ABSTRACT
The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..
Subject(s)
Consensus , Hemorrhage , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Humans , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects , Risk Factors , Hemorrhage/etiology , Risk Assessment , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Aortic Valve/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P=0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P=0.62 and P=0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.). (AU)
