if they were appropriately not given a drug because of a documented contraindication or intolerance. The researchers then calculated each patient’s “adherence score” by dividing their point total by the potentially maximum number of points that each patient could have received (a number that ranged from 2 to 4). They defined a score of 1 (which meant the patients received at least half the recommended dosage of all recommended drugs) as good adherence, a score of 0.51-0.99 as moderate adherence, and a score of 0.5 or less as poor adherence.
Because patient enrollment occurred during 2013 and 2014, the benchmark heart failure treatment guidelines were those issued by the European Society of Cardiology in 2012 (Eur Heart J. 2012 July;33[14]:1787-1847).
Concurrently with Dr. Komajda’s report at the meeting the results appeared in an article online (Eur J Heart Failure. 2017. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.887).
QUANTIFY was sponsored by Servier. Dr. Komajda has received honoraria from Servier and from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
This was a wonderful and useful study. It was large, prospective, covered a wide geographic area, and showed that drug dosage matters when treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
The geographic diversity was a strength, but also a potential weakness because of the resulting differences among the enrolled patients in financial resources, ethnic and genetic makeup, and their tolerance to various drugs. I hope that further research can dissect the role that each of these factors played in the results.
Another limitation is the relatively simplistic approach used for assessing drug dosages to calculate the adherence scores. While it is a very useful step forward to classify patients by the drug dosages they received, there could be some very legitimate variations in dosages based on parameters such as blood pressure. An important question to address in the future is whether it is better to use all the recommended drugs at reduced dosages if necessary, or to use fewer agents at higher dosages.
But these are just quibbles about what is a very important study.
Andrew J.S. Coats, MD , is a cardiologist, professor of medicine, and academic vice-president for the Monash Warwick Alliance of Warwick University in Coventry, England, and Monash University in Melbourne. He has received honoraria from Impulse Dynamics, Menarini, PsiOxus, ResMed, Respicardia, and Servier. He made these comments as designated discussant for Dr. Komajda’s report.
This was a wonderful and useful study. It was large, prospective, covered a wide geographic area, and showed that drug dosage matters when treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
The geographic diversity was a strength, but also a potential weakness because of the resulting differences among the enrolled patients in financial resources, ethnic and genetic makeup, and their tolerance to various drugs. I hope that further research can dissect the role that each of these factors played in the results.
Another limitation is the relatively simplistic approach used for assessing drug dosages to calculate the adherence scores. While it is a very useful step forward to classify patients by the drug dosages they received, there could be some very legitimate variations in dosages based on parameters such as blood pressure. An important question to address in the future is whether it is better to use all the recommended drugs at reduced dosages if necessary, or to use fewer agents at higher dosages.
But these are just quibbles about what is a very important study.
Andrew J.S. Coats, MD , is a cardiologist, professor of medicine, and academic vice-president for the Monash Warwick Alliance of Warwick University in Coventry, England, and Monash University in Melbourne. He has received honoraria from Impulse Dynamics, Menarini, PsiOxus, ResMed, Respicardia, and Servier. He made these comments as designated discussant for Dr. Komajda’s report.
This was a wonderful and useful study. It was large, prospective, covered a wide geographic area, and showed that drug dosage matters when treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
The geographic diversity was a strength, but also a potential weakness because of the resulting differences among the enrolled patients in financial resources, ethnic and genetic makeup, and their tolerance to various drugs. I hope that further research can dissect the role that each of these factors played in the results.
Another limitation is the relatively simplistic approach used for assessing drug dosages to calculate the adherence scores. While it is a very useful step forward to classify patients by the drug dosages they received, there could be some very legitimate variations in dosages based on parameters such as blood pressure. An important question to address in the future is whether it is better to use all the recommended drugs at reduced dosages if necessary, or to use fewer agents at higher dosages.
But these are just quibbles about what is a very important study.
Andrew J.S. Coats, MD , is a cardiologist, professor of medicine, and academic vice-president for the Monash Warwick Alliance of Warwick University in Coventry, England, and Monash University in Melbourne. He has received honoraria from Impulse Dynamics, Menarini, PsiOxus, ResMed, Respicardia, and Servier. He made these comments as designated discussant for Dr. Komajda’s report.
PARIS – Heart failure patients who received guideline-directed pharmacotherapy, at dosages that approached guideline-directed levels, had roughly half the 6-month mortality as did similar patients who did not receive this level of treatment in a real-world, observational study with more than 6,000 patients.
Adherence to pharmacologic treatment guidelines for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) “was strongly associated with clinical outcomes during 6-month follow-up,” Michel Komajda, MD, said at a meeting held by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. The findings highlight the importance of closely following guideline recommendations in routine practice.
[polldaddy:9772629]
The analysis used data collected in the QUALIFY (Quality of Adherence to Guideline Recommendations for Life-Saving Treatment in Heart Failure: an International Survey) registry, which enrolled 7,127 HFrEF patients during September 2013–December 2014 at 547 centers in 36 countries, mostly in Europe, Asia, and Africa but also in Canada, Ecuador, and Australia. All enrolled patients had to have been hospitalized for worsening heart failure at least once during the 1-15 months before they entered QUALIFY.
Dr. Komajda and his associates assessed each enrolled patient at baseline by their treatment with each of four guideline-recommended drug classes: an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker; a beta-blocker; an aldosterone receptor antagonist (ARA) if the patient’s functional status was rated as New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV; and ivabradine (Corlanor) if the patient was in NYHA class II, III, or IV, in sinus rhythm, had a heart rate of at least 70 beats per minute, and if the patient was in a country where ivabradine was available. Because patient enrollment occurred in 2013 and 2014, the study couldn’t include the new formulation of sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto) in its analysis.
For each eligible drug class a patient received 1 point if their daily prescribed dosage was at least 50% of the recommended dosage (or 100% for an ARA), 0.5 points if the patient received the recommended drug but at a lower dosage, and no points if the drug wasn’t given. A patient also received 1 point if they were appropriately not given a drug because of a documented contraindication or intolerance. The researchers then calculated each patient’s “adherence score” by dividing their point total by the potentially maximum number of points that each patient could have received (a number that ranged from 2 to 4). They defined a score of 1 (which meant the patients received at least half the recommended dosage of all recommended drugs) as good adherence, a score of 0.51-0.99 as moderate adherence, and a score of 0.5 or less as poor adherence.
Because patient enrollment occurred during 2013 and 2014, the benchmark heart failure treatment guidelines were those issued by the European Society of Cardiology in 2012 (Eur Heart J. 2012 July;33[14]:1787-1847).
Concurrently with Dr. Komajda’s report at the meeting the results appeared in an article online (Eur J Heart Failure. 2017. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.887).
QUANTIFY was sponsored by Servier. Dr. Komajda has received honoraria from Servier and from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
PARIS – Heart failure patients who received guideline-directed pharmacotherapy, at dosages that approached guideline-directed levels, had roughly half the 6-month mortality as did similar patients who did not receive this level of treatment in a real-world, observational study with more than 6,000 patients.
Adherence to pharmacologic treatment guidelines for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) “was strongly associated with clinical outcomes during 6-month follow-up,” Michel Komajda, MD, said at a meeting held by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. The findings highlight the importance of closely following guideline recommendations in routine practice.
[polldaddy:9772629]
The analysis used data collected in the QUALIFY (Quality of Adherence to Guideline Recommendations for Life-Saving Treatment in Heart Failure: an International Survey) registry, which enrolled 7,127 HFrEF patients during September 2013–December 2014 at 547 centers in 36 countries, mostly in Europe, Asia, and Africa but also in Canada, Ecuador, and Australia. All enrolled patients had to have been hospitalized for worsening heart failure at least once during the 1-15 months before they entered QUALIFY.
Dr. Komajda and his associates assessed each enrolled patient at baseline by their treatment with each of four guideline-recommended drug classes: an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker; a beta-blocker; an aldosterone receptor antagonist (ARA) if the patient’s functional status was rated as New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV; and ivabradine (Corlanor) if the patient was in NYHA class II, III, or IV, in sinus rhythm, had a heart rate of at least 70 beats per minute, and if the patient was in a country where ivabradine was available. Because patient enrollment occurred in 2013 and 2014, the study couldn’t include the new formulation of sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto) in its analysis.
For each eligible drug class a patient received 1 point if their daily prescribed dosage was at least 50% of the recommended dosage (or 100% for an ARA), 0.5 points if the patient received the recommended drug but at a lower dosage, and no points if the drug wasn’t given. A patient also received 1 point if they were appropriately not given a drug because of a documented contraindication or intolerance. The researchers then calculated each patient’s “adherence score” by dividing their point total by the potentially maximum number of points that each patient could have received (a number that ranged from 2 to 4). They defined a score of 1 (which meant the patients received at least half the recommended dosage of all recommended drugs) as good adherence, a score of 0.51-0.99 as moderate adherence, and a score of 0.5 or less as poor adherence.
Because patient enrollment occurred during 2013 and 2014, the benchmark heart failure treatment guidelines were those issued by the European Society of Cardiology in 2012 (Eur Heart J. 2012 July;33[14]:1787-1847).
Concurrently with Dr. Komajda’s report at the meeting the results appeared in an article online (Eur J Heart Failure. 2017. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.887).
QUANTIFY was sponsored by Servier. Dr. Komajda has received honoraria from Servier and from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT HEART FAILURE 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Six-month all-cause, cardiovascular, and heart failure mortalities were doubled in patients not on guideline-adherent therapy and dosages.
Data source: QUANTIFY, an international registry with 6,669 HFrEF patients followed for 6 months.
Disclosures: QUANTIFY was sponsored by Servier. Dr. Komajda has received honoraria from Servier and from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
Low-dose aspirin bests dual-antiplatelet therapy in TAVR
PARIS – Single-antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) reduced the occurrence of major adverse events, compared with guideline-recommended dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in the randomized ARTE trial.
The TAVR guideline recommendation for DAPT with low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel is not based on evidence. It relies on expert opinion. ARTE (Aspirin Versus Aspirin + Clopidogrel Following TAVR) is the first sizable randomized trial to address the safety and efficacy of aspirin alone versus DAPT in the setting of TAVR, Josep Rodés-Cabau, MD, noted in presenting the ARTE results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
ARTE was a multicenter, prospective, international open-label study of 222 TAVR patients who were randomized to 3 months of single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with aspirin at 80-100 mg/day or to DAPT with aspirin at 80-100 mg/day plus clopidogrel at 75 mg/day after a single 300-mg loading dose. Participants had a mean Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 6.3%. The vast majority of participants received the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien XT valve. The remainder got the Sapien 3 valve.
The primary outcome was the 3-month composite of death, MI, major or life-threatening bleeding, or stroke or transient ischemic attack. It occurred in 15.3% of the DAPT group and 7.2% on SAPT, a difference that didn’t reach statistical significance (P = .065) because of small patient numbers.
All subjects were on a proton pump inhibitor. The type, timing, and severity of bleeding events differed between the two study arms. All 4 bleeding events in the SAPT group were vascular in nature, while 5 of the 12 in the DAPT group were gastrointestinal. All the bleeding events in the SAPT group occurred within 72 hours after TAVR, whereas 5 of 12 in the DAPT recipients occurred later. Only one patient on SAPT experienced life-threatening bleeding, compared with seven DAPT patients who did.
“There were two prior smaller studies before ours,” according to Dr. Rodés-Cabau of Laval University in Quebec City. “One showed no differences, and an Italian one showed a tendency toward more bleeding with DAPT. So, I think there has been no sign to date that adding clopidogrel protects this group of patients from anything.”
Discussant Luis Nombela-Franco, MD, an interventional cardiologist at San Carlos Hospital in Madrid, pronounced the ARTE trial guideline-changing despite its limitations.
ARTE was supported by grants from Edwards Lifesciences and the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute.
Simultaneous with Dr. Rodés-Cabau’s presentation in Paris, the ARTE trial was published online (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 May 11. pii: S1936-8798[17]30812-9).
PARIS – Single-antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) reduced the occurrence of major adverse events, compared with guideline-recommended dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in the randomized ARTE trial.
The TAVR guideline recommendation for DAPT with low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel is not based on evidence. It relies on expert opinion. ARTE (Aspirin Versus Aspirin + Clopidogrel Following TAVR) is the first sizable randomized trial to address the safety and efficacy of aspirin alone versus DAPT in the setting of TAVR, Josep Rodés-Cabau, MD, noted in presenting the ARTE results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
ARTE was a multicenter, prospective, international open-label study of 222 TAVR patients who were randomized to 3 months of single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with aspirin at 80-100 mg/day or to DAPT with aspirin at 80-100 mg/day plus clopidogrel at 75 mg/day after a single 300-mg loading dose. Participants had a mean Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 6.3%. The vast majority of participants received the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien XT valve. The remainder got the Sapien 3 valve.
The primary outcome was the 3-month composite of death, MI, major or life-threatening bleeding, or stroke or transient ischemic attack. It occurred in 15.3% of the DAPT group and 7.2% on SAPT, a difference that didn’t reach statistical significance (P = .065) because of small patient numbers.
All subjects were on a proton pump inhibitor. The type, timing, and severity of bleeding events differed between the two study arms. All 4 bleeding events in the SAPT group were vascular in nature, while 5 of the 12 in the DAPT group were gastrointestinal. All the bleeding events in the SAPT group occurred within 72 hours after TAVR, whereas 5 of 12 in the DAPT recipients occurred later. Only one patient on SAPT experienced life-threatening bleeding, compared with seven DAPT patients who did.
“There were two prior smaller studies before ours,” according to Dr. Rodés-Cabau of Laval University in Quebec City. “One showed no differences, and an Italian one showed a tendency toward more bleeding with DAPT. So, I think there has been no sign to date that adding clopidogrel protects this group of patients from anything.”
Discussant Luis Nombela-Franco, MD, an interventional cardiologist at San Carlos Hospital in Madrid, pronounced the ARTE trial guideline-changing despite its limitations.
ARTE was supported by grants from Edwards Lifesciences and the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute.
Simultaneous with Dr. Rodés-Cabau’s presentation in Paris, the ARTE trial was published online (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 May 11. pii: S1936-8798[17]30812-9).
PARIS – Single-antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) reduced the occurrence of major adverse events, compared with guideline-recommended dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), in the randomized ARTE trial.
The TAVR guideline recommendation for DAPT with low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel is not based on evidence. It relies on expert opinion. ARTE (Aspirin Versus Aspirin + Clopidogrel Following TAVR) is the first sizable randomized trial to address the safety and efficacy of aspirin alone versus DAPT in the setting of TAVR, Josep Rodés-Cabau, MD, noted in presenting the ARTE results at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
ARTE was a multicenter, prospective, international open-label study of 222 TAVR patients who were randomized to 3 months of single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with aspirin at 80-100 mg/day or to DAPT with aspirin at 80-100 mg/day plus clopidogrel at 75 mg/day after a single 300-mg loading dose. Participants had a mean Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score of 6.3%. The vast majority of participants received the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien XT valve. The remainder got the Sapien 3 valve.
The primary outcome was the 3-month composite of death, MI, major or life-threatening bleeding, or stroke or transient ischemic attack. It occurred in 15.3% of the DAPT group and 7.2% on SAPT, a difference that didn’t reach statistical significance (P = .065) because of small patient numbers.
All subjects were on a proton pump inhibitor. The type, timing, and severity of bleeding events differed between the two study arms. All 4 bleeding events in the SAPT group were vascular in nature, while 5 of the 12 in the DAPT group were gastrointestinal. All the bleeding events in the SAPT group occurred within 72 hours after TAVR, whereas 5 of 12 in the DAPT recipients occurred later. Only one patient on SAPT experienced life-threatening bleeding, compared with seven DAPT patients who did.
“There were two prior smaller studies before ours,” according to Dr. Rodés-Cabau of Laval University in Quebec City. “One showed no differences, and an Italian one showed a tendency toward more bleeding with DAPT. So, I think there has been no sign to date that adding clopidogrel protects this group of patients from anything.”
Discussant Luis Nombela-Franco, MD, an interventional cardiologist at San Carlos Hospital in Madrid, pronounced the ARTE trial guideline-changing despite its limitations.
ARTE was supported by grants from Edwards Lifesciences and the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute.
Simultaneous with Dr. Rodés-Cabau’s presentation in Paris, the ARTE trial was published online (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 May 11. pii: S1936-8798[17]30812-9).
AT EUROPCR
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The 3-month composite of death, MI, major or life-threatening bleeding, or stroke or transient ischemic attack occurred in 15.3% of TAVR patients randomized to DAPT with low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel, compared with 7.2% on aspirin only.
Data source: A randomized, multicenter, international, prospective open-label trial in 222 TAVR patients.
Disclosures: The presenter reported receiving research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, which supported the ARTE trial.
FDA approves Sapien 3 transcatheter valve for bioprosthetic valve failure
The Food and Drug Administration announced June 5 the approval of an expanded indication for the Sapien 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) for patients with symptomatic heart disease caused by failure of a previously placed bioprosthetic aortic or mitral valve who have a risk of death or severe complications from repeat surgery.
This is the first FDA approval for the expanded use of the Sapien 3 THV as a valve-in-valve treatment. Such procedures provide an alternative to repeat surgery.
“For the first time, a regulatory agency is approving a transcatheter heart valve as a valve-in-valve treatment when bioprosthetic mitral or aortic valves fail in patients who are at high or greater risk of complications from repeat surgery,” Bram Zuckerman, MD, director of the division of cardiovascular devices at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “This new approval offers U.S. patients with failing surgical bioprosthetic aortic or mitral valves a less-invasive treatment option.”
Originally, the FDA approved the Sapien 3 THV for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with native aortic stenosis whose risk for death or severe complications from surgery is high or greater. Then in 2016, the FDA expanded the TAVR indication for Sapien 3 THV to include patients who are at intermediate surgical risk for death or complications.
Read the full press release on the FDA’s website.
The Food and Drug Administration announced June 5 the approval of an expanded indication for the Sapien 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) for patients with symptomatic heart disease caused by failure of a previously placed bioprosthetic aortic or mitral valve who have a risk of death or severe complications from repeat surgery.
This is the first FDA approval for the expanded use of the Sapien 3 THV as a valve-in-valve treatment. Such procedures provide an alternative to repeat surgery.
“For the first time, a regulatory agency is approving a transcatheter heart valve as a valve-in-valve treatment when bioprosthetic mitral or aortic valves fail in patients who are at high or greater risk of complications from repeat surgery,” Bram Zuckerman, MD, director of the division of cardiovascular devices at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “This new approval offers U.S. patients with failing surgical bioprosthetic aortic or mitral valves a less-invasive treatment option.”
Originally, the FDA approved the Sapien 3 THV for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with native aortic stenosis whose risk for death or severe complications from surgery is high or greater. Then in 2016, the FDA expanded the TAVR indication for Sapien 3 THV to include patients who are at intermediate surgical risk for death or complications.
Read the full press release on the FDA’s website.
The Food and Drug Administration announced June 5 the approval of an expanded indication for the Sapien 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) for patients with symptomatic heart disease caused by failure of a previously placed bioprosthetic aortic or mitral valve who have a risk of death or severe complications from repeat surgery.
This is the first FDA approval for the expanded use of the Sapien 3 THV as a valve-in-valve treatment. Such procedures provide an alternative to repeat surgery.
“For the first time, a regulatory agency is approving a transcatheter heart valve as a valve-in-valve treatment when bioprosthetic mitral or aortic valves fail in patients who are at high or greater risk of complications from repeat surgery,” Bram Zuckerman, MD, director of the division of cardiovascular devices at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “This new approval offers U.S. patients with failing surgical bioprosthetic aortic or mitral valves a less-invasive treatment option.”
Originally, the FDA approved the Sapien 3 THV for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with native aortic stenosis whose risk for death or severe complications from surgery is high or greater. Then in 2016, the FDA expanded the TAVR indication for Sapien 3 THV to include patients who are at intermediate surgical risk for death or complications.
Read the full press release on the FDA’s website.
BIO-RESORT: A mandate to prescreen PCI patients for silent diabetes
PARIS – Undetected diabetes and prediabetes are pervasive in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and they’re associated with a sharply increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, according to the results of the potentially practice-changing BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes Study, Clemens von Birgelen, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“Our data support screening PCI all-comers for silent diabetes, which may help identify patients with an increased event risk and improve their therapy,” said Dr. von Birgelen, professor of cardiology at the Thoraxcentrum of Twente, a high-volume center for cardiac interventions in Enschede, the Netherlands.
A substantial one-third of subjects turned out to have abnormal glucose tolerance according to World Health Organization criteria and an International Expert Committee Report (Diabetes Care. 2009 Jul;32[7]:1327-34). In a multivariate analysis, their 1-year rate of the primary study endpoint – target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or target vessel revascularization – was an adjusted 2.2 times greater than in the 788 normoglycemic patients.
Moreover, among the 7% of study participants who met diagnostic criteria for silent diabetes, the risk of target vessel failure was more than 4.4 times greater than in the normoglycemic group.
“To a very great extent, periprocedural MI is the driving force behind this difference that we saw. From a biological point of view, I think that the vulnerability of the vessel in the diabetic or prediabetic patient features more brittle plaque with a higher risk of cholesterol embolization, and with more plaque mass that can be pushed to the side so that side branch vessels can become occluded, leading to periprocedural MI,” he observed.
Glucose metabolism was assessed in all participants by two methods using the conventional cutoffs: a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and the combination of fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c. By OGTT, 7% of patients had silent, previously unrecognized diabetes and another 13% had prediabetes. Using the combination of fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c, a total of 25% of subjects had silent diabetes or prediabetes. Fully 33% of participants had abnormal glucose metabolism by one yardstick or the other.
“What we have seen is there is a group of patients that are missed with either. With the OGTT you don’t see all the diabetics, and with HbA1c and fasting blood glucose you also miss some patients,” said Dr. von Birgelen.
The 1-year cumulative incidence of target vessel failure was 13.2% in patients with silent diabetes as identified by the OGTT and 12.1% in those detected by the alternative method, compared with rates of 2.8% and 3.1%, respectively, in normoglycemic PCI patients. The event rate was 6.1% in patients with prediabetes by OGTT and similar at 5.5% in those found to be prediabetic based on fasting blood glucose and HbA1c, versus rates of 2.8% and 3.1%, respectively, in normoglycemic patients.
“The findings of this study suggest that post-PCI event risk associated with hyperglycemia is a continuum without a clear threshold effect, extending well beyond the threshold that currently defines diabetes,” Dr. von Birgelen said.
Once again, it’s worth emphasizing that the elevated target vessel failure rates seen in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism were due mostly to increased rates of acute MI within the first 24 hours after PCI. The target vessel–related MI rate was 10.3% in patients with silent diabetes, compared with just 1.8% in normoglycemic controls.
Asked what the take-home message for clinicians is from this study, he noted that the Netherlands has a relatively low prevalence of diabetes, and a highly developed primary care medicine system.
“We have a very good one-to-one relationship between the patient and the GP. So if we find 7% silent diabetes and up to one-third of patients with undetected abnormal glucose tolerance in a country with a relatively low prevalence of diabetes, you may expect that in other countries with a higher prevalence and perhaps a less developed primary care system the rate may be much, much higher,” Dr. von Birgelen cautioned.
The implications for the daily clinical practice of interventional cardiology are clear, he continued: “We’ve seen in several trials that the new stents are doing a fantastic job. So if we want to further improve the outcomes in our patients we have to do something else. We should look for subgroups of our PCI patients who have a particularly high risk. And we all realize that diabetics are such a problem, but I think we have shown that the prediabetic patients are also important. So we should identify and pretreat these patients, perhaps with aggressive lipid-lowering therapy during the weeks before a scheduled elective PCI.”
“There are data showing that with aggressive lipid-lowering you might reduce the risk of periprocedural MI,” the cardiologist noted.
As a practical matter, screening via fasting blood glucose and HbA1c is probably the way to go in clinical practice, according to Dr. von Birgelen.
“In this study, we performed the OGTT because it is still considered by many the gold standard. But there is increasing evidence favoring HbA1c data and fasting blood glucose,” he said.
Other possible pre-PCI interventions worthy of consideration in patients found to have previously unsuspected abnormal glucose tolerance might include medical therapy aimed at normalizing glucose metabolism, as well as perhaps resorting to the most potent forms of dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients with stable angina who have impaired glucose tolerance. However, these are possibilities that should be tested in randomized controlled trials before widespread adoption, he added.
The BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes Study, which will continue for 5 years of post-PCI follow-up, is a prespecified substudy of the previously reported BIO-RESORT trial, which addressed another issue entirely. It was a three-arm, patient-blinded clinical trial comparing 1-year safety and efficacy outcomes in nearly 3,500 PCI patients randomized to PCI with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus- or sirolimus-eluting stents or a durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent. Outcomes proved noninferior across the three treatment groups (Lancet. 2016 Nov 26;388[10060]:2607-17).
Dr. von Birgelen observed that the silent diabetes study broke new ground. Prior studies of PCI outcomes in patients with unrecognized diabetes were limited to recipients of plain old balloon angioplasty, bare metal, or first-generation drug-eluting stents. And studies of PCI in patients with unrecognized prediabetes are virtually nonexistent.
As the principal investigator for both the parent BIO-RESORT trial and the silent diabetes substudy, Dr. von Birgelen received research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, the cosponsors. He applauded the three companies for funding the silent diabetes substudy in the interest of science even though it had no commercial relevance to their stent businesses.
PARIS – Undetected diabetes and prediabetes are pervasive in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and they’re associated with a sharply increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, according to the results of the potentially practice-changing BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes Study, Clemens von Birgelen, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“Our data support screening PCI all-comers for silent diabetes, which may help identify patients with an increased event risk and improve their therapy,” said Dr. von Birgelen, professor of cardiology at the Thoraxcentrum of Twente, a high-volume center for cardiac interventions in Enschede, the Netherlands.
A substantial one-third of subjects turned out to have abnormal glucose tolerance according to World Health Organization criteria and an International Expert Committee Report (Diabetes Care. 2009 Jul;32[7]:1327-34). In a multivariate analysis, their 1-year rate of the primary study endpoint – target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or target vessel revascularization – was an adjusted 2.2 times greater than in the 788 normoglycemic patients.
Moreover, among the 7% of study participants who met diagnostic criteria for silent diabetes, the risk of target vessel failure was more than 4.4 times greater than in the normoglycemic group.
“To a very great extent, periprocedural MI is the driving force behind this difference that we saw. From a biological point of view, I think that the vulnerability of the vessel in the diabetic or prediabetic patient features more brittle plaque with a higher risk of cholesterol embolization, and with more plaque mass that can be pushed to the side so that side branch vessels can become occluded, leading to periprocedural MI,” he observed.
Glucose metabolism was assessed in all participants by two methods using the conventional cutoffs: a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and the combination of fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c. By OGTT, 7% of patients had silent, previously unrecognized diabetes and another 13% had prediabetes. Using the combination of fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c, a total of 25% of subjects had silent diabetes or prediabetes. Fully 33% of participants had abnormal glucose metabolism by one yardstick or the other.
“What we have seen is there is a group of patients that are missed with either. With the OGTT you don’t see all the diabetics, and with HbA1c and fasting blood glucose you also miss some patients,” said Dr. von Birgelen.
The 1-year cumulative incidence of target vessel failure was 13.2% in patients with silent diabetes as identified by the OGTT and 12.1% in those detected by the alternative method, compared with rates of 2.8% and 3.1%, respectively, in normoglycemic PCI patients. The event rate was 6.1% in patients with prediabetes by OGTT and similar at 5.5% in those found to be prediabetic based on fasting blood glucose and HbA1c, versus rates of 2.8% and 3.1%, respectively, in normoglycemic patients.
“The findings of this study suggest that post-PCI event risk associated with hyperglycemia is a continuum without a clear threshold effect, extending well beyond the threshold that currently defines diabetes,” Dr. von Birgelen said.
Once again, it’s worth emphasizing that the elevated target vessel failure rates seen in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism were due mostly to increased rates of acute MI within the first 24 hours after PCI. The target vessel–related MI rate was 10.3% in patients with silent diabetes, compared with just 1.8% in normoglycemic controls.
Asked what the take-home message for clinicians is from this study, he noted that the Netherlands has a relatively low prevalence of diabetes, and a highly developed primary care medicine system.
“We have a very good one-to-one relationship between the patient and the GP. So if we find 7% silent diabetes and up to one-third of patients with undetected abnormal glucose tolerance in a country with a relatively low prevalence of diabetes, you may expect that in other countries with a higher prevalence and perhaps a less developed primary care system the rate may be much, much higher,” Dr. von Birgelen cautioned.
The implications for the daily clinical practice of interventional cardiology are clear, he continued: “We’ve seen in several trials that the new stents are doing a fantastic job. So if we want to further improve the outcomes in our patients we have to do something else. We should look for subgroups of our PCI patients who have a particularly high risk. And we all realize that diabetics are such a problem, but I think we have shown that the prediabetic patients are also important. So we should identify and pretreat these patients, perhaps with aggressive lipid-lowering therapy during the weeks before a scheduled elective PCI.”
“There are data showing that with aggressive lipid-lowering you might reduce the risk of periprocedural MI,” the cardiologist noted.
As a practical matter, screening via fasting blood glucose and HbA1c is probably the way to go in clinical practice, according to Dr. von Birgelen.
“In this study, we performed the OGTT because it is still considered by many the gold standard. But there is increasing evidence favoring HbA1c data and fasting blood glucose,” he said.
Other possible pre-PCI interventions worthy of consideration in patients found to have previously unsuspected abnormal glucose tolerance might include medical therapy aimed at normalizing glucose metabolism, as well as perhaps resorting to the most potent forms of dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients with stable angina who have impaired glucose tolerance. However, these are possibilities that should be tested in randomized controlled trials before widespread adoption, he added.
The BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes Study, which will continue for 5 years of post-PCI follow-up, is a prespecified substudy of the previously reported BIO-RESORT trial, which addressed another issue entirely. It was a three-arm, patient-blinded clinical trial comparing 1-year safety and efficacy outcomes in nearly 3,500 PCI patients randomized to PCI with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus- or sirolimus-eluting stents or a durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent. Outcomes proved noninferior across the three treatment groups (Lancet. 2016 Nov 26;388[10060]:2607-17).
Dr. von Birgelen observed that the silent diabetes study broke new ground. Prior studies of PCI outcomes in patients with unrecognized diabetes were limited to recipients of plain old balloon angioplasty, bare metal, or first-generation drug-eluting stents. And studies of PCI in patients with unrecognized prediabetes are virtually nonexistent.
As the principal investigator for both the parent BIO-RESORT trial and the silent diabetes substudy, Dr. von Birgelen received research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, the cosponsors. He applauded the three companies for funding the silent diabetes substudy in the interest of science even though it had no commercial relevance to their stent businesses.
PARIS – Undetected diabetes and prediabetes are pervasive in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and they’re associated with a sharply increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, according to the results of the potentially practice-changing BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes Study, Clemens von Birgelen, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“Our data support screening PCI all-comers for silent diabetes, which may help identify patients with an increased event risk and improve their therapy,” said Dr. von Birgelen, professor of cardiology at the Thoraxcentrum of Twente, a high-volume center for cardiac interventions in Enschede, the Netherlands.
A substantial one-third of subjects turned out to have abnormal glucose tolerance according to World Health Organization criteria and an International Expert Committee Report (Diabetes Care. 2009 Jul;32[7]:1327-34). In a multivariate analysis, their 1-year rate of the primary study endpoint – target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or target vessel revascularization – was an adjusted 2.2 times greater than in the 788 normoglycemic patients.
Moreover, among the 7% of study participants who met diagnostic criteria for silent diabetes, the risk of target vessel failure was more than 4.4 times greater than in the normoglycemic group.
“To a very great extent, periprocedural MI is the driving force behind this difference that we saw. From a biological point of view, I think that the vulnerability of the vessel in the diabetic or prediabetic patient features more brittle plaque with a higher risk of cholesterol embolization, and with more plaque mass that can be pushed to the side so that side branch vessels can become occluded, leading to periprocedural MI,” he observed.
Glucose metabolism was assessed in all participants by two methods using the conventional cutoffs: a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and the combination of fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c. By OGTT, 7% of patients had silent, previously unrecognized diabetes and another 13% had prediabetes. Using the combination of fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c, a total of 25% of subjects had silent diabetes or prediabetes. Fully 33% of participants had abnormal glucose metabolism by one yardstick or the other.
“What we have seen is there is a group of patients that are missed with either. With the OGTT you don’t see all the diabetics, and with HbA1c and fasting blood glucose you also miss some patients,” said Dr. von Birgelen.
The 1-year cumulative incidence of target vessel failure was 13.2% in patients with silent diabetes as identified by the OGTT and 12.1% in those detected by the alternative method, compared with rates of 2.8% and 3.1%, respectively, in normoglycemic PCI patients. The event rate was 6.1% in patients with prediabetes by OGTT and similar at 5.5% in those found to be prediabetic based on fasting blood glucose and HbA1c, versus rates of 2.8% and 3.1%, respectively, in normoglycemic patients.
“The findings of this study suggest that post-PCI event risk associated with hyperglycemia is a continuum without a clear threshold effect, extending well beyond the threshold that currently defines diabetes,” Dr. von Birgelen said.
Once again, it’s worth emphasizing that the elevated target vessel failure rates seen in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism were due mostly to increased rates of acute MI within the first 24 hours after PCI. The target vessel–related MI rate was 10.3% in patients with silent diabetes, compared with just 1.8% in normoglycemic controls.
Asked what the take-home message for clinicians is from this study, he noted that the Netherlands has a relatively low prevalence of diabetes, and a highly developed primary care medicine system.
“We have a very good one-to-one relationship between the patient and the GP. So if we find 7% silent diabetes and up to one-third of patients with undetected abnormal glucose tolerance in a country with a relatively low prevalence of diabetes, you may expect that in other countries with a higher prevalence and perhaps a less developed primary care system the rate may be much, much higher,” Dr. von Birgelen cautioned.
The implications for the daily clinical practice of interventional cardiology are clear, he continued: “We’ve seen in several trials that the new stents are doing a fantastic job. So if we want to further improve the outcomes in our patients we have to do something else. We should look for subgroups of our PCI patients who have a particularly high risk. And we all realize that diabetics are such a problem, but I think we have shown that the prediabetic patients are also important. So we should identify and pretreat these patients, perhaps with aggressive lipid-lowering therapy during the weeks before a scheduled elective PCI.”
“There are data showing that with aggressive lipid-lowering you might reduce the risk of periprocedural MI,” the cardiologist noted.
As a practical matter, screening via fasting blood glucose and HbA1c is probably the way to go in clinical practice, according to Dr. von Birgelen.
“In this study, we performed the OGTT because it is still considered by many the gold standard. But there is increasing evidence favoring HbA1c data and fasting blood glucose,” he said.
Other possible pre-PCI interventions worthy of consideration in patients found to have previously unsuspected abnormal glucose tolerance might include medical therapy aimed at normalizing glucose metabolism, as well as perhaps resorting to the most potent forms of dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients with stable angina who have impaired glucose tolerance. However, these are possibilities that should be tested in randomized controlled trials before widespread adoption, he added.
The BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes Study, which will continue for 5 years of post-PCI follow-up, is a prespecified substudy of the previously reported BIO-RESORT trial, which addressed another issue entirely. It was a three-arm, patient-blinded clinical trial comparing 1-year safety and efficacy outcomes in nearly 3,500 PCI patients randomized to PCI with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus- or sirolimus-eluting stents or a durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent. Outcomes proved noninferior across the three treatment groups (Lancet. 2016 Nov 26;388[10060]:2607-17).
Dr. von Birgelen observed that the silent diabetes study broke new ground. Prior studies of PCI outcomes in patients with unrecognized diabetes were limited to recipients of plain old balloon angioplasty, bare metal, or first-generation drug-eluting stents. And studies of PCI in patients with unrecognized prediabetes are virtually nonexistent.
As the principal investigator for both the parent BIO-RESORT trial and the silent diabetes substudy, Dr. von Birgelen received research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, the cosponsors. He applauded the three companies for funding the silent diabetes substudy in the interest of science even though it had no commercial relevance to their stent businesses.
AT EUROPCR
Key clinical point:
Major finding: One-third of patients undergoing PCI have unsuspected silent diabetes or prediabetes, placing them at increased risk for major adverse cardiac events.
Data source: This prospective observational study included 988 patients not known to have diabetes who underwent screening for abnormal glucose tolerance 6 weeks after PCI with stenting.
Disclosures: The study was cosponsored by Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.