User login
Low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved LVEF: a special situation
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A patient who presents with symptomatic low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis, hypertension, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is often referred straightaway for consideration of aortic valve replacement. Not so fast – these patients actually constitute a special case for whom two essential questions must be answered before proceeding to that stage, Rick A. Nishimura, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The first question is, What happens to the patient’s symptoms upon control of the hypertension?
“Almost all of these patients with low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction are going to be hypertensive. Treat the hypertension first. If they become asymptomatic, you don’t need to intervene. The aortic stenosis wasn’t causing their symptoms. You can afford to continue to watch them,” according to Dr. Nishimura, professor of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
An aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 is a prerequisite for surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. So the second key question is this, Does the patient have truly severe aortic stenosis (AS), or is it instead a case of pseudo-AS in which the small aortic valve area noted on echocardiography is caused by low flow secondary to a small left ventricle with a low stroke volume?
“If you increase the flow and remeasure the aortic valve area, you’ll find that a lot of these patients don’t have a really small aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2. You might find the aortic valve area pops up to 1.4-1.6 cm2,” he explained.
These patients with symptomatic low-flow, low-gradient severe AS with preserved LVEF are quite common.
“I don’t know why, but we’re seeing more and more of these patients. I think 10 years ago we just kind of ignored them. We thought we’d made a mistake in our calculations. But in fact if you’re very meticulous about your calculations, 30%-40% of your aortic stenosis patients fit into this category,” the cardiologist said.
Moreover, if these patients undergo aortic valve replacement when their symptoms stemmed from poorly controlled hypertension and/or pseudo-AS, they are not going to benefit from this major intervention, he added.
This issue was addressed, albeit briefly and obliquely, in the American Heart Association/ACC guidelines for management of patients with valvular heart disease, for which Dr. Nishimura served as first author and cochair of the writing committee (Circulation. 2014 Jun 10;129[23]:e521-643) as well as for the 2017 focused update of the guidelines.
The guidelines give a IIa recommendation to aortic valve replacement as “reasonable” in “symptomatic patients with low-flow/low-gradient severe AS (stage D3) with an LVEF 50% or greater, a calcified aortic valve with significantly reduced leaflet motion, and a valve area 1.0 cm2 or less only if clinical, hemodynamic, and anatomic data support valve obstruction as the most likely cause of symptoms and data recorded when the patient is normotensive.”
Dr. Nishimura chose the 50th annual meeting of the storied ACC Snowmass conference to elaborate upon that brief guidance. He explained that these patients with low-flow, low-gradient symptomatic “severe” AS with preserved LVEF and hypertension have two resistors in a series.
“You have a resistor at the aortic valve area but probably a greater resistor in the systemic circulation. They have high resistance at the arterial level and diastolic dysfunction due to ventricular-vascular coupling,” the cardiologist continued.
Checking for pseudo-AS in these patients is a matter of boosting their low transvalvular flow. This can be accomplished by increasing their cardiac output via monitored exercise or by pharmacologic afterload reduction.
“We’re exercising these patients in the cath lab, but you could also do it in the echocardiographic laboratory. With exercise, if cardiac output increases and the aortic valve area increases without significant change in the aortic valve mean gradient, the patient probably doesn’t have truly severe AS,” according to Dr. Nishimura.
One reason referral centers are seeing a lot more of these patients during the last decade is an influential study by Canadian investigators entitled “Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival.” Those investigators warned “this condition may often be misdiagnosed, which leads to a neglect and/or underestimation of symptoms and an inappropriate delay of aortic valve replacement surgery” (Circulation. 2007 Jun 5;115(22):2856-64).
This report led to a great deal of interest in performing aortic valve replacement in such patients during a period when transcatheter replacement was really taking off.
When an audience member asked how commonly such patients have undergone inappropriate aortic valve replacement, Michael J. Mack, MD, took the question.
“I don’t think it’s a huge number,” said Dr. Mack, medical director of cardiovascular surgery at the Baylor Health Care System in Plano, Tex. “This is the patient group we wring our hands about most. We know they don’t do as well with aortic valve replacement as patients with high-gradient AS with a low or normal ejection fraction. We’re loathe to treat them. I think most centers are.”
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A patient who presents with symptomatic low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis, hypertension, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is often referred straightaway for consideration of aortic valve replacement. Not so fast – these patients actually constitute a special case for whom two essential questions must be answered before proceeding to that stage, Rick A. Nishimura, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The first question is, What happens to the patient’s symptoms upon control of the hypertension?
“Almost all of these patients with low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction are going to be hypertensive. Treat the hypertension first. If they become asymptomatic, you don’t need to intervene. The aortic stenosis wasn’t causing their symptoms. You can afford to continue to watch them,” according to Dr. Nishimura, professor of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
An aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 is a prerequisite for surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. So the second key question is this, Does the patient have truly severe aortic stenosis (AS), or is it instead a case of pseudo-AS in which the small aortic valve area noted on echocardiography is caused by low flow secondary to a small left ventricle with a low stroke volume?
“If you increase the flow and remeasure the aortic valve area, you’ll find that a lot of these patients don’t have a really small aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2. You might find the aortic valve area pops up to 1.4-1.6 cm2,” he explained.
These patients with symptomatic low-flow, low-gradient severe AS with preserved LVEF are quite common.
“I don’t know why, but we’re seeing more and more of these patients. I think 10 years ago we just kind of ignored them. We thought we’d made a mistake in our calculations. But in fact if you’re very meticulous about your calculations, 30%-40% of your aortic stenosis patients fit into this category,” the cardiologist said.
Moreover, if these patients undergo aortic valve replacement when their symptoms stemmed from poorly controlled hypertension and/or pseudo-AS, they are not going to benefit from this major intervention, he added.
This issue was addressed, albeit briefly and obliquely, in the American Heart Association/ACC guidelines for management of patients with valvular heart disease, for which Dr. Nishimura served as first author and cochair of the writing committee (Circulation. 2014 Jun 10;129[23]:e521-643) as well as for the 2017 focused update of the guidelines.
The guidelines give a IIa recommendation to aortic valve replacement as “reasonable” in “symptomatic patients with low-flow/low-gradient severe AS (stage D3) with an LVEF 50% or greater, a calcified aortic valve with significantly reduced leaflet motion, and a valve area 1.0 cm2 or less only if clinical, hemodynamic, and anatomic data support valve obstruction as the most likely cause of symptoms and data recorded when the patient is normotensive.”
Dr. Nishimura chose the 50th annual meeting of the storied ACC Snowmass conference to elaborate upon that brief guidance. He explained that these patients with low-flow, low-gradient symptomatic “severe” AS with preserved LVEF and hypertension have two resistors in a series.
“You have a resistor at the aortic valve area but probably a greater resistor in the systemic circulation. They have high resistance at the arterial level and diastolic dysfunction due to ventricular-vascular coupling,” the cardiologist continued.
Checking for pseudo-AS in these patients is a matter of boosting their low transvalvular flow. This can be accomplished by increasing their cardiac output via monitored exercise or by pharmacologic afterload reduction.
“We’re exercising these patients in the cath lab, but you could also do it in the echocardiographic laboratory. With exercise, if cardiac output increases and the aortic valve area increases without significant change in the aortic valve mean gradient, the patient probably doesn’t have truly severe AS,” according to Dr. Nishimura.
One reason referral centers are seeing a lot more of these patients during the last decade is an influential study by Canadian investigators entitled “Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival.” Those investigators warned “this condition may often be misdiagnosed, which leads to a neglect and/or underestimation of symptoms and an inappropriate delay of aortic valve replacement surgery” (Circulation. 2007 Jun 5;115(22):2856-64).
This report led to a great deal of interest in performing aortic valve replacement in such patients during a period when transcatheter replacement was really taking off.
When an audience member asked how commonly such patients have undergone inappropriate aortic valve replacement, Michael J. Mack, MD, took the question.
“I don’t think it’s a huge number,” said Dr. Mack, medical director of cardiovascular surgery at the Baylor Health Care System in Plano, Tex. “This is the patient group we wring our hands about most. We know they don’t do as well with aortic valve replacement as patients with high-gradient AS with a low or normal ejection fraction. We’re loathe to treat them. I think most centers are.”
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A patient who presents with symptomatic low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis, hypertension, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is often referred straightaway for consideration of aortic valve replacement. Not so fast – these patients actually constitute a special case for whom two essential questions must be answered before proceeding to that stage, Rick A. Nishimura, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The first question is, What happens to the patient’s symptoms upon control of the hypertension?
“Almost all of these patients with low-flow severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction are going to be hypertensive. Treat the hypertension first. If they become asymptomatic, you don’t need to intervene. The aortic stenosis wasn’t causing their symptoms. You can afford to continue to watch them,” according to Dr. Nishimura, professor of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
An aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2 is a prerequisite for surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. So the second key question is this, Does the patient have truly severe aortic stenosis (AS), or is it instead a case of pseudo-AS in which the small aortic valve area noted on echocardiography is caused by low flow secondary to a small left ventricle with a low stroke volume?
“If you increase the flow and remeasure the aortic valve area, you’ll find that a lot of these patients don’t have a really small aortic valve area of less than 1.0 cm2. You might find the aortic valve area pops up to 1.4-1.6 cm2,” he explained.
These patients with symptomatic low-flow, low-gradient severe AS with preserved LVEF are quite common.
“I don’t know why, but we’re seeing more and more of these patients. I think 10 years ago we just kind of ignored them. We thought we’d made a mistake in our calculations. But in fact if you’re very meticulous about your calculations, 30%-40% of your aortic stenosis patients fit into this category,” the cardiologist said.
Moreover, if these patients undergo aortic valve replacement when their symptoms stemmed from poorly controlled hypertension and/or pseudo-AS, they are not going to benefit from this major intervention, he added.
This issue was addressed, albeit briefly and obliquely, in the American Heart Association/ACC guidelines for management of patients with valvular heart disease, for which Dr. Nishimura served as first author and cochair of the writing committee (Circulation. 2014 Jun 10;129[23]:e521-643) as well as for the 2017 focused update of the guidelines.
The guidelines give a IIa recommendation to aortic valve replacement as “reasonable” in “symptomatic patients with low-flow/low-gradient severe AS (stage D3) with an LVEF 50% or greater, a calcified aortic valve with significantly reduced leaflet motion, and a valve area 1.0 cm2 or less only if clinical, hemodynamic, and anatomic data support valve obstruction as the most likely cause of symptoms and data recorded when the patient is normotensive.”
Dr. Nishimura chose the 50th annual meeting of the storied ACC Snowmass conference to elaborate upon that brief guidance. He explained that these patients with low-flow, low-gradient symptomatic “severe” AS with preserved LVEF and hypertension have two resistors in a series.
“You have a resistor at the aortic valve area but probably a greater resistor in the systemic circulation. They have high resistance at the arterial level and diastolic dysfunction due to ventricular-vascular coupling,” the cardiologist continued.
Checking for pseudo-AS in these patients is a matter of boosting their low transvalvular flow. This can be accomplished by increasing their cardiac output via monitored exercise or by pharmacologic afterload reduction.
“We’re exercising these patients in the cath lab, but you could also do it in the echocardiographic laboratory. With exercise, if cardiac output increases and the aortic valve area increases without significant change in the aortic valve mean gradient, the patient probably doesn’t have truly severe AS,” according to Dr. Nishimura.
One reason referral centers are seeing a lot more of these patients during the last decade is an influential study by Canadian investigators entitled “Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival.” Those investigators warned “this condition may often be misdiagnosed, which leads to a neglect and/or underestimation of symptoms and an inappropriate delay of aortic valve replacement surgery” (Circulation. 2007 Jun 5;115(22):2856-64).
This report led to a great deal of interest in performing aortic valve replacement in such patients during a period when transcatheter replacement was really taking off.
When an audience member asked how commonly such patients have undergone inappropriate aortic valve replacement, Michael J. Mack, MD, took the question.
“I don’t think it’s a huge number,” said Dr. Mack, medical director of cardiovascular surgery at the Baylor Health Care System in Plano, Tex. “This is the patient group we wring our hands about most. We know they don’t do as well with aortic valve replacement as patients with high-gradient AS with a low or normal ejection fraction. We’re loathe to treat them. I think most centers are.”
REPORTING FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2019
TAVR tops surgery in low-risk patients
NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severely symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk had significantly better key outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical valve replacement through 1 year of follow-up in the landmark PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
As the two study presenters stepped down from the stage after sharing their results, the packed audience in the meeting’s main arena rose to shower them with a prolonged standing ovation.
“This is a historic moment, and all of us here should recognize it as such,” thundered discussant Eugene Braunwald, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “We’re going to remember it. We’re going to tell our grandchildren and great grandchildren that we were there at the time these incredible advances in the care of patients with aortic stenosis were presented.”
This was in fact the day that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a relatively young, rapidly evolving nonsurgical technique, finally overtook surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), a mature operation first successfully performed back in 1962. Previous large, randomized trials had established that TAVR was superior to SAVR in extreme-risk patients and noninferior to surgery in high- and intermediate-risk patients, yet with the advantage of much quicker recovery. The only remaining question was how TAVR would stack up in low-risk patients, who comprise 80% of those who currently undergo SAVR for aortic stenosis.
“Two separate groups using two separate valves have come to very similar conclusions. This doesn’t double the acceptability, it quadruples it,” Dr. Braunwald said.
PARTNER 3
Martin B. Leon, MD, presented the findings of the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial, in which 1,000 low-risk patients at 71 centers were randomized to TAVR with transfemoral placement of the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.9%. Operators had to have more than 1 year of experience using the Sapien 3 valve in order to participate in the trial.
At 1 year post procedure, the rate of the primary composite endpoint comprising death, stroke, or cardiovascular rehospitalization was 8.5% in the TAVR group and 15.1% with SAVR, for a highly significant 46% relative risk reduction. All three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the TAVR group. And the rate of the key endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.0% with TAVR, compared with 2.9% with SAVR, reported Dr. Leon, coprincipal investigator in PARTNER 3 and professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.
TAVR also outperformed SAVR on all six prespecified major secondary endpoints. These included new-onset atrial fibrillation within 30 days, at 5.0% with TAVR and 39.5% with SAVR; length of index hospitalization at 3 versus 7 days; all stroke at 30 days at 0.6% versus 2.4%; and death or a significant deterioration in quality of life at 30 days as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 3.9% versus 30.6%. There was significantly less life-threatening or major bleeding within 30 days in the TAVR group, by a margin of 3.6% versus 24.5%, and similarly low rates of new pacemaker implantation at 6.5% versus 4.0%. There was, however, a higher 30-day incidence of new left bundle branch block with TAVR, by a margin of 22% versus 8%, which may eventually translate into need for a pacemaker.
“Based upon these findings, TAVR, through 1 year, should be considered the preferred therapy in low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients. The PARTNER randomized trials over the past 12 years clearly indicate that the relative value of TAVR, compared with surgery, is independent of surgical risk profiles,” Dr. Leon declared.
Evolut Low Risk
Michael J. Reardon, MD, coprincipal investigator for the Evolut Low Risk study and professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist Hospital, reported on 1,468 patients randomized to TAVR with a Medtronic self-expanding, supra-annular bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. Of them, 22% of patients got the most recent version of the valve, known as the Evolut PRO, 74% got the Evolut R, and the remainder received the first-generation CoreValve.
The primary endpoint – death or disabling stroke – was slightly different from that in PARTNER 3. At 1 year, the rate was 2.9% in the TAVR arm and 4.6% with SAVR, a statistically significant difference, while at 2 years the rate was 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant. Impressively, the rate of the composite of death, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalizations through 1 year was 5.6% with TAVR versus 10.2% with SAVR.
“We’ve shown that, with TAVR, you’re more likely to be alive, without a stroke, and outside the hospital. This is exactly what my patients tell me they want when we sit down for shared decision-making and talk about their expectations,” Dr. Reardon said.
Noting the striking similarity of across-the-board outcomes in the two trials, Dr. Reardon concluded, “I think what we’re seeing here is a class effect of TAVR, and we have to recognize it as such.”
Dr. Leon agreed, with a caveat. “I think the class effect for these two versions of TAVR systems is very real. I wouldn’t presume to think that every TAVR device will perform the same way, so I think we need a lot more data on the newer devices that are being introduced.”
The reaction
During the question-and-answer session, the two investigators were asked about stroke rates, which were significantly lower in the TAVR patients even though in the early randomized trials in high-risk patients the stroke rates were twice as high with TAVR than SAVR. The explanation probably lies in a mix of device refinements over time, better techniques, standardized procedures, and careful patient selection, they said.
“If you look at stroke in the TAVR arm in both these trials, we’re almost approaching the background stroke rate in a group of 74-year-olds sitting around in a room,” Dr. Reardon observed.
Both trials will continue to assess participants both clinically and by echocardiography through 10 years, in part to assess TAVR valve durability, but also to evaluate the durability of surgical valves, which isn’t nearly as well established as most people think, according to the investigators.
“There is a myth of surgical bioprosthetic valve immortality. It’s based upon relatively few numbers of patients, largely sponsor-based studies, with numbers at risk at 15-20 years that are extremely low,” Dr. Leon asserted. “The majority of surgical valves being used today and touted as being durable are backed by only 2-4 years of data.”
In contrast, he added, “We have 5-year TAVR data which is absolutely definitive of no early structural valve deterioration.”
Discussant Mayra E. Guerrero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., expressed concern that “this paradigm shift to ‘TAVR for all’ ” could break the bank for many institutions because the cost of TAVR valves is far greater than for SAVR valves. But she was heartened by the fresh PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk data showing TAVR patients had fewer ICU days, shorter hospital stays, fewer strokes, more frequent discharge home, and a lower rehospitalization rate.
Dr. Reardon was reassuring on this score.
“I am 100% convinced that when we do the financials for these two trials, TAVR is going to be a cost saver and a huge winner,” the surgeon said.
He reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic and receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Leon reported receiving research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical and acting as a consultant to several medical device companies.
The two trials have been published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.
SOURCES: Leon MB et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052; Reardon MJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885.
NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severely symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk had significantly better key outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical valve replacement through 1 year of follow-up in the landmark PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
As the two study presenters stepped down from the stage after sharing their results, the packed audience in the meeting’s main arena rose to shower them with a prolonged standing ovation.
“This is a historic moment, and all of us here should recognize it as such,” thundered discussant Eugene Braunwald, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “We’re going to remember it. We’re going to tell our grandchildren and great grandchildren that we were there at the time these incredible advances in the care of patients with aortic stenosis were presented.”
This was in fact the day that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a relatively young, rapidly evolving nonsurgical technique, finally overtook surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), a mature operation first successfully performed back in 1962. Previous large, randomized trials had established that TAVR was superior to SAVR in extreme-risk patients and noninferior to surgery in high- and intermediate-risk patients, yet with the advantage of much quicker recovery. The only remaining question was how TAVR would stack up in low-risk patients, who comprise 80% of those who currently undergo SAVR for aortic stenosis.
“Two separate groups using two separate valves have come to very similar conclusions. This doesn’t double the acceptability, it quadruples it,” Dr. Braunwald said.
PARTNER 3
Martin B. Leon, MD, presented the findings of the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial, in which 1,000 low-risk patients at 71 centers were randomized to TAVR with transfemoral placement of the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.9%. Operators had to have more than 1 year of experience using the Sapien 3 valve in order to participate in the trial.
At 1 year post procedure, the rate of the primary composite endpoint comprising death, stroke, or cardiovascular rehospitalization was 8.5% in the TAVR group and 15.1% with SAVR, for a highly significant 46% relative risk reduction. All three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the TAVR group. And the rate of the key endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.0% with TAVR, compared with 2.9% with SAVR, reported Dr. Leon, coprincipal investigator in PARTNER 3 and professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.
TAVR also outperformed SAVR on all six prespecified major secondary endpoints. These included new-onset atrial fibrillation within 30 days, at 5.0% with TAVR and 39.5% with SAVR; length of index hospitalization at 3 versus 7 days; all stroke at 30 days at 0.6% versus 2.4%; and death or a significant deterioration in quality of life at 30 days as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 3.9% versus 30.6%. There was significantly less life-threatening or major bleeding within 30 days in the TAVR group, by a margin of 3.6% versus 24.5%, and similarly low rates of new pacemaker implantation at 6.5% versus 4.0%. There was, however, a higher 30-day incidence of new left bundle branch block with TAVR, by a margin of 22% versus 8%, which may eventually translate into need for a pacemaker.
“Based upon these findings, TAVR, through 1 year, should be considered the preferred therapy in low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients. The PARTNER randomized trials over the past 12 years clearly indicate that the relative value of TAVR, compared with surgery, is independent of surgical risk profiles,” Dr. Leon declared.
Evolut Low Risk
Michael J. Reardon, MD, coprincipal investigator for the Evolut Low Risk study and professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist Hospital, reported on 1,468 patients randomized to TAVR with a Medtronic self-expanding, supra-annular bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. Of them, 22% of patients got the most recent version of the valve, known as the Evolut PRO, 74% got the Evolut R, and the remainder received the first-generation CoreValve.
The primary endpoint – death or disabling stroke – was slightly different from that in PARTNER 3. At 1 year, the rate was 2.9% in the TAVR arm and 4.6% with SAVR, a statistically significant difference, while at 2 years the rate was 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant. Impressively, the rate of the composite of death, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalizations through 1 year was 5.6% with TAVR versus 10.2% with SAVR.
“We’ve shown that, with TAVR, you’re more likely to be alive, without a stroke, and outside the hospital. This is exactly what my patients tell me they want when we sit down for shared decision-making and talk about their expectations,” Dr. Reardon said.
Noting the striking similarity of across-the-board outcomes in the two trials, Dr. Reardon concluded, “I think what we’re seeing here is a class effect of TAVR, and we have to recognize it as such.”
Dr. Leon agreed, with a caveat. “I think the class effect for these two versions of TAVR systems is very real. I wouldn’t presume to think that every TAVR device will perform the same way, so I think we need a lot more data on the newer devices that are being introduced.”
The reaction
During the question-and-answer session, the two investigators were asked about stroke rates, which were significantly lower in the TAVR patients even though in the early randomized trials in high-risk patients the stroke rates were twice as high with TAVR than SAVR. The explanation probably lies in a mix of device refinements over time, better techniques, standardized procedures, and careful patient selection, they said.
“If you look at stroke in the TAVR arm in both these trials, we’re almost approaching the background stroke rate in a group of 74-year-olds sitting around in a room,” Dr. Reardon observed.
Both trials will continue to assess participants both clinically and by echocardiography through 10 years, in part to assess TAVR valve durability, but also to evaluate the durability of surgical valves, which isn’t nearly as well established as most people think, according to the investigators.
“There is a myth of surgical bioprosthetic valve immortality. It’s based upon relatively few numbers of patients, largely sponsor-based studies, with numbers at risk at 15-20 years that are extremely low,” Dr. Leon asserted. “The majority of surgical valves being used today and touted as being durable are backed by only 2-4 years of data.”
In contrast, he added, “We have 5-year TAVR data which is absolutely definitive of no early structural valve deterioration.”
Discussant Mayra E. Guerrero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., expressed concern that “this paradigm shift to ‘TAVR for all’ ” could break the bank for many institutions because the cost of TAVR valves is far greater than for SAVR valves. But she was heartened by the fresh PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk data showing TAVR patients had fewer ICU days, shorter hospital stays, fewer strokes, more frequent discharge home, and a lower rehospitalization rate.
Dr. Reardon was reassuring on this score.
“I am 100% convinced that when we do the financials for these two trials, TAVR is going to be a cost saver and a huge winner,” the surgeon said.
He reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic and receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Leon reported receiving research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical and acting as a consultant to several medical device companies.
The two trials have been published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.
SOURCES: Leon MB et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052; Reardon MJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885.
NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severely symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk had significantly better key outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical valve replacement through 1 year of follow-up in the landmark PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
As the two study presenters stepped down from the stage after sharing their results, the packed audience in the meeting’s main arena rose to shower them with a prolonged standing ovation.
“This is a historic moment, and all of us here should recognize it as such,” thundered discussant Eugene Braunwald, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “We’re going to remember it. We’re going to tell our grandchildren and great grandchildren that we were there at the time these incredible advances in the care of patients with aortic stenosis were presented.”
This was in fact the day that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a relatively young, rapidly evolving nonsurgical technique, finally overtook surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), a mature operation first successfully performed back in 1962. Previous large, randomized trials had established that TAVR was superior to SAVR in extreme-risk patients and noninferior to surgery in high- and intermediate-risk patients, yet with the advantage of much quicker recovery. The only remaining question was how TAVR would stack up in low-risk patients, who comprise 80% of those who currently undergo SAVR for aortic stenosis.
“Two separate groups using two separate valves have come to very similar conclusions. This doesn’t double the acceptability, it quadruples it,” Dr. Braunwald said.
PARTNER 3
Martin B. Leon, MD, presented the findings of the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial, in which 1,000 low-risk patients at 71 centers were randomized to TAVR with transfemoral placement of the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.9%. Operators had to have more than 1 year of experience using the Sapien 3 valve in order to participate in the trial.
At 1 year post procedure, the rate of the primary composite endpoint comprising death, stroke, or cardiovascular rehospitalization was 8.5% in the TAVR group and 15.1% with SAVR, for a highly significant 46% relative risk reduction. All three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the TAVR group. And the rate of the key endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.0% with TAVR, compared with 2.9% with SAVR, reported Dr. Leon, coprincipal investigator in PARTNER 3 and professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.
TAVR also outperformed SAVR on all six prespecified major secondary endpoints. These included new-onset atrial fibrillation within 30 days, at 5.0% with TAVR and 39.5% with SAVR; length of index hospitalization at 3 versus 7 days; all stroke at 30 days at 0.6% versus 2.4%; and death or a significant deterioration in quality of life at 30 days as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 3.9% versus 30.6%. There was significantly less life-threatening or major bleeding within 30 days in the TAVR group, by a margin of 3.6% versus 24.5%, and similarly low rates of new pacemaker implantation at 6.5% versus 4.0%. There was, however, a higher 30-day incidence of new left bundle branch block with TAVR, by a margin of 22% versus 8%, which may eventually translate into need for a pacemaker.
“Based upon these findings, TAVR, through 1 year, should be considered the preferred therapy in low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients. The PARTNER randomized trials over the past 12 years clearly indicate that the relative value of TAVR, compared with surgery, is independent of surgical risk profiles,” Dr. Leon declared.
Evolut Low Risk
Michael J. Reardon, MD, coprincipal investigator for the Evolut Low Risk study and professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist Hospital, reported on 1,468 patients randomized to TAVR with a Medtronic self-expanding, supra-annular bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. Of them, 22% of patients got the most recent version of the valve, known as the Evolut PRO, 74% got the Evolut R, and the remainder received the first-generation CoreValve.
The primary endpoint – death or disabling stroke – was slightly different from that in PARTNER 3. At 1 year, the rate was 2.9% in the TAVR arm and 4.6% with SAVR, a statistically significant difference, while at 2 years the rate was 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant. Impressively, the rate of the composite of death, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalizations through 1 year was 5.6% with TAVR versus 10.2% with SAVR.
“We’ve shown that, with TAVR, you’re more likely to be alive, without a stroke, and outside the hospital. This is exactly what my patients tell me they want when we sit down for shared decision-making and talk about their expectations,” Dr. Reardon said.
Noting the striking similarity of across-the-board outcomes in the two trials, Dr. Reardon concluded, “I think what we’re seeing here is a class effect of TAVR, and we have to recognize it as such.”
Dr. Leon agreed, with a caveat. “I think the class effect for these two versions of TAVR systems is very real. I wouldn’t presume to think that every TAVR device will perform the same way, so I think we need a lot more data on the newer devices that are being introduced.”
The reaction
During the question-and-answer session, the two investigators were asked about stroke rates, which were significantly lower in the TAVR patients even though in the early randomized trials in high-risk patients the stroke rates were twice as high with TAVR than SAVR. The explanation probably lies in a mix of device refinements over time, better techniques, standardized procedures, and careful patient selection, they said.
“If you look at stroke in the TAVR arm in both these trials, we’re almost approaching the background stroke rate in a group of 74-year-olds sitting around in a room,” Dr. Reardon observed.
Both trials will continue to assess participants both clinically and by echocardiography through 10 years, in part to assess TAVR valve durability, but also to evaluate the durability of surgical valves, which isn’t nearly as well established as most people think, according to the investigators.
“There is a myth of surgical bioprosthetic valve immortality. It’s based upon relatively few numbers of patients, largely sponsor-based studies, with numbers at risk at 15-20 years that are extremely low,” Dr. Leon asserted. “The majority of surgical valves being used today and touted as being durable are backed by only 2-4 years of data.”
In contrast, he added, “We have 5-year TAVR data which is absolutely definitive of no early structural valve deterioration.”
Discussant Mayra E. Guerrero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., expressed concern that “this paradigm shift to ‘TAVR for all’ ” could break the bank for many institutions because the cost of TAVR valves is far greater than for SAVR valves. But she was heartened by the fresh PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk data showing TAVR patients had fewer ICU days, shorter hospital stays, fewer strokes, more frequent discharge home, and a lower rehospitalization rate.
Dr. Reardon was reassuring on this score.
“I am 100% convinced that when we do the financials for these two trials, TAVR is going to be a cost saver and a huge winner,” the surgeon said.
He reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic and receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Leon reported receiving research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical and acting as a consultant to several medical device companies.
The two trials have been published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.
SOURCES: Leon MB et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052; Reardon MJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885.
REPORTING FROM ACC 19
MitraClip improves survival and health status for at least 2 years
, based on results from a substudy of the COAPT trial.
Significant improvements seen at 1 month in the TMVr group had waned only slightly by the 2-year time point, reported lead author Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“Considering the previously reported benefits of TMVr on survival and heart failure hospitalization, these health status findings further support the device as a valuable treatment option for heart failure patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remain symptomatic despite maximally-tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Arnold and her colleagues concluded.
Primary findings from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial showed that TMVr reduced hospitalizations due to heart failure and all-cause mortality over 2 years, leading the Food and Drug Administration to grant an extended indication to MitraClip. With the present substudy, the investigators sought to learn more about impacts of TMVr on overall health.
“Beyond prolonging survival and reducing hospitalizations, improving patients’ health status (i.e., symptoms, functional status, quality of life) is a key treatment goal of TMVr,” the investigators wrote. “In fact, among older patients with comorbidities and high symptom burden, health status improvement may be of greater importance to patients than improved survival.”
To measure these outcomes, the investigators employed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey, which they administered to 302 patients in the TMVr group and 312 patients in the standard care group. The primary endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS), which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status.
Across all patients, the average baseline KCCQ-OS score was 52.4 ± 23.0. After 1 month, the average KCCQ-OS score rose 2.1 points in the standard care group, while the TMVr group saw a 16.9-point increase, most heavily through the questionnaire’s quality of life domain. These figures translate to a mean between-group difference of 15.9 points, a value that decreased only slightly after 2 years, to 12.8 points. Further suggesting that TMVr had beneficial and lasting effects, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the TMVr group than in the standard care group were alive with a moderately large health improvement after 2 years (36.4% vs 16.6%; P less than .001).
The study was funded by Abbott Vascular. Several of the investigators reported financial relationships with Abbott as well as Novartis, Bayer, V-wave, Corvia, and others.
SOURCE: Arnold et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar 17.
, based on results from a substudy of the COAPT trial.
Significant improvements seen at 1 month in the TMVr group had waned only slightly by the 2-year time point, reported lead author Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“Considering the previously reported benefits of TMVr on survival and heart failure hospitalization, these health status findings further support the device as a valuable treatment option for heart failure patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remain symptomatic despite maximally-tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Arnold and her colleagues concluded.
Primary findings from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial showed that TMVr reduced hospitalizations due to heart failure and all-cause mortality over 2 years, leading the Food and Drug Administration to grant an extended indication to MitraClip. With the present substudy, the investigators sought to learn more about impacts of TMVr on overall health.
“Beyond prolonging survival and reducing hospitalizations, improving patients’ health status (i.e., symptoms, functional status, quality of life) is a key treatment goal of TMVr,” the investigators wrote. “In fact, among older patients with comorbidities and high symptom burden, health status improvement may be of greater importance to patients than improved survival.”
To measure these outcomes, the investigators employed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey, which they administered to 302 patients in the TMVr group and 312 patients in the standard care group. The primary endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS), which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status.
Across all patients, the average baseline KCCQ-OS score was 52.4 ± 23.0. After 1 month, the average KCCQ-OS score rose 2.1 points in the standard care group, while the TMVr group saw a 16.9-point increase, most heavily through the questionnaire’s quality of life domain. These figures translate to a mean between-group difference of 15.9 points, a value that decreased only slightly after 2 years, to 12.8 points. Further suggesting that TMVr had beneficial and lasting effects, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the TMVr group than in the standard care group were alive with a moderately large health improvement after 2 years (36.4% vs 16.6%; P less than .001).
The study was funded by Abbott Vascular. Several of the investigators reported financial relationships with Abbott as well as Novartis, Bayer, V-wave, Corvia, and others.
SOURCE: Arnold et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar 17.
, based on results from a substudy of the COAPT trial.
Significant improvements seen at 1 month in the TMVr group had waned only slightly by the 2-year time point, reported lead author Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“Considering the previously reported benefits of TMVr on survival and heart failure hospitalization, these health status findings further support the device as a valuable treatment option for heart failure patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remain symptomatic despite maximally-tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Arnold and her colleagues concluded.
Primary findings from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial showed that TMVr reduced hospitalizations due to heart failure and all-cause mortality over 2 years, leading the Food and Drug Administration to grant an extended indication to MitraClip. With the present substudy, the investigators sought to learn more about impacts of TMVr on overall health.
“Beyond prolonging survival and reducing hospitalizations, improving patients’ health status (i.e., symptoms, functional status, quality of life) is a key treatment goal of TMVr,” the investigators wrote. “In fact, among older patients with comorbidities and high symptom burden, health status improvement may be of greater importance to patients than improved survival.”
To measure these outcomes, the investigators employed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey, which they administered to 302 patients in the TMVr group and 312 patients in the standard care group. The primary endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS), which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status.
Across all patients, the average baseline KCCQ-OS score was 52.4 ± 23.0. After 1 month, the average KCCQ-OS score rose 2.1 points in the standard care group, while the TMVr group saw a 16.9-point increase, most heavily through the questionnaire’s quality of life domain. These figures translate to a mean between-group difference of 15.9 points, a value that decreased only slightly after 2 years, to 12.8 points. Further suggesting that TMVr had beneficial and lasting effects, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the TMVr group than in the standard care group were alive with a moderately large health improvement after 2 years (36.4% vs 16.6%; P less than .001).
The study was funded by Abbott Vascular. Several of the investigators reported financial relationships with Abbott as well as Novartis, Bayer, V-wave, Corvia, and others.
SOURCE: Arnold et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar 17.
FROM JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Low Risk TAVR trial shows 3% mortality at 1 year
WASHINGTON –Anticipating two pivotal trials scheduled for presentation at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), an investigator-led study of transaortic valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis presented as a latebreaker at 2019 CRT meeting produced excellent results.
Not least impressive, “our mortality rates are the lowest ever reported in any TAVR study at one year,” said Ronald Waksman, MD, Associate Director, Division of Cardiology, Medstar Heart Institute, Washington, DC.
In a population of patients with a median age of 71.1 years, all-cause mortality was just 3% at one year while the rate of deaths due to cardiovascular causes was only 1%, according to results of the 200-patient Low Risk TAVR study (LRT 1.0, NCT02628899) that Dr. Waksman presented.
In addition, there were low rates at one year for stroke (2.1%, none of which was deemed disability), myocardial infarction (1%), new onset atrial fibrillation (6.2%), and pacemaker placement (7.3%). The rate of rehospitalization for any cause was 20.4% but only 3.1% were considered related to TAVR. Rehospitalization for any cardiovascular cause at one year occurred in 6.8%.
Although leaflet thickening was observed at one year with imaging in 14%, this has not had any identifiable clinical consequences so far, and hemodynamics have remained stable, according to Dr. Waksman, who presented the interim 30-day outcomes at the 2018 CRT meeting.
These findings are raising expectations for two phase 3 TAVR trials in low-risk patients that are being presented as latebreakers at the 2019 ACC annual meeting. Both are large randomized trials comparing TAVR to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low risk patients. Each trial is testing a single type of value and is funded by the valve manufacturers.
In the PARTNER-3 trial, patients randomized to TAVR received the Sapien 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences). In the other latebreaking trial, patients randomized to TAVR received an Evolut valve (Medtronic Cardiovascular). Both are comparing TAVR to SAVR with a composite primary outcome that includes mortality and stroke measured at 30 days and one year.
In contrast to these trials, LRT 1.0 was conducted with no funding from a third party, according to Dr. Waksman. The eleven centers participated in the study at their own cost. Also, the choice of TAVR device was left to the discretion of the interventional cardiologist. Finally, most of the participating centers, although experienced in TAVR, did not have a high-volume case load. In general, with the exception of Dr. Waksman’s center, most performed 100 to 150 TAVRs per year.
“We were struck by the excellence of the performance of these sites,” said Dr. Waksman, noting that a comparison of outcomes at his center relative to the lower volume centers showed no significant differences in outcome.
This real-world experience raises the bar for the pivotal phase 3 trials, which, if positive, are expected to lead the FDA to grant an indication for TAVR in low-risk patients, according to Dr. Waksman. He announced that an LRT 2.0 trial, which will again include centers performing TAVRs at moderate volumes, is now enrolling.
SOURCE: 2019 Cardiovascular Research Technologies (CRT) Meeting.
WASHINGTON –Anticipating two pivotal trials scheduled for presentation at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), an investigator-led study of transaortic valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis presented as a latebreaker at 2019 CRT meeting produced excellent results.
Not least impressive, “our mortality rates are the lowest ever reported in any TAVR study at one year,” said Ronald Waksman, MD, Associate Director, Division of Cardiology, Medstar Heart Institute, Washington, DC.
In a population of patients with a median age of 71.1 years, all-cause mortality was just 3% at one year while the rate of deaths due to cardiovascular causes was only 1%, according to results of the 200-patient Low Risk TAVR study (LRT 1.0, NCT02628899) that Dr. Waksman presented.
In addition, there were low rates at one year for stroke (2.1%, none of which was deemed disability), myocardial infarction (1%), new onset atrial fibrillation (6.2%), and pacemaker placement (7.3%). The rate of rehospitalization for any cause was 20.4% but only 3.1% were considered related to TAVR. Rehospitalization for any cardiovascular cause at one year occurred in 6.8%.
Although leaflet thickening was observed at one year with imaging in 14%, this has not had any identifiable clinical consequences so far, and hemodynamics have remained stable, according to Dr. Waksman, who presented the interim 30-day outcomes at the 2018 CRT meeting.
These findings are raising expectations for two phase 3 TAVR trials in low-risk patients that are being presented as latebreakers at the 2019 ACC annual meeting. Both are large randomized trials comparing TAVR to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low risk patients. Each trial is testing a single type of value and is funded by the valve manufacturers.
In the PARTNER-3 trial, patients randomized to TAVR received the Sapien 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences). In the other latebreaking trial, patients randomized to TAVR received an Evolut valve (Medtronic Cardiovascular). Both are comparing TAVR to SAVR with a composite primary outcome that includes mortality and stroke measured at 30 days and one year.
In contrast to these trials, LRT 1.0 was conducted with no funding from a third party, according to Dr. Waksman. The eleven centers participated in the study at their own cost. Also, the choice of TAVR device was left to the discretion of the interventional cardiologist. Finally, most of the participating centers, although experienced in TAVR, did not have a high-volume case load. In general, with the exception of Dr. Waksman’s center, most performed 100 to 150 TAVRs per year.
“We were struck by the excellence of the performance of these sites,” said Dr. Waksman, noting that a comparison of outcomes at his center relative to the lower volume centers showed no significant differences in outcome.
This real-world experience raises the bar for the pivotal phase 3 trials, which, if positive, are expected to lead the FDA to grant an indication for TAVR in low-risk patients, according to Dr. Waksman. He announced that an LRT 2.0 trial, which will again include centers performing TAVRs at moderate volumes, is now enrolling.
SOURCE: 2019 Cardiovascular Research Technologies (CRT) Meeting.
WASHINGTON –Anticipating two pivotal trials scheduled for presentation at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), an investigator-led study of transaortic valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis presented as a latebreaker at 2019 CRT meeting produced excellent results.
Not least impressive, “our mortality rates are the lowest ever reported in any TAVR study at one year,” said Ronald Waksman, MD, Associate Director, Division of Cardiology, Medstar Heart Institute, Washington, DC.
In a population of patients with a median age of 71.1 years, all-cause mortality was just 3% at one year while the rate of deaths due to cardiovascular causes was only 1%, according to results of the 200-patient Low Risk TAVR study (LRT 1.0, NCT02628899) that Dr. Waksman presented.
In addition, there were low rates at one year for stroke (2.1%, none of which was deemed disability), myocardial infarction (1%), new onset atrial fibrillation (6.2%), and pacemaker placement (7.3%). The rate of rehospitalization for any cause was 20.4% but only 3.1% were considered related to TAVR. Rehospitalization for any cardiovascular cause at one year occurred in 6.8%.
Although leaflet thickening was observed at one year with imaging in 14%, this has not had any identifiable clinical consequences so far, and hemodynamics have remained stable, according to Dr. Waksman, who presented the interim 30-day outcomes at the 2018 CRT meeting.
These findings are raising expectations for two phase 3 TAVR trials in low-risk patients that are being presented as latebreakers at the 2019 ACC annual meeting. Both are large randomized trials comparing TAVR to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low risk patients. Each trial is testing a single type of value and is funded by the valve manufacturers.
In the PARTNER-3 trial, patients randomized to TAVR received the Sapien 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences). In the other latebreaking trial, patients randomized to TAVR received an Evolut valve (Medtronic Cardiovascular). Both are comparing TAVR to SAVR with a composite primary outcome that includes mortality and stroke measured at 30 days and one year.
In contrast to these trials, LRT 1.0 was conducted with no funding from a third party, according to Dr. Waksman. The eleven centers participated in the study at their own cost. Also, the choice of TAVR device was left to the discretion of the interventional cardiologist. Finally, most of the participating centers, although experienced in TAVR, did not have a high-volume case load. In general, with the exception of Dr. Waksman’s center, most performed 100 to 150 TAVRs per year.
“We were struck by the excellence of the performance of these sites,” said Dr. Waksman, noting that a comparison of outcomes at his center relative to the lower volume centers showed no significant differences in outcome.
This real-world experience raises the bar for the pivotal phase 3 trials, which, if positive, are expected to lead the FDA to grant an indication for TAVR in low-risk patients, according to Dr. Waksman. He announced that an LRT 2.0 trial, which will again include centers performing TAVRs at moderate volumes, is now enrolling.
SOURCE: 2019 Cardiovascular Research Technologies (CRT) Meeting.
REPORTING FROM CRT 2019
Not all AF maze operations are aMAZE-ing
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The term “maze procedure” for surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation is bandied about rather loosely these days, but as far as Hartzell V. Schaff, MD, is concerned, the operation of choice remains the classic cut-and-sew maze III procedure developed by James L. Cox, MD, while at Washington University, St. Louis.
“The classic Cox maze III, the cut-and-sew maze, is the best procedure for getting rid of atrial fibrillation and is in my view the gold standard. Some people argue that transmurality isn’t important, but it can occur because of gap lesions,” he said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Unlike modifications of the Cox maze III – such as the mini maze or the maze IV, which utilizes radiofrequency energy or cryoablation to create scars in an effort to achieve pulmonary vein isolation – the maze III cannot be done as a minimally invasive procedure. After all, it requires making incisions in both atria, along with aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass. But it has a significantly higher long-term rate of freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) than the other operations. And crucially, it enables the surgeon to readily obliterate the left atrial appendage.
“The most important thing when you do any surgical procedure for atrial fibrillation, I think, is getting rid of the left atrial appendage. When you do cut-and-sew maze, that’s done 100% of the time,” explained Dr. Schaff, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“We really have a lot of work left to do as surgeons in improving the outcome of surgery for atrial fibrillation. One of the things we as surgeons don’t do well is getting rid of the left atrial appendage. This ought to be done in every patient that has surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation,” according to the cardiothoracic surgeon.
And yet, he continued, in a series of nearly 87,000 patients with AF who underwent nonemergent cardiac surgery in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database, 48.0% of whom underwent surgical ablation for AF, only 63.9% of those who had standalone ablation for lone AF got their left atrial appendage dealt with, compared with 86%-89% of those who underwent concomitant cardiac surgery, such as mitral valve repair or replacement (Ann Thorac Surg. 2017 Aug;104[2]:493-500).
“That’s awful, really. And the reason for that low left atrial appendage obliteration rate is this: For many of those patients who had surgery for lone atrial fibrillation, the surgeons were trying to do minimally invasive surgery, where they do pulmonary vein isolation on the right side, so they don’t have access to the left atrial appendage,” Dr. Schaff said.
“In the past,” he recalled, “we would ligate the left atrial appendage. Nowadays because of echocardiographic studies that show there’s persistent patency in a sizable percentage of patients, we amputate the left atrial appendage in almost all of the patients.”
The terminology surrounding surgical ablation for AF, in his view, has become rather confusing. “Most of you, when you refer a patient for surgical ablation for AF, the surgeons will just say they do a maze procedure,” Dr. Schaff cautioned. “Somehow, all of that [maze IV, mini maze] today is lumped together as a classic maze procedure, but it’s really not. We have different lesion sets and energy sources.”
And different outcomes as well. In a series of 1,189 adults who underwent surgical ablation for AF at the Mayo Clinic, of whom 44% had a biatrial cut-and-sew maze while the rest had surgical cryotherapy, radiofrequency ablation, or a combination of the two, the rate of freedom from AF 1 year post surgery was 85% with the cut-and-sew maze versus 71% with the alternatives. At 5 years or more, the rates were 78% and 52%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, freedom from AF was independently associated with preoperative paroxysmal rather than permanent AF, performance of the classic maze III procedure, concomitant treatment of associated mitral valve disease, and younger age.
Moreover, rates of the major early postoperative complications – stroke, bleeding, and renal failure – were similar in the cut-and-sew maze III and other groups.
“So a lesser procedure doesn’t necessarily mean fewer complications,” Dr. Schaff noted.
One of the criticisms levied against the maze III is that it’s too much surgery for AF. But it’s actually relatively inexpensive because the disposables – suture, needles, scalpel – are those used in the commonly performed concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. “The Cox maze III does take extra time, but with experience it’s not much extra time,” he asserted.
Indeed, in a series of 452 Mayo Clinic maze III patients, the cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 52 and 73 minutes, respectively, for those undergoing an isolated maze III, compared with 73 and 86 minutes for patients whose maze III was done in conjunction with other procedures, most commonly mitral valve repair or replacement.
An underrecognized group of patients who benefit from a standalone cut-and-sew maze are those with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy marked by AF or atrial flutter, rapid uncontrolled ventricular response, a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, and no associated valvular or congenital heart disease. In a series of 37 such patients identified and treated with a maze III operation at the Mayo Clinic, their average preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of 43% improved to about 55% at discharge, a benefit sustained at last follow-up a median of 63 months later. The outcome was particularly impressive in the 11 patients with a severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction averaging 31% preoperatively, which jumped to 53% at discharge (Ann Thorac Surg. 2006 Aug;82[2]:494-500).
“Their ejection fraction goes up when you control the tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy,” he observed. “So reduced left ventricular ejection fraction may be an indication for surgery rather than a contraindication.”
Dr. Schaff emphasized that it’s important for cardiologists and surgeons not to overpromise what surgical ablation of AF can accomplish. The only randomized trial of surgical ablation of AF versus no ablation during mitral valve surgery, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes of Health Research and carried out by the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, showed no significant between-group differences at 1 year in any of numerous quality of life measures, nor was there a survival benefit for ablation (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1399-409).
“We must point out that there’s no indication that controlling atrial fibrillation has anything to do with improving survival. It has to do with symptomatic benefit and perhaps reducing risk of stroke,” he said.
Dr. Schaff reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The term “maze procedure” for surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation is bandied about rather loosely these days, but as far as Hartzell V. Schaff, MD, is concerned, the operation of choice remains the classic cut-and-sew maze III procedure developed by James L. Cox, MD, while at Washington University, St. Louis.
“The classic Cox maze III, the cut-and-sew maze, is the best procedure for getting rid of atrial fibrillation and is in my view the gold standard. Some people argue that transmurality isn’t important, but it can occur because of gap lesions,” he said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Unlike modifications of the Cox maze III – such as the mini maze or the maze IV, which utilizes radiofrequency energy or cryoablation to create scars in an effort to achieve pulmonary vein isolation – the maze III cannot be done as a minimally invasive procedure. After all, it requires making incisions in both atria, along with aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass. But it has a significantly higher long-term rate of freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) than the other operations. And crucially, it enables the surgeon to readily obliterate the left atrial appendage.
“The most important thing when you do any surgical procedure for atrial fibrillation, I think, is getting rid of the left atrial appendage. When you do cut-and-sew maze, that’s done 100% of the time,” explained Dr. Schaff, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“We really have a lot of work left to do as surgeons in improving the outcome of surgery for atrial fibrillation. One of the things we as surgeons don’t do well is getting rid of the left atrial appendage. This ought to be done in every patient that has surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation,” according to the cardiothoracic surgeon.
And yet, he continued, in a series of nearly 87,000 patients with AF who underwent nonemergent cardiac surgery in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database, 48.0% of whom underwent surgical ablation for AF, only 63.9% of those who had standalone ablation for lone AF got their left atrial appendage dealt with, compared with 86%-89% of those who underwent concomitant cardiac surgery, such as mitral valve repair or replacement (Ann Thorac Surg. 2017 Aug;104[2]:493-500).
“That’s awful, really. And the reason for that low left atrial appendage obliteration rate is this: For many of those patients who had surgery for lone atrial fibrillation, the surgeons were trying to do minimally invasive surgery, where they do pulmonary vein isolation on the right side, so they don’t have access to the left atrial appendage,” Dr. Schaff said.
“In the past,” he recalled, “we would ligate the left atrial appendage. Nowadays because of echocardiographic studies that show there’s persistent patency in a sizable percentage of patients, we amputate the left atrial appendage in almost all of the patients.”
The terminology surrounding surgical ablation for AF, in his view, has become rather confusing. “Most of you, when you refer a patient for surgical ablation for AF, the surgeons will just say they do a maze procedure,” Dr. Schaff cautioned. “Somehow, all of that [maze IV, mini maze] today is lumped together as a classic maze procedure, but it’s really not. We have different lesion sets and energy sources.”
And different outcomes as well. In a series of 1,189 adults who underwent surgical ablation for AF at the Mayo Clinic, of whom 44% had a biatrial cut-and-sew maze while the rest had surgical cryotherapy, radiofrequency ablation, or a combination of the two, the rate of freedom from AF 1 year post surgery was 85% with the cut-and-sew maze versus 71% with the alternatives. At 5 years or more, the rates were 78% and 52%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, freedom from AF was independently associated with preoperative paroxysmal rather than permanent AF, performance of the classic maze III procedure, concomitant treatment of associated mitral valve disease, and younger age.
Moreover, rates of the major early postoperative complications – stroke, bleeding, and renal failure – were similar in the cut-and-sew maze III and other groups.
“So a lesser procedure doesn’t necessarily mean fewer complications,” Dr. Schaff noted.
One of the criticisms levied against the maze III is that it’s too much surgery for AF. But it’s actually relatively inexpensive because the disposables – suture, needles, scalpel – are those used in the commonly performed concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. “The Cox maze III does take extra time, but with experience it’s not much extra time,” he asserted.
Indeed, in a series of 452 Mayo Clinic maze III patients, the cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 52 and 73 minutes, respectively, for those undergoing an isolated maze III, compared with 73 and 86 minutes for patients whose maze III was done in conjunction with other procedures, most commonly mitral valve repair or replacement.
An underrecognized group of patients who benefit from a standalone cut-and-sew maze are those with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy marked by AF or atrial flutter, rapid uncontrolled ventricular response, a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, and no associated valvular or congenital heart disease. In a series of 37 such patients identified and treated with a maze III operation at the Mayo Clinic, their average preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of 43% improved to about 55% at discharge, a benefit sustained at last follow-up a median of 63 months later. The outcome was particularly impressive in the 11 patients with a severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction averaging 31% preoperatively, which jumped to 53% at discharge (Ann Thorac Surg. 2006 Aug;82[2]:494-500).
“Their ejection fraction goes up when you control the tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy,” he observed. “So reduced left ventricular ejection fraction may be an indication for surgery rather than a contraindication.”
Dr. Schaff emphasized that it’s important for cardiologists and surgeons not to overpromise what surgical ablation of AF can accomplish. The only randomized trial of surgical ablation of AF versus no ablation during mitral valve surgery, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes of Health Research and carried out by the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, showed no significant between-group differences at 1 year in any of numerous quality of life measures, nor was there a survival benefit for ablation (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1399-409).
“We must point out that there’s no indication that controlling atrial fibrillation has anything to do with improving survival. It has to do with symptomatic benefit and perhaps reducing risk of stroke,” he said.
Dr. Schaff reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The term “maze procedure” for surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation is bandied about rather loosely these days, but as far as Hartzell V. Schaff, MD, is concerned, the operation of choice remains the classic cut-and-sew maze III procedure developed by James L. Cox, MD, while at Washington University, St. Louis.
“The classic Cox maze III, the cut-and-sew maze, is the best procedure for getting rid of atrial fibrillation and is in my view the gold standard. Some people argue that transmurality isn’t important, but it can occur because of gap lesions,” he said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Unlike modifications of the Cox maze III – such as the mini maze or the maze IV, which utilizes radiofrequency energy or cryoablation to create scars in an effort to achieve pulmonary vein isolation – the maze III cannot be done as a minimally invasive procedure. After all, it requires making incisions in both atria, along with aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass. But it has a significantly higher long-term rate of freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) than the other operations. And crucially, it enables the surgeon to readily obliterate the left atrial appendage.
“The most important thing when you do any surgical procedure for atrial fibrillation, I think, is getting rid of the left atrial appendage. When you do cut-and-sew maze, that’s done 100% of the time,” explained Dr. Schaff, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“We really have a lot of work left to do as surgeons in improving the outcome of surgery for atrial fibrillation. One of the things we as surgeons don’t do well is getting rid of the left atrial appendage. This ought to be done in every patient that has surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation,” according to the cardiothoracic surgeon.
And yet, he continued, in a series of nearly 87,000 patients with AF who underwent nonemergent cardiac surgery in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database, 48.0% of whom underwent surgical ablation for AF, only 63.9% of those who had standalone ablation for lone AF got their left atrial appendage dealt with, compared with 86%-89% of those who underwent concomitant cardiac surgery, such as mitral valve repair or replacement (Ann Thorac Surg. 2017 Aug;104[2]:493-500).
“That’s awful, really. And the reason for that low left atrial appendage obliteration rate is this: For many of those patients who had surgery for lone atrial fibrillation, the surgeons were trying to do minimally invasive surgery, where they do pulmonary vein isolation on the right side, so they don’t have access to the left atrial appendage,” Dr. Schaff said.
“In the past,” he recalled, “we would ligate the left atrial appendage. Nowadays because of echocardiographic studies that show there’s persistent patency in a sizable percentage of patients, we amputate the left atrial appendage in almost all of the patients.”
The terminology surrounding surgical ablation for AF, in his view, has become rather confusing. “Most of you, when you refer a patient for surgical ablation for AF, the surgeons will just say they do a maze procedure,” Dr. Schaff cautioned. “Somehow, all of that [maze IV, mini maze] today is lumped together as a classic maze procedure, but it’s really not. We have different lesion sets and energy sources.”
And different outcomes as well. In a series of 1,189 adults who underwent surgical ablation for AF at the Mayo Clinic, of whom 44% had a biatrial cut-and-sew maze while the rest had surgical cryotherapy, radiofrequency ablation, or a combination of the two, the rate of freedom from AF 1 year post surgery was 85% with the cut-and-sew maze versus 71% with the alternatives. At 5 years or more, the rates were 78% and 52%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, freedom from AF was independently associated with preoperative paroxysmal rather than permanent AF, performance of the classic maze III procedure, concomitant treatment of associated mitral valve disease, and younger age.
Moreover, rates of the major early postoperative complications – stroke, bleeding, and renal failure – were similar in the cut-and-sew maze III and other groups.
“So a lesser procedure doesn’t necessarily mean fewer complications,” Dr. Schaff noted.
One of the criticisms levied against the maze III is that it’s too much surgery for AF. But it’s actually relatively inexpensive because the disposables – suture, needles, scalpel – are those used in the commonly performed concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. “The Cox maze III does take extra time, but with experience it’s not much extra time,” he asserted.
Indeed, in a series of 452 Mayo Clinic maze III patients, the cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 52 and 73 minutes, respectively, for those undergoing an isolated maze III, compared with 73 and 86 minutes for patients whose maze III was done in conjunction with other procedures, most commonly mitral valve repair or replacement.
An underrecognized group of patients who benefit from a standalone cut-and-sew maze are those with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy marked by AF or atrial flutter, rapid uncontrolled ventricular response, a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, and no associated valvular or congenital heart disease. In a series of 37 such patients identified and treated with a maze III operation at the Mayo Clinic, their average preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of 43% improved to about 55% at discharge, a benefit sustained at last follow-up a median of 63 months later. The outcome was particularly impressive in the 11 patients with a severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction averaging 31% preoperatively, which jumped to 53% at discharge (Ann Thorac Surg. 2006 Aug;82[2]:494-500).
“Their ejection fraction goes up when you control the tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy,” he observed. “So reduced left ventricular ejection fraction may be an indication for surgery rather than a contraindication.”
Dr. Schaff emphasized that it’s important for cardiologists and surgeons not to overpromise what surgical ablation of AF can accomplish. The only randomized trial of surgical ablation of AF versus no ablation during mitral valve surgery, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes of Health Research and carried out by the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, showed no significant between-group differences at 1 year in any of numerous quality of life measures, nor was there a survival benefit for ablation (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1399-409).
“We must point out that there’s no indication that controlling atrial fibrillation has anything to do with improving survival. It has to do with symptomatic benefit and perhaps reducing risk of stroke,” he said.
Dr. Schaff reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
REPORTING FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2019
How to get surgical-like results using MitraClip
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Achieving optimal surgical-like results via transcatheter repair of primary mitral regurgitation using the MitraClip in prohibitively high-surgical-risk patients becomes much more likely by taking into account key predictive anatomic and procedural features as well as the major comorbidities influencing outcome, Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
. Dr. Sorajja was first author of a study of 1-year outcomes in 2,952 patients with MR in the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry (STS/ACC TVT) who were commercially treated with the MitraClip, at present the only transcatheter device approved for this indication. Sixty-two percent had a surgical-like result, and their 1-year mortality rate of 21.7% was significantly lower than the 29.2% rate for patients with residual grade 2 MR and the 48.9% mortality in patients left with grade 3 or 4 MR.
It’s noteworthy that even though the acute procedural success rate – defined as residual grade 2 or less MR – was impressively high at 91.8% in this group of nearly 3,000 patients, roughly one in five in the overall series was rehospitalized for heart failure within 1 year, and one in four was dead. So there remains considerable room for improvement in long-term outcomes of transcatheter repair of MR, said Dr. Sorajja, director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
Anatomic predictors of good short-term outcome
“There are specific anatomic criteria, but an easier way to think about whether your patient could get an optimal result is to remember the physical limits of this therapy. What I teach is 1-2-5-50: the MitraClip device is about 1 cm tall, about 2 cm wide, and you need about 5 mm of leaflet inside the clip to create coaptation for MR reduction. And if you do that, you will reduce the mitral valve area by about 50%, so you have to be very careful in patients with small valve areas because you can worsen mitral stenosis,” the cardiologist explained.
Only two transechocardiographic views are needed to know if a patient will have a good result with the MitraClip. A bicommissural view traversing the valve medial to lateral shows where the MR jet is; if it’s in the middle of the mitral valve, that’s favorable because it means the interventionalist has a lot of freedom to operate. Then, going orthogonal from the bicommissural view to get an anterior-posterior view allows the operator to get a good look at the valve leaflets and apply the 1-2-5 rule to determine if the leaflet approximation is favorable, he continued.
Some mitral valve anatomy variants make it challenging to get surgical-like results with a transcatheter repair. These include calcified leaflets, large gaps between leaflets, Barlow’s valves, and small leaflets. Be aware of key success-limiting comorbidities.
In the STS/ACC TVT registry study, severe tricuspid regurgitation, present in 10% of patients preprocedurally, virtually doubled the adjusted risk of 1-year mortality in multivariate analyses.
“Tricuspid regurgitation is one of the most common concomitant lesions. And the presence of tricuspid regurgitation is ominous,” Dr. Sorajja said. “Treatment of concomitant lesions such as this is going to be necessary for us to get a truly surgical-like result in outcomes.”
Toward this end, he put in a plug to consider referring patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation for enrollment in the TRILUMINATE II trial, the pivotal U.S. trial for the investigational Tri-Clip device for transcatheter tricuspid valve repair, for which he is coprincipal investigator. The trial, pitting the Tri-Clip against medical therapy, is due to start in the spring of 2019.
In multivariate analyses of the MitraClip registry study, other predictors of the combined endpoint of death and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1 year, in addition to severe tricuspid regurgitation, included dialysis, with an adjusted 2.09-fold increased risk; moderate or severe lung disease, with a 1.28-fold risk; postprocedural residual MR; diminished left ventricular ejection fraction; and advanced age (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Nov 7;70[19]:2315-27).
Case experience counts
In a soon-to-be-published more up-to-date analysis of more than 12,000 MitraClip patients in the STS/ACC TVT registry, which captures all U.S. commercial use of the device for its approved indication, Dr. Sorajja and his coinvestigators documented a procedural truism: The more cases an interventionalist performs, the better the results. However, even inexperienced users of the MitraClip were able to obtain at least moderate results – that is, residual grade 2 or less MR – 90% of the time or more.
“There is some change with greater experience, but it’s actually quite small,” according to Dr. Sorajja.
However, optimal results – grade 0 or 1 MR – are another matter entirely.
“For grade 1 or less, the learning curve is much steeper. It plateaus somewhere between 50 and 75 cases. In other words, in most cases you can get to moderate MR, but getting to grade 1 requires more experience. That relationship between case experience and outcome also applies to complication rates and case time,” he said.
Although at present the MitraClip is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved transcatheter device for MR repair, there are many others in the developmental pipeline, the he noted.
Dr. Sorajja reported receiving research funding from Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, and serving as a consultant to those companies and several others.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Achieving optimal surgical-like results via transcatheter repair of primary mitral regurgitation using the MitraClip in prohibitively high-surgical-risk patients becomes much more likely by taking into account key predictive anatomic and procedural features as well as the major comorbidities influencing outcome, Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
. Dr. Sorajja was first author of a study of 1-year outcomes in 2,952 patients with MR in the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry (STS/ACC TVT) who were commercially treated with the MitraClip, at present the only transcatheter device approved for this indication. Sixty-two percent had a surgical-like result, and their 1-year mortality rate of 21.7% was significantly lower than the 29.2% rate for patients with residual grade 2 MR and the 48.9% mortality in patients left with grade 3 or 4 MR.
It’s noteworthy that even though the acute procedural success rate – defined as residual grade 2 or less MR – was impressively high at 91.8% in this group of nearly 3,000 patients, roughly one in five in the overall series was rehospitalized for heart failure within 1 year, and one in four was dead. So there remains considerable room for improvement in long-term outcomes of transcatheter repair of MR, said Dr. Sorajja, director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
Anatomic predictors of good short-term outcome
“There are specific anatomic criteria, but an easier way to think about whether your patient could get an optimal result is to remember the physical limits of this therapy. What I teach is 1-2-5-50: the MitraClip device is about 1 cm tall, about 2 cm wide, and you need about 5 mm of leaflet inside the clip to create coaptation for MR reduction. And if you do that, you will reduce the mitral valve area by about 50%, so you have to be very careful in patients with small valve areas because you can worsen mitral stenosis,” the cardiologist explained.
Only two transechocardiographic views are needed to know if a patient will have a good result with the MitraClip. A bicommissural view traversing the valve medial to lateral shows where the MR jet is; if it’s in the middle of the mitral valve, that’s favorable because it means the interventionalist has a lot of freedom to operate. Then, going orthogonal from the bicommissural view to get an anterior-posterior view allows the operator to get a good look at the valve leaflets and apply the 1-2-5 rule to determine if the leaflet approximation is favorable, he continued.
Some mitral valve anatomy variants make it challenging to get surgical-like results with a transcatheter repair. These include calcified leaflets, large gaps between leaflets, Barlow’s valves, and small leaflets. Be aware of key success-limiting comorbidities.
In the STS/ACC TVT registry study, severe tricuspid regurgitation, present in 10% of patients preprocedurally, virtually doubled the adjusted risk of 1-year mortality in multivariate analyses.
“Tricuspid regurgitation is one of the most common concomitant lesions. And the presence of tricuspid regurgitation is ominous,” Dr. Sorajja said. “Treatment of concomitant lesions such as this is going to be necessary for us to get a truly surgical-like result in outcomes.”
Toward this end, he put in a plug to consider referring patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation for enrollment in the TRILUMINATE II trial, the pivotal U.S. trial for the investigational Tri-Clip device for transcatheter tricuspid valve repair, for which he is coprincipal investigator. The trial, pitting the Tri-Clip against medical therapy, is due to start in the spring of 2019.
In multivariate analyses of the MitraClip registry study, other predictors of the combined endpoint of death and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1 year, in addition to severe tricuspid regurgitation, included dialysis, with an adjusted 2.09-fold increased risk; moderate or severe lung disease, with a 1.28-fold risk; postprocedural residual MR; diminished left ventricular ejection fraction; and advanced age (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Nov 7;70[19]:2315-27).
Case experience counts
In a soon-to-be-published more up-to-date analysis of more than 12,000 MitraClip patients in the STS/ACC TVT registry, which captures all U.S. commercial use of the device for its approved indication, Dr. Sorajja and his coinvestigators documented a procedural truism: The more cases an interventionalist performs, the better the results. However, even inexperienced users of the MitraClip were able to obtain at least moderate results – that is, residual grade 2 or less MR – 90% of the time or more.
“There is some change with greater experience, but it’s actually quite small,” according to Dr. Sorajja.
However, optimal results – grade 0 or 1 MR – are another matter entirely.
“For grade 1 or less, the learning curve is much steeper. It plateaus somewhere between 50 and 75 cases. In other words, in most cases you can get to moderate MR, but getting to grade 1 requires more experience. That relationship between case experience and outcome also applies to complication rates and case time,” he said.
Although at present the MitraClip is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved transcatheter device for MR repair, there are many others in the developmental pipeline, the he noted.
Dr. Sorajja reported receiving research funding from Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, and serving as a consultant to those companies and several others.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Achieving optimal surgical-like results via transcatheter repair of primary mitral regurgitation using the MitraClip in prohibitively high-surgical-risk patients becomes much more likely by taking into account key predictive anatomic and procedural features as well as the major comorbidities influencing outcome, Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
. Dr. Sorajja was first author of a study of 1-year outcomes in 2,952 patients with MR in the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry (STS/ACC TVT) who were commercially treated with the MitraClip, at present the only transcatheter device approved for this indication. Sixty-two percent had a surgical-like result, and their 1-year mortality rate of 21.7% was significantly lower than the 29.2% rate for patients with residual grade 2 MR and the 48.9% mortality in patients left with grade 3 or 4 MR.
It’s noteworthy that even though the acute procedural success rate – defined as residual grade 2 or less MR – was impressively high at 91.8% in this group of nearly 3,000 patients, roughly one in five in the overall series was rehospitalized for heart failure within 1 year, and one in four was dead. So there remains considerable room for improvement in long-term outcomes of transcatheter repair of MR, said Dr. Sorajja, director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
Anatomic predictors of good short-term outcome
“There are specific anatomic criteria, but an easier way to think about whether your patient could get an optimal result is to remember the physical limits of this therapy. What I teach is 1-2-5-50: the MitraClip device is about 1 cm tall, about 2 cm wide, and you need about 5 mm of leaflet inside the clip to create coaptation for MR reduction. And if you do that, you will reduce the mitral valve area by about 50%, so you have to be very careful in patients with small valve areas because you can worsen mitral stenosis,” the cardiologist explained.
Only two transechocardiographic views are needed to know if a patient will have a good result with the MitraClip. A bicommissural view traversing the valve medial to lateral shows where the MR jet is; if it’s in the middle of the mitral valve, that’s favorable because it means the interventionalist has a lot of freedom to operate. Then, going orthogonal from the bicommissural view to get an anterior-posterior view allows the operator to get a good look at the valve leaflets and apply the 1-2-5 rule to determine if the leaflet approximation is favorable, he continued.
Some mitral valve anatomy variants make it challenging to get surgical-like results with a transcatheter repair. These include calcified leaflets, large gaps between leaflets, Barlow’s valves, and small leaflets. Be aware of key success-limiting comorbidities.
In the STS/ACC TVT registry study, severe tricuspid regurgitation, present in 10% of patients preprocedurally, virtually doubled the adjusted risk of 1-year mortality in multivariate analyses.
“Tricuspid regurgitation is one of the most common concomitant lesions. And the presence of tricuspid regurgitation is ominous,” Dr. Sorajja said. “Treatment of concomitant lesions such as this is going to be necessary for us to get a truly surgical-like result in outcomes.”
Toward this end, he put in a plug to consider referring patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation for enrollment in the TRILUMINATE II trial, the pivotal U.S. trial for the investigational Tri-Clip device for transcatheter tricuspid valve repair, for which he is coprincipal investigator. The trial, pitting the Tri-Clip against medical therapy, is due to start in the spring of 2019.
In multivariate analyses of the MitraClip registry study, other predictors of the combined endpoint of death and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1 year, in addition to severe tricuspid regurgitation, included dialysis, with an adjusted 2.09-fold increased risk; moderate or severe lung disease, with a 1.28-fold risk; postprocedural residual MR; diminished left ventricular ejection fraction; and advanced age (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Nov 7;70[19]:2315-27).
Case experience counts
In a soon-to-be-published more up-to-date analysis of more than 12,000 MitraClip patients in the STS/ACC TVT registry, which captures all U.S. commercial use of the device for its approved indication, Dr. Sorajja and his coinvestigators documented a procedural truism: The more cases an interventionalist performs, the better the results. However, even inexperienced users of the MitraClip were able to obtain at least moderate results – that is, residual grade 2 or less MR – 90% of the time or more.
“There is some change with greater experience, but it’s actually quite small,” according to Dr. Sorajja.
However, optimal results – grade 0 or 1 MR – are another matter entirely.
“For grade 1 or less, the learning curve is much steeper. It plateaus somewhere between 50 and 75 cases. In other words, in most cases you can get to moderate MR, but getting to grade 1 requires more experience. That relationship between case experience and outcome also applies to complication rates and case time,” he said.
Although at present the MitraClip is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved transcatheter device for MR repair, there are many others in the developmental pipeline, the he noted.
Dr. Sorajja reported receiving research funding from Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, and serving as a consultant to those companies and several others.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2019
Moment of truth approaches for low-risk TAVR
SNOWMASS, COLO. – There are now more transcatheter aortic valve replacements performed each year than surgical ones in the United States, a disparity that may grow vastly larger.
That’s if the results of the two pivotal randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients scheduled for presentation at the annual scientific session of the American College of Cardiology in March turn out to show TAVR outcomes are equivalent or superior to SAVR.
And that just might be the scenario, provided the eye-popping results already reported from another, much smaller study – the Low Risk TAVR study, a 200-patient, prospective, nonrandomized, observational study – are at all reflective of what’s to come when the pivotal PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R trials are released at the ACC meeting in New Orleans, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“The TAVR train has left the station on the way to low risk, and I don’t really see it coming back,” said Dr. Mack, medical director for cardiothoracic surgery at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
He wasn’t part of the Low Risk TAVR study, in which 200 low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis underwent TAVR with contemporary devices at 11 centers and were matched to 719 historical control SAVR patients at the same centers. But he called the study results “pretty spectacular”: zero 30-day all cause mortality in the TAVR group versus 1.7% with SAVR, no in-hospital strokes with TAVR versus a 0.6% rate with SAVR, and similar permanent pacemaker implantation rates of 5.0% with TAVR and 4.5% with SAVR.
Also, the TAVR group had a mere 3.0% rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation, a 2-day hospital length of stay, and a 0.5% incidence of greater-than-mild paravalvular leak at 30 days (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 30;72[18]:2095-105).
The two major trials due to report 1-year outcomes at the ACC meeting in March are similarly designed. The PARTNER 3 trial includes 1,000 low-surgical-risk patients with a mean age of 73 years and a predicted 30-day surgical mortality risk of 1.9%. Seventy-one percent of them were New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II at enrollment. Participants were randomized to TAVR with the Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 valve or to SAVR, with the primary outcome being a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization 1 year post procedure. The EVOLUT R trial is similar, except the TAVR valve is the Medtronic CoreValve.
Both trials will continue to follow patients annually for 10 years in order to address the still-open issue of TAVR and SAVR valve durability. Also, the Food and Drug Administration has mandated that 4D CT imaging substudies be conducted in 800 of the combined 2,000 participants in the two trials in order to provide new insight into the issue of subclinical valve leaflet thrombosis, which was detected in 14% of participants in the Low Risk TAVR study 30 days post procedure.
“The clinical impact and need for anticoagulant therapy are currently unknown. However, clot anywhere else in the body doesn’t do good things, so it’s hard to imagine it’s helping here. Pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t going to make the problem go away,” Dr. Mack said.
The 4D CT imaging substudy results are expected to be presented later this year at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference in San Francisco.
In 2017, 51,064 TAVR procedures for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis were done in the United States, compared with 41,490 SAVRs. The past several years have seen a decreasing proportion of TAVRs being done in high-surgical-risk patients and a growing proportion in intermediate-risk patients.
Even if PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R prove to be resoundingly positive for TAVR in low-risk patients, however, SAVR is not going to vanish, according to Dr. Mack. He cited four factors working against universal adoption of TAVR: the uncertainty surrounding valve durability, which will take years to resolve; the issue of TAVR valve leaflet thrombosis and the for-now theoretic possibility that all TAVR patients might need to receive postprocedure oral anticoagulation; the high rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation associated with TAVR, which Dr. Mack called the procedure’s Achilles heel; and the total absence of high-quality data on TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis.
Even though TAVR for diseased bicuspid valves is not off-label therapy – the FDA’s indication for TAVR is for native valve aortic stenosis – patients with bicuspid valves weren’t included in any of the randomized trials, he explained.
Younger patients are likely to stick with SAVR for the foreseeable future, regardless of the outcomes of PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R, according to the surgeon, because of the unresolved issue of valve durability, as well as TAVR’s greater associated need for a permanent pacemaker, both significant considerations in individuals with a life expectancy of another 20-30 years.
There are now roughly 600 TAVR centers and 1,150 SAVR centers nationally. One of the hot topics in the field stems from the fact that half of these TAVR centers do only one TAVR per week or less. That’s concerning in light of a recent New York State study showing a clear association between operator volume and outcomes.
“The more you do, the better your outcomes are, similar to many other procedures in medicine,” Dr. Mack commented.
On the other hand, it’s unlikely that patients who present to one of the roughly 550 SAVR-only centers are truly getting informed consent as to their options, he added.
TAVR timeline for 2019
March
PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R primary outcomes to be presented at the American College of Cardiology annual scientific session.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to issue proposal for a revised National Coverage Determination for TAVR reimbursement.
June
Following a public comment period, CMS will release final revised criteria for TAVR reimbursement.
September
Results of the PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R 4D CT imaging substudies will probably be presented late in the month at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference in San Francisco.
Late 2019
If PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R trials are positive, FDA approval of the TAVR valves in low-surgical-risk patients is expected.
Dr. Mack is coprincipal investigator of PARTNER 3, which was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences, and of Abbott Vascular’s COAPT trial. He’s also on the executive committee of the INTREPID trial, sponsored by Medtronic.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – There are now more transcatheter aortic valve replacements performed each year than surgical ones in the United States, a disparity that may grow vastly larger.
That’s if the results of the two pivotal randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients scheduled for presentation at the annual scientific session of the American College of Cardiology in March turn out to show TAVR outcomes are equivalent or superior to SAVR.
And that just might be the scenario, provided the eye-popping results already reported from another, much smaller study – the Low Risk TAVR study, a 200-patient, prospective, nonrandomized, observational study – are at all reflective of what’s to come when the pivotal PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R trials are released at the ACC meeting in New Orleans, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“The TAVR train has left the station on the way to low risk, and I don’t really see it coming back,” said Dr. Mack, medical director for cardiothoracic surgery at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
He wasn’t part of the Low Risk TAVR study, in which 200 low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis underwent TAVR with contemporary devices at 11 centers and were matched to 719 historical control SAVR patients at the same centers. But he called the study results “pretty spectacular”: zero 30-day all cause mortality in the TAVR group versus 1.7% with SAVR, no in-hospital strokes with TAVR versus a 0.6% rate with SAVR, and similar permanent pacemaker implantation rates of 5.0% with TAVR and 4.5% with SAVR.
Also, the TAVR group had a mere 3.0% rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation, a 2-day hospital length of stay, and a 0.5% incidence of greater-than-mild paravalvular leak at 30 days (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 30;72[18]:2095-105).
The two major trials due to report 1-year outcomes at the ACC meeting in March are similarly designed. The PARTNER 3 trial includes 1,000 low-surgical-risk patients with a mean age of 73 years and a predicted 30-day surgical mortality risk of 1.9%. Seventy-one percent of them were New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II at enrollment. Participants were randomized to TAVR with the Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 valve or to SAVR, with the primary outcome being a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization 1 year post procedure. The EVOLUT R trial is similar, except the TAVR valve is the Medtronic CoreValve.
Both trials will continue to follow patients annually for 10 years in order to address the still-open issue of TAVR and SAVR valve durability. Also, the Food and Drug Administration has mandated that 4D CT imaging substudies be conducted in 800 of the combined 2,000 participants in the two trials in order to provide new insight into the issue of subclinical valve leaflet thrombosis, which was detected in 14% of participants in the Low Risk TAVR study 30 days post procedure.
“The clinical impact and need for anticoagulant therapy are currently unknown. However, clot anywhere else in the body doesn’t do good things, so it’s hard to imagine it’s helping here. Pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t going to make the problem go away,” Dr. Mack said.
The 4D CT imaging substudy results are expected to be presented later this year at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference in San Francisco.
In 2017, 51,064 TAVR procedures for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis were done in the United States, compared with 41,490 SAVRs. The past several years have seen a decreasing proportion of TAVRs being done in high-surgical-risk patients and a growing proportion in intermediate-risk patients.
Even if PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R prove to be resoundingly positive for TAVR in low-risk patients, however, SAVR is not going to vanish, according to Dr. Mack. He cited four factors working against universal adoption of TAVR: the uncertainty surrounding valve durability, which will take years to resolve; the issue of TAVR valve leaflet thrombosis and the for-now theoretic possibility that all TAVR patients might need to receive postprocedure oral anticoagulation; the high rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation associated with TAVR, which Dr. Mack called the procedure’s Achilles heel; and the total absence of high-quality data on TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis.
Even though TAVR for diseased bicuspid valves is not off-label therapy – the FDA’s indication for TAVR is for native valve aortic stenosis – patients with bicuspid valves weren’t included in any of the randomized trials, he explained.
Younger patients are likely to stick with SAVR for the foreseeable future, regardless of the outcomes of PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R, according to the surgeon, because of the unresolved issue of valve durability, as well as TAVR’s greater associated need for a permanent pacemaker, both significant considerations in individuals with a life expectancy of another 20-30 years.
There are now roughly 600 TAVR centers and 1,150 SAVR centers nationally. One of the hot topics in the field stems from the fact that half of these TAVR centers do only one TAVR per week or less. That’s concerning in light of a recent New York State study showing a clear association between operator volume and outcomes.
“The more you do, the better your outcomes are, similar to many other procedures in medicine,” Dr. Mack commented.
On the other hand, it’s unlikely that patients who present to one of the roughly 550 SAVR-only centers are truly getting informed consent as to their options, he added.
TAVR timeline for 2019
March
PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R primary outcomes to be presented at the American College of Cardiology annual scientific session.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to issue proposal for a revised National Coverage Determination for TAVR reimbursement.
June
Following a public comment period, CMS will release final revised criteria for TAVR reimbursement.
September
Results of the PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R 4D CT imaging substudies will probably be presented late in the month at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference in San Francisco.
Late 2019
If PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R trials are positive, FDA approval of the TAVR valves in low-surgical-risk patients is expected.
Dr. Mack is coprincipal investigator of PARTNER 3, which was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences, and of Abbott Vascular’s COAPT trial. He’s also on the executive committee of the INTREPID trial, sponsored by Medtronic.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – There are now more transcatheter aortic valve replacements performed each year than surgical ones in the United States, a disparity that may grow vastly larger.
That’s if the results of the two pivotal randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients scheduled for presentation at the annual scientific session of the American College of Cardiology in March turn out to show TAVR outcomes are equivalent or superior to SAVR.
And that just might be the scenario, provided the eye-popping results already reported from another, much smaller study – the Low Risk TAVR study, a 200-patient, prospective, nonrandomized, observational study – are at all reflective of what’s to come when the pivotal PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R trials are released at the ACC meeting in New Orleans, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“The TAVR train has left the station on the way to low risk, and I don’t really see it coming back,” said Dr. Mack, medical director for cardiothoracic surgery at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas.
He wasn’t part of the Low Risk TAVR study, in which 200 low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis underwent TAVR with contemporary devices at 11 centers and were matched to 719 historical control SAVR patients at the same centers. But he called the study results “pretty spectacular”: zero 30-day all cause mortality in the TAVR group versus 1.7% with SAVR, no in-hospital strokes with TAVR versus a 0.6% rate with SAVR, and similar permanent pacemaker implantation rates of 5.0% with TAVR and 4.5% with SAVR.
Also, the TAVR group had a mere 3.0% rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation, a 2-day hospital length of stay, and a 0.5% incidence of greater-than-mild paravalvular leak at 30 days (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 30;72[18]:2095-105).
The two major trials due to report 1-year outcomes at the ACC meeting in March are similarly designed. The PARTNER 3 trial includes 1,000 low-surgical-risk patients with a mean age of 73 years and a predicted 30-day surgical mortality risk of 1.9%. Seventy-one percent of them were New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II at enrollment. Participants were randomized to TAVR with the Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 valve or to SAVR, with the primary outcome being a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization 1 year post procedure. The EVOLUT R trial is similar, except the TAVR valve is the Medtronic CoreValve.
Both trials will continue to follow patients annually for 10 years in order to address the still-open issue of TAVR and SAVR valve durability. Also, the Food and Drug Administration has mandated that 4D CT imaging substudies be conducted in 800 of the combined 2,000 participants in the two trials in order to provide new insight into the issue of subclinical valve leaflet thrombosis, which was detected in 14% of participants in the Low Risk TAVR study 30 days post procedure.
“The clinical impact and need for anticoagulant therapy are currently unknown. However, clot anywhere else in the body doesn’t do good things, so it’s hard to imagine it’s helping here. Pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t going to make the problem go away,” Dr. Mack said.
The 4D CT imaging substudy results are expected to be presented later this year at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference in San Francisco.
In 2017, 51,064 TAVR procedures for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis were done in the United States, compared with 41,490 SAVRs. The past several years have seen a decreasing proportion of TAVRs being done in high-surgical-risk patients and a growing proportion in intermediate-risk patients.
Even if PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R prove to be resoundingly positive for TAVR in low-risk patients, however, SAVR is not going to vanish, according to Dr. Mack. He cited four factors working against universal adoption of TAVR: the uncertainty surrounding valve durability, which will take years to resolve; the issue of TAVR valve leaflet thrombosis and the for-now theoretic possibility that all TAVR patients might need to receive postprocedure oral anticoagulation; the high rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation associated with TAVR, which Dr. Mack called the procedure’s Achilles heel; and the total absence of high-quality data on TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis.
Even though TAVR for diseased bicuspid valves is not off-label therapy – the FDA’s indication for TAVR is for native valve aortic stenosis – patients with bicuspid valves weren’t included in any of the randomized trials, he explained.
Younger patients are likely to stick with SAVR for the foreseeable future, regardless of the outcomes of PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R, according to the surgeon, because of the unresolved issue of valve durability, as well as TAVR’s greater associated need for a permanent pacemaker, both significant considerations in individuals with a life expectancy of another 20-30 years.
There are now roughly 600 TAVR centers and 1,150 SAVR centers nationally. One of the hot topics in the field stems from the fact that half of these TAVR centers do only one TAVR per week or less. That’s concerning in light of a recent New York State study showing a clear association between operator volume and outcomes.
“The more you do, the better your outcomes are, similar to many other procedures in medicine,” Dr. Mack commented.
On the other hand, it’s unlikely that patients who present to one of the roughly 550 SAVR-only centers are truly getting informed consent as to their options, he added.
TAVR timeline for 2019
March
PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R primary outcomes to be presented at the American College of Cardiology annual scientific session.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to issue proposal for a revised National Coverage Determination for TAVR reimbursement.
June
Following a public comment period, CMS will release final revised criteria for TAVR reimbursement.
September
Results of the PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R 4D CT imaging substudies will probably be presented late in the month at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference in San Francisco.
Late 2019
If PARTNER 3 and EVOLUT R trials are positive, FDA approval of the TAVR valves in low-surgical-risk patients is expected.
Dr. Mack is coprincipal investigator of PARTNER 3, which was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences, and of Abbott Vascular’s COAPT trial. He’s also on the executive committee of the INTREPID trial, sponsored by Medtronic.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2019
Device approved to treat PDA in premature infants
weighing as little as 2 pounds.
PDA is a life-threatening opening between two blood vessels leading from the heart and commonly occurs in premature infants, with about one in five infants born prematurely having a hemodynamically significant PDA. The Amplatzer Piccolo Occluder is a self-expanding, wire mesh device that is minimally invasive and is the first device approved for use in very-low-birth-weight infants.
FDA approval was based on results of the ADO II AS trial, which evaluated the device in 50 patients with PDA who were older than 3 days. In addition, the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer Piccolo Occluder was supported by a continued access protocol involving 150 more patients.
“This approval is a potentially life-saving advance for the very smallest premature infants that will help us treat these delicate babies who might otherwise not be able to survive,” said Evan Zahn, MD, principal investigator of ADO II AS and director of the congenital heart program at Cedars-Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute in Los Angeles.
Find the full press release on the Abbott website.
weighing as little as 2 pounds.
PDA is a life-threatening opening between two blood vessels leading from the heart and commonly occurs in premature infants, with about one in five infants born prematurely having a hemodynamically significant PDA. The Amplatzer Piccolo Occluder is a self-expanding, wire mesh device that is minimally invasive and is the first device approved for use in very-low-birth-weight infants.
FDA approval was based on results of the ADO II AS trial, which evaluated the device in 50 patients with PDA who were older than 3 days. In addition, the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer Piccolo Occluder was supported by a continued access protocol involving 150 more patients.
“This approval is a potentially life-saving advance for the very smallest premature infants that will help us treat these delicate babies who might otherwise not be able to survive,” said Evan Zahn, MD, principal investigator of ADO II AS and director of the congenital heart program at Cedars-Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute in Los Angeles.
Find the full press release on the Abbott website.
weighing as little as 2 pounds.
PDA is a life-threatening opening between two blood vessels leading from the heart and commonly occurs in premature infants, with about one in five infants born prematurely having a hemodynamically significant PDA. The Amplatzer Piccolo Occluder is a self-expanding, wire mesh device that is minimally invasive and is the first device approved for use in very-low-birth-weight infants.
FDA approval was based on results of the ADO II AS trial, which evaluated the device in 50 patients with PDA who were older than 3 days. In addition, the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer Piccolo Occluder was supported by a continued access protocol involving 150 more patients.
“This approval is a potentially life-saving advance for the very smallest premature infants that will help us treat these delicate babies who might otherwise not be able to survive,” said Evan Zahn, MD, principal investigator of ADO II AS and director of the congenital heart program at Cedars-Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute in Los Angeles.
Find the full press release on the Abbott website.
CABG surpasses PCI for diabetics out to 7.5 years
CHICAGO – Patients with diabetes who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting had significantly better survival than patients with diabetes who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after a median 7.5 years of follow-up.
Those patients comprised about half the patients enrolled in the FREEDOM randomized trial.
Long-term follow-up was only possible for just under half the 1,900 patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease originally enrolled in FREEDOM, but when researchers combined the long-term results with the data collected in the original study that had a median 3.8-year follow-up, they found all-cause mortality occurred in 18.3% of the patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and in 24.3% of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a 6% absolute between-group difference that was statistically significant, Valentin Fuster, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. This fully jibed with the primary FREEDOM results, which found after 5 years a statistically significant reduction in all-cause death with CABG, compared with PCI, and also a significant reduction in the study’s primary endpoint (a combination of all-cause death, MI, and stroke), which occurred in 18.7% of patients randomized to CABG and in 26.6% of those randomized to PCI (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 20;367[25]:2375-84).
The extended follow-up finding lent additional support to existing society recommendations that CABG is the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease, most recently from the European Society of Cardiology (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394), said Dr. Fuster, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York. A subgroup analysis of the extended follow-up also suggested that the survival benefit from CABG, compared with PCI, was especially strong among patients at or below the study’s median age of 63 years. In the younger subgroup survival among patients treated with CABG was twice as good as it was among patients treated with PCI.
Dr. Fuster noted that few data have been previously reported for survival rates beyond 5 years after revascularization. “This was a difficult study. Following patients for more than 5 years is hard,” he said. Concurrently with his report at the meeting the results also appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.001).
The FREEDOM (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) trial enrolled patients at 140 participating centers during 2005-2010. A total of 25 sites agreed to participate in the extended follow-up and could track 943 patients, 50% of the starting cohort of 1,900 and 89% of the patients originally enrolled at these 25 centers. Dr. Fuster stressed that the 957 patients not included in the follow-up had not been lost, but rather had been managed at sites that declined to participate in this additional study.
Dr. Fuster acknowledged that methods and hardware for PCI have changed since the study ran a decade ago, as have options for medical management. He also highlighted that the long-term follow-up results had no data on rates of MIs and strokes.
FREEDOM had no commercial funding. Dr. Fuster reported no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Fuster V et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 18609.
These extended results from the FREEDOM trial that followed many patients for 10 years or longer add to the consistent evidence base that supports coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease. The new findings support existing society guidelines that recommend CABG over percutaneous coronary intervention in these patients, most recently in the revascularization guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394). An update to the U.S. guidelines should appear in 2019.
Continued improvement of revascularization techniques, hardware, and medical management of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease makes it challenging to apply the results of studies run in earlier eras to today’s practice. It is possible that continued evolution of coronary stent technology may reduce the differences in outcomes between bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions, although this is less likely if much of CABG’s success relates to the protection it gives against new disease. Future comparisons of different approaches with revascularization will need to take into account the potential contribution of other procedures, other adverse outcomes aside from mortality during long-term follow-up, the consequences of incomplete revascularization, and the impact of new medications for treating diabetes that have been recently shown to also have cardiovascular disease effects. All these factors in concert will define the optimal approach to managing these patients.
Alice K. Jacobs, MD , is director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Boston Medical Center and a professor of medicine at Boston University. She has received research support from Abbott Vascular. She made these comments as designated discussant for the study.
These extended results from the FREEDOM trial that followed many patients for 10 years or longer add to the consistent evidence base that supports coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease. The new findings support existing society guidelines that recommend CABG over percutaneous coronary intervention in these patients, most recently in the revascularization guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394). An update to the U.S. guidelines should appear in 2019.
Continued improvement of revascularization techniques, hardware, and medical management of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease makes it challenging to apply the results of studies run in earlier eras to today’s practice. It is possible that continued evolution of coronary stent technology may reduce the differences in outcomes between bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions, although this is less likely if much of CABG’s success relates to the protection it gives against new disease. Future comparisons of different approaches with revascularization will need to take into account the potential contribution of other procedures, other adverse outcomes aside from mortality during long-term follow-up, the consequences of incomplete revascularization, and the impact of new medications for treating diabetes that have been recently shown to also have cardiovascular disease effects. All these factors in concert will define the optimal approach to managing these patients.
Alice K. Jacobs, MD , is director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Boston Medical Center and a professor of medicine at Boston University. She has received research support from Abbott Vascular. She made these comments as designated discussant for the study.
These extended results from the FREEDOM trial that followed many patients for 10 years or longer add to the consistent evidence base that supports coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease. The new findings support existing society guidelines that recommend CABG over percutaneous coronary intervention in these patients, most recently in the revascularization guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394). An update to the U.S. guidelines should appear in 2019.
Continued improvement of revascularization techniques, hardware, and medical management of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease makes it challenging to apply the results of studies run in earlier eras to today’s practice. It is possible that continued evolution of coronary stent technology may reduce the differences in outcomes between bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions, although this is less likely if much of CABG’s success relates to the protection it gives against new disease. Future comparisons of different approaches with revascularization will need to take into account the potential contribution of other procedures, other adverse outcomes aside from mortality during long-term follow-up, the consequences of incomplete revascularization, and the impact of new medications for treating diabetes that have been recently shown to also have cardiovascular disease effects. All these factors in concert will define the optimal approach to managing these patients.
Alice K. Jacobs, MD , is director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Boston Medical Center and a professor of medicine at Boston University. She has received research support from Abbott Vascular. She made these comments as designated discussant for the study.
CHICAGO – Patients with diabetes who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting had significantly better survival than patients with diabetes who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after a median 7.5 years of follow-up.
Those patients comprised about half the patients enrolled in the FREEDOM randomized trial.
Long-term follow-up was only possible for just under half the 1,900 patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease originally enrolled in FREEDOM, but when researchers combined the long-term results with the data collected in the original study that had a median 3.8-year follow-up, they found all-cause mortality occurred in 18.3% of the patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and in 24.3% of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a 6% absolute between-group difference that was statistically significant, Valentin Fuster, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. This fully jibed with the primary FREEDOM results, which found after 5 years a statistically significant reduction in all-cause death with CABG, compared with PCI, and also a significant reduction in the study’s primary endpoint (a combination of all-cause death, MI, and stroke), which occurred in 18.7% of patients randomized to CABG and in 26.6% of those randomized to PCI (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 20;367[25]:2375-84).
The extended follow-up finding lent additional support to existing society recommendations that CABG is the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease, most recently from the European Society of Cardiology (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394), said Dr. Fuster, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York. A subgroup analysis of the extended follow-up also suggested that the survival benefit from CABG, compared with PCI, was especially strong among patients at or below the study’s median age of 63 years. In the younger subgroup survival among patients treated with CABG was twice as good as it was among patients treated with PCI.
Dr. Fuster noted that few data have been previously reported for survival rates beyond 5 years after revascularization. “This was a difficult study. Following patients for more than 5 years is hard,” he said. Concurrently with his report at the meeting the results also appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.001).
The FREEDOM (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) trial enrolled patients at 140 participating centers during 2005-2010. A total of 25 sites agreed to participate in the extended follow-up and could track 943 patients, 50% of the starting cohort of 1,900 and 89% of the patients originally enrolled at these 25 centers. Dr. Fuster stressed that the 957 patients not included in the follow-up had not been lost, but rather had been managed at sites that declined to participate in this additional study.
Dr. Fuster acknowledged that methods and hardware for PCI have changed since the study ran a decade ago, as have options for medical management. He also highlighted that the long-term follow-up results had no data on rates of MIs and strokes.
FREEDOM had no commercial funding. Dr. Fuster reported no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Fuster V et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 18609.
CHICAGO – Patients with diabetes who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting had significantly better survival than patients with diabetes who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after a median 7.5 years of follow-up.
Those patients comprised about half the patients enrolled in the FREEDOM randomized trial.
Long-term follow-up was only possible for just under half the 1,900 patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease originally enrolled in FREEDOM, but when researchers combined the long-term results with the data collected in the original study that had a median 3.8-year follow-up, they found all-cause mortality occurred in 18.3% of the patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and in 24.3% of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a 6% absolute between-group difference that was statistically significant, Valentin Fuster, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. This fully jibed with the primary FREEDOM results, which found after 5 years a statistically significant reduction in all-cause death with CABG, compared with PCI, and also a significant reduction in the study’s primary endpoint (a combination of all-cause death, MI, and stroke), which occurred in 18.7% of patients randomized to CABG and in 26.6% of those randomized to PCI (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 20;367[25]:2375-84).
The extended follow-up finding lent additional support to existing society recommendations that CABG is the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease, most recently from the European Society of Cardiology (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394), said Dr. Fuster, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York. A subgroup analysis of the extended follow-up also suggested that the survival benefit from CABG, compared with PCI, was especially strong among patients at or below the study’s median age of 63 years. In the younger subgroup survival among patients treated with CABG was twice as good as it was among patients treated with PCI.
Dr. Fuster noted that few data have been previously reported for survival rates beyond 5 years after revascularization. “This was a difficult study. Following patients for more than 5 years is hard,” he said. Concurrently with his report at the meeting the results also appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.001).
The FREEDOM (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) trial enrolled patients at 140 participating centers during 2005-2010. A total of 25 sites agreed to participate in the extended follow-up and could track 943 patients, 50% of the starting cohort of 1,900 and 89% of the patients originally enrolled at these 25 centers. Dr. Fuster stressed that the 957 patients not included in the follow-up had not been lost, but rather had been managed at sites that declined to participate in this additional study.
Dr. Fuster acknowledged that methods and hardware for PCI have changed since the study ran a decade ago, as have options for medical management. He also highlighted that the long-term follow-up results had no data on rates of MIs and strokes.
FREEDOM had no commercial funding. Dr. Fuster reported no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Fuster V et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 18609.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: After 7.5 years, mortality in the full FREEDOM cohort was 18% after coronary artery bypass grafting and 24% after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Study details: An extended follow-up of 943 of patients enrolled in FREEDOM, a randomized, multicenter trial.
Disclosures: FREEDOM had no commercial funding. Dr. Fuster reported no relevant disclosures.
Source: Fuster V et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 18609.
Endoscopic vein-graft harvest equals open harvest at 3 years
CHICAGO – Patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous veins harvested endoscopically had similar clinical outcomes after nearly 3 years of follow-up as those seen with patients who received vein grafts taken by open harvesting in a multicenter, randomized trial in the United States with 1,150 patients.
As expected, follow-up also showed that endoscopic vein-graft harvesting (EVH) resulted in about half the number of wound infections as did open vein-graft harvesting (OVH). This combination of similar clinical outcomes after a median 2.8 years of follow-up, as well as fewer leg-wound adverse events, makes EVH “the preferred vein-harvesting modality,” Marco A. Zenati, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Although patients far and away prefer EVH because of the reduced pain and faster healing, questions about its clinical efficacy when compared with that of OVH have lingered. That’s because observational data published almost a decade ago taken from the PREVENT IV (Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV) trial suggested that patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using vein grafts collected by EVH had more vein-graft failures after 12-18 months and a higher rate of death, MI, or need for revascularization after 3 years, compared with patients treated using OVH (N Engl J Med. 2009 July 16;361[3]:235-44).
The results from the prospective, randomized trial reported by Dr. Zenati “take the cloud away from endovascular vein-graft harvesting that PREVENT IV had made,” commented Timothy J. Gardner, MD, a cardiac surgeon who chaired the session.
“I think this answers the question,” commented Marc Ruel, MD, a professor of surgery and the chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Ottawa. “The results show that endoscopic harvesting of vein grafts is as good as open harvesting for preventing major adverse cardiac events, which is the goal of CABG. This is a definitive trial, with no trend toward more events with endoscopic harvested vein grafts,” said Dr. Ruel, the designated discussant for Dr. Zenati’s report.
However, the study did have some significant limitations, Dr. Ruel added. The new, randomized trial, run at 16 U.S. VA cardiac surgery centers, exclusively used surgeons who were experts in endovascular vein harvesting, which could have meant that they and their surgical teams were not as expert in open vein harvesting, he said. Also, in the broader context of CABG and conduit selection, new evidence suggests the superiority of pedicled vein grafts (Ann Thoracic Surg. 2017 Oct;104[4]1313-17), and “we could also do better by using the radial artery” rather than a saphenous vein graft, Dr. Ruel said. He cited a meta-analysis published in 2018 that showed the superiority of CABG when it combined an internal thoracic artery graft with a radial artery graft rather than with a vein graft (N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378[22]:2069-77).
“The operation of the future is not necessarily what you saw” in Dr. Zenati’s study, Dr. Ruel cautioned.
The results Dr. Zenati reported came from the REGROUP (Randomized End-Vein Graft Prospective) trial, which enrolled patients who underwent CABG during 2014-2017. All patients received an internal thoracic artery graft and were randomized to receive additional saphenous vein grafts with the conduits collected either by the EVH or OVH method. The study’s primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or need for repeat revascularization after a median follow-up of 2.8 years occurred in 14% of the patients who received vein grafts with EVH and in 16% of the patients who received grafts with OVH, a difference that was not statistically significant, reported Dr. Zenati, a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the chief of cardiothoracic surgery for the VA Boston Health System. The incidence of wound infection was 3.1% in the OVH patients and 1.4% in the EVH patients, a difference that came close to but did not reach statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Zenati’s report, an article with the results appeared online (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 0.1056/NEJMoa1812390).
The REGROUP trial did not collect data on vein-graft patency following CABG. The investigators were concerned about having enough patients return for follow-up angiography to produce a meaningful result for this endpoint, and they believed that the clinical endpoint they used sufficed for demonstrating equivalence of the two harvesting methods, Dr. Zenati said during his talk.
“The more arterial conduit used in CABG, the better the durability of the grafts, but often surgeons use vein grafts because there is not enough arterial conduit,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.* “The recovery from endoscopic vein-graft harvesting is very different from open harvesting. Endoscopic harvesting produces much less pain and infection, and recovery is much easier for patients, so it’s reassuring to see that the quality of the vein is not affected by endoscopic harvesting when done by experts,” he said.
Dr. Zenati, Dr. Gardner, Dr. Ruel, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zenati M et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 19055.
*Correction, 11/12/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones.
This article was updated 11/14/18.
The results from the REGROUP trial are interesting and open the field for additional comparisons of endoscopic and open saphenous vein-graft harvesting, but this trial is not the definitive answer regarding whether these two harvesting approaches produce similar results. Greater reassurance of equivalence would come from studies that included more patients and a more diverse patient population; REGROUP largely enrolled male veterans and patients with multiple comorbidities. Longer follow-up is also needed. A median follow-up of 3 years is too brief for complete reassurance that long-term patency is the same with both approaches. It would also help to have follow-up data on graft patency. Many factors besides patency can lead to differences in clinical outcomes following coronary bypass surgery.
Endoscopic vein harvesting is preferred by patients, and it results in fewer wound infections, as was confirmed in REGROUP. Because of these advantages for endoscopic harvesting, it would be great if we could definitively document that these vein grafts functioned as well as those taken with open harvesting.
Evidence now suggests that the more arterial conduits used during coronary bypass, the better. If I were having triple-vessel bypass surgery, I’d want to get two thoracic-artery bypass grafts and a radial artery graft. But studies like REGROUP are important because a majority of heart surgeons use vein grafts for several reasons including convenience. Surgeons will likely continue to use vein grafts for the foreseeable future, so we need to know whether endoscopic harvesting is an acceptable approach.
Jennifer S. Lawton, MD , is a professor of surgery and chief of cardiac surgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
The results from the REGROUP trial are interesting and open the field for additional comparisons of endoscopic and open saphenous vein-graft harvesting, but this trial is not the definitive answer regarding whether these two harvesting approaches produce similar results. Greater reassurance of equivalence would come from studies that included more patients and a more diverse patient population; REGROUP largely enrolled male veterans and patients with multiple comorbidities. Longer follow-up is also needed. A median follow-up of 3 years is too brief for complete reassurance that long-term patency is the same with both approaches. It would also help to have follow-up data on graft patency. Many factors besides patency can lead to differences in clinical outcomes following coronary bypass surgery.
Endoscopic vein harvesting is preferred by patients, and it results in fewer wound infections, as was confirmed in REGROUP. Because of these advantages for endoscopic harvesting, it would be great if we could definitively document that these vein grafts functioned as well as those taken with open harvesting.
Evidence now suggests that the more arterial conduits used during coronary bypass, the better. If I were having triple-vessel bypass surgery, I’d want to get two thoracic-artery bypass grafts and a radial artery graft. But studies like REGROUP are important because a majority of heart surgeons use vein grafts for several reasons including convenience. Surgeons will likely continue to use vein grafts for the foreseeable future, so we need to know whether endoscopic harvesting is an acceptable approach.
Jennifer S. Lawton, MD , is a professor of surgery and chief of cardiac surgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
The results from the REGROUP trial are interesting and open the field for additional comparisons of endoscopic and open saphenous vein-graft harvesting, but this trial is not the definitive answer regarding whether these two harvesting approaches produce similar results. Greater reassurance of equivalence would come from studies that included more patients and a more diverse patient population; REGROUP largely enrolled male veterans and patients with multiple comorbidities. Longer follow-up is also needed. A median follow-up of 3 years is too brief for complete reassurance that long-term patency is the same with both approaches. It would also help to have follow-up data on graft patency. Many factors besides patency can lead to differences in clinical outcomes following coronary bypass surgery.
Endoscopic vein harvesting is preferred by patients, and it results in fewer wound infections, as was confirmed in REGROUP. Because of these advantages for endoscopic harvesting, it would be great if we could definitively document that these vein grafts functioned as well as those taken with open harvesting.
Evidence now suggests that the more arterial conduits used during coronary bypass, the better. If I were having triple-vessel bypass surgery, I’d want to get two thoracic-artery bypass grafts and a radial artery graft. But studies like REGROUP are important because a majority of heart surgeons use vein grafts for several reasons including convenience. Surgeons will likely continue to use vein grafts for the foreseeable future, so we need to know whether endoscopic harvesting is an acceptable approach.
Jennifer S. Lawton, MD , is a professor of surgery and chief of cardiac surgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
CHICAGO – Patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous veins harvested endoscopically had similar clinical outcomes after nearly 3 years of follow-up as those seen with patients who received vein grafts taken by open harvesting in a multicenter, randomized trial in the United States with 1,150 patients.
As expected, follow-up also showed that endoscopic vein-graft harvesting (EVH) resulted in about half the number of wound infections as did open vein-graft harvesting (OVH). This combination of similar clinical outcomes after a median 2.8 years of follow-up, as well as fewer leg-wound adverse events, makes EVH “the preferred vein-harvesting modality,” Marco A. Zenati, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Although patients far and away prefer EVH because of the reduced pain and faster healing, questions about its clinical efficacy when compared with that of OVH have lingered. That’s because observational data published almost a decade ago taken from the PREVENT IV (Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV) trial suggested that patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using vein grafts collected by EVH had more vein-graft failures after 12-18 months and a higher rate of death, MI, or need for revascularization after 3 years, compared with patients treated using OVH (N Engl J Med. 2009 July 16;361[3]:235-44).
The results from the prospective, randomized trial reported by Dr. Zenati “take the cloud away from endovascular vein-graft harvesting that PREVENT IV had made,” commented Timothy J. Gardner, MD, a cardiac surgeon who chaired the session.
“I think this answers the question,” commented Marc Ruel, MD, a professor of surgery and the chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Ottawa. “The results show that endoscopic harvesting of vein grafts is as good as open harvesting for preventing major adverse cardiac events, which is the goal of CABG. This is a definitive trial, with no trend toward more events with endoscopic harvested vein grafts,” said Dr. Ruel, the designated discussant for Dr. Zenati’s report.
However, the study did have some significant limitations, Dr. Ruel added. The new, randomized trial, run at 16 U.S. VA cardiac surgery centers, exclusively used surgeons who were experts in endovascular vein harvesting, which could have meant that they and their surgical teams were not as expert in open vein harvesting, he said. Also, in the broader context of CABG and conduit selection, new evidence suggests the superiority of pedicled vein grafts (Ann Thoracic Surg. 2017 Oct;104[4]1313-17), and “we could also do better by using the radial artery” rather than a saphenous vein graft, Dr. Ruel said. He cited a meta-analysis published in 2018 that showed the superiority of CABG when it combined an internal thoracic artery graft with a radial artery graft rather than with a vein graft (N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378[22]:2069-77).
“The operation of the future is not necessarily what you saw” in Dr. Zenati’s study, Dr. Ruel cautioned.
The results Dr. Zenati reported came from the REGROUP (Randomized End-Vein Graft Prospective) trial, which enrolled patients who underwent CABG during 2014-2017. All patients received an internal thoracic artery graft and were randomized to receive additional saphenous vein grafts with the conduits collected either by the EVH or OVH method. The study’s primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or need for repeat revascularization after a median follow-up of 2.8 years occurred in 14% of the patients who received vein grafts with EVH and in 16% of the patients who received grafts with OVH, a difference that was not statistically significant, reported Dr. Zenati, a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the chief of cardiothoracic surgery for the VA Boston Health System. The incidence of wound infection was 3.1% in the OVH patients and 1.4% in the EVH patients, a difference that came close to but did not reach statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Zenati’s report, an article with the results appeared online (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 0.1056/NEJMoa1812390).
The REGROUP trial did not collect data on vein-graft patency following CABG. The investigators were concerned about having enough patients return for follow-up angiography to produce a meaningful result for this endpoint, and they believed that the clinical endpoint they used sufficed for demonstrating equivalence of the two harvesting methods, Dr. Zenati said during his talk.
“The more arterial conduit used in CABG, the better the durability of the grafts, but often surgeons use vein grafts because there is not enough arterial conduit,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.* “The recovery from endoscopic vein-graft harvesting is very different from open harvesting. Endoscopic harvesting produces much less pain and infection, and recovery is much easier for patients, so it’s reassuring to see that the quality of the vein is not affected by endoscopic harvesting when done by experts,” he said.
Dr. Zenati, Dr. Gardner, Dr. Ruel, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zenati M et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 19055.
*Correction, 11/12/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones.
This article was updated 11/14/18.
CHICAGO – Patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous veins harvested endoscopically had similar clinical outcomes after nearly 3 years of follow-up as those seen with patients who received vein grafts taken by open harvesting in a multicenter, randomized trial in the United States with 1,150 patients.
As expected, follow-up also showed that endoscopic vein-graft harvesting (EVH) resulted in about half the number of wound infections as did open vein-graft harvesting (OVH). This combination of similar clinical outcomes after a median 2.8 years of follow-up, as well as fewer leg-wound adverse events, makes EVH “the preferred vein-harvesting modality,” Marco A. Zenati, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Although patients far and away prefer EVH because of the reduced pain and faster healing, questions about its clinical efficacy when compared with that of OVH have lingered. That’s because observational data published almost a decade ago taken from the PREVENT IV (Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV) trial suggested that patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using vein grafts collected by EVH had more vein-graft failures after 12-18 months and a higher rate of death, MI, or need for revascularization after 3 years, compared with patients treated using OVH (N Engl J Med. 2009 July 16;361[3]:235-44).
The results from the prospective, randomized trial reported by Dr. Zenati “take the cloud away from endovascular vein-graft harvesting that PREVENT IV had made,” commented Timothy J. Gardner, MD, a cardiac surgeon who chaired the session.
“I think this answers the question,” commented Marc Ruel, MD, a professor of surgery and the chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Ottawa. “The results show that endoscopic harvesting of vein grafts is as good as open harvesting for preventing major adverse cardiac events, which is the goal of CABG. This is a definitive trial, with no trend toward more events with endoscopic harvested vein grafts,” said Dr. Ruel, the designated discussant for Dr. Zenati’s report.
However, the study did have some significant limitations, Dr. Ruel added. The new, randomized trial, run at 16 U.S. VA cardiac surgery centers, exclusively used surgeons who were experts in endovascular vein harvesting, which could have meant that they and their surgical teams were not as expert in open vein harvesting, he said. Also, in the broader context of CABG and conduit selection, new evidence suggests the superiority of pedicled vein grafts (Ann Thoracic Surg. 2017 Oct;104[4]1313-17), and “we could also do better by using the radial artery” rather than a saphenous vein graft, Dr. Ruel said. He cited a meta-analysis published in 2018 that showed the superiority of CABG when it combined an internal thoracic artery graft with a radial artery graft rather than with a vein graft (N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378[22]:2069-77).
“The operation of the future is not necessarily what you saw” in Dr. Zenati’s study, Dr. Ruel cautioned.
The results Dr. Zenati reported came from the REGROUP (Randomized End-Vein Graft Prospective) trial, which enrolled patients who underwent CABG during 2014-2017. All patients received an internal thoracic artery graft and were randomized to receive additional saphenous vein grafts with the conduits collected either by the EVH or OVH method. The study’s primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or need for repeat revascularization after a median follow-up of 2.8 years occurred in 14% of the patients who received vein grafts with EVH and in 16% of the patients who received grafts with OVH, a difference that was not statistically significant, reported Dr. Zenati, a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the chief of cardiothoracic surgery for the VA Boston Health System. The incidence of wound infection was 3.1% in the OVH patients and 1.4% in the EVH patients, a difference that came close to but did not reach statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Zenati’s report, an article with the results appeared online (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 0.1056/NEJMoa1812390).
The REGROUP trial did not collect data on vein-graft patency following CABG. The investigators were concerned about having enough patients return for follow-up angiography to produce a meaningful result for this endpoint, and they believed that the clinical endpoint they used sufficed for demonstrating equivalence of the two harvesting methods, Dr. Zenati said during his talk.
“The more arterial conduit used in CABG, the better the durability of the grafts, but often surgeons use vein grafts because there is not enough arterial conduit,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.* “The recovery from endoscopic vein-graft harvesting is very different from open harvesting. Endoscopic harvesting produces much less pain and infection, and recovery is much easier for patients, so it’s reassuring to see that the quality of the vein is not affected by endoscopic harvesting when done by experts,” he said.
Dr. Zenati, Dr. Gardner, Dr. Ruel, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zenati M et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 19055.
*Correction, 11/12/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones.
This article was updated 11/14/18.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSION
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Clinical events occurred in 16% of open-harvest vein-graft patients and in 14% who received endoscopically harvested veins.
Study details: REGROUP, a multicenter, randomized trial with 1,150 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Zenati, Dr. Gardner, Dr. Ruel, and Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
Source: Zenati M et al. AHA 2018, Abstract 19055.