Chocolate Touch Versus Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon for Femoropopliteal Lesions in Diabetes: The Chocolate Touch Study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated that in patients undergoing treatment of femoropopliteal artery lesions, the Chocolate Touch drug-coated balloon (DCB) was safe and had superior efficacy at 12 months compared with the Lutonix DCB. We report the prespecified diabetes subanalysis comparing outcomes among patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) were randomized to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB. The primary efficacy endpoint was DCB success defined as primary patency at 12 months (peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 by duplex ultrasound without clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the absence of bailout stenting). The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major adverse events at 12 months, a composite of target limb-related death, major amputation, or reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients (38% DM [n=119]) were randomized to either Chocolate Touch (n=66/152) or Lutonix DCB (n=53/161). Among patients with DM, DCB success was 77.2% and 60.5% (p=0.08), and in non-DM patients, DCB success was 80% and 71.3% (p=0.2114) for the Chocolate Touch and Lutonix DCB, respectively. The primary safety endpoint was similar for both cohorts regardless of DM status (interaction test, p=0.96). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial demonstrated similar safety and efficacy for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease with the Chocolate Touch DCB compared with using the Lutonix DCB regardless of DM status at 12 months. CLINICAL IMPACT: This substudy of the Chocolate Touch Study demonstrated similar safety and efficacy for treatment of femoropopliteal disease of the Chocolate Touch DCB compared with the Lutonix DCB regardless of diabetes (DM) status at 12 months. Endovascular therapy has become the therapy of choice for the treatment of most symptomatic femoropopliteal lesions regardless of DM status. These results give clinicians another option when treating femoropopliteal disease in this high-risk patient population.

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for High-Risk PCI: A Propensity-Adjusted Large-Scale Claims Dataset Analysis.

Impella was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for use during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs); however, its safety and efficacy compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has not been evaluated in contemporary practice and remains debated. We aimed to compare postapproval outcomes and costs of Impella versus IABP support for high-risk PCI in real-world practice across hospitals in the United States. We identified patients from the Premier Healthcare Database undergoing nonemergent Impella- or IABP-supported high-risk PCI. We used propensity adjustment to control baseline, procedure, and post-PCI medical treatment differences between treatment groups. We included patients undergoing nonemergent single-PCI procedures with either Impella or IABP support and excluded patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock or requiring >1 mechanical support devices during index hospitalization. Outcomes included in-hospital survival, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, index hospitalization length of stay, and costs. From April 2016 to June 2019, a total of 48,179 patients were treated with Impella or IABP mechanical circulatory support at 304 hospitals in the United States. Among these, we identified 2,156 patients undergoing nonemergent high-risk PCI treated with Impella (n = 1,447) or IABP (n = 709). After propensity adjustment, Impella use was associated with improved survival (odds ratio [OR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 2.36) and less MI (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46) and cardiogenic shock (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.74). Stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion, and acute kidney injury were similar between groups. In conclusion, this Premier Healthcare Database propensity-adjusted analysis, Impella use during nonemergent high-risk PCI was associated with improved survival and reduced in-hospital MI and cardiogenic shock compared with IABP.

Randomized Trial of Chocolate Touch Compared With Lutonix Drug-Coated Balloon in Femoropopliteal Lesions (Chocolate Touch Study).

BACKGROUND: First-generation drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have significantly reduced the rate of restenosis compared with balloon angioplasty alone; however, high rates of bailout stenting and dissections persist. The Chocolate Touch DCB is a nitinol constrained balloon designed to reduce acute vessel trauma and inhibit neointima formation and restenosis. METHODS: Patients with claudication or ischemic rest pain (Rutherford class 2-4) and superficial femoral or popliteal disease (≥70% stenosis) were randomized 1:1 to Chocolate Touch or Lutonix DCB at 34 sites in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand. The primary efficacy end point was DCB success, defined as primary patency at 12 months (peak systolic velocity ratio <2.4 by duplex ultrasound without clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the absence of clinically driven bailout stenting). The primary safety end point was freedom from major adverse events at 12 months, a composite of target limb-related death, major amputation, or reintervention. Both primary end points were tested for noninferiority, and if met, sequential superiority testing for efficacy followed by safety was prespecified. An independent clinical events committee, and angiographic and duplex ultrasound core laboratories blinded to treatment allocation reviewed all end points. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were randomized to Chocolate Touch (n=152) versus Lutonix DCB (n=161). Follow-up at 1 year was available in 94% of patients. The mean age was 69.4±9.5 years, the average lesion length was 78.1±46.9 mm, and 46.2% had moderate-to-severe calcification. The primary efficacy rates of DCB success at 12 months was 78.8% (108/137) with Chocolate Touch and 67.7% (88/130) with Lutonix DCB (difference, 11.1% [95% CI, 0.6-21.7]), meeting noninferiority (Pnoninferiority<0.0001) and sequential superiority (Psuperiority=0.04). The primary safety event rate was 88.9% (128/144) with Chocolate Touch and 84.6% (126/149) with Lutonix DCB (Pnoninferiority<0.001; Psuperiority=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, the second-generation Chocolate Touch DCB met both noninferiority end points for efficacy and safety and was more effective than Lutonix DCB at 12 months for the treatment of femoropopliteal disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924857.

Novel Supreme Drug-Eluting Stents With Early Synchronized Antiproliferative Drug Delivery to Inhibit Smooth Muscle Cell Proliferation After Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation in Coronary Artery Disease: Results of the PIONEER III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated endothelial healing after targeted antiproliferative drug delivery may limit the long-term inflammatory response of drug-eluting stents (DESs). The novel Supreme DES is designed to synchronize early drug delivery within 4 to 6 weeks of implantation, leaving behind a prohealing permanent base layer. Whether the Supreme DES is safe and effective in the short term and can improve long-term clinical outcomes is not known. METHODS: In an international, 2:1 randomized, single-blind trial, we compared treatment with Supreme DES to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. The primary end point was target lesion failure-a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 3.58%) of the Supreme DES at 12 months compared with DP-EES (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776). RESULTS: From October 2017 to July 2019, a total of 1629 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Supreme DES (N=1086) or DP-EES (N=543). At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 57 of 1057 patients (5.4%) in the Supreme DES group and in 27 of 532 patients (5.1%) in the DP-EES group (absolute risk difference, 0.32% [95% CI, -1.87 to 2.5]; Pnoninferiority=0.002]. There were no significant differences in rates of device success, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months, and the safety composite of cardiovascular death and target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.5% versus 4.6% (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.46-1.25]) with Supreme DES compared with DP-EES, although rates of combined clinically and non-clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were higher with Supreme DES. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the Supreme DES proved to be noninferior to the standard DP-EES. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776.

Proposed Standardized Neurological Endpoints for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: An Academic Research Consortium Initiative.

Surgical and catheter-based cardiovascular procedures and adjunctive pharmacology have an inherent risk of neurological complications. The current diversity of neurological endpoint definitions and ascertainment methods in clinical trials has led to uncertainties in the neurological risk attributable to cardiovascular procedures and inconsistent evaluation of therapies intended to prevent or mitigate neurological injury. Benefit-risk assessment of such procedures should be on the basis of an evaluation of well-defined neurological outcomes that are ascertained with consistent methods and capture the full spectrum of neurovascular injury and its clinical effect. The Neurologic Academic Research Consortium is an international collaboration intended to establish consensus on the definition, classification, and assessment of neurological endpoints applicable to clinical trials of a broad range of cardiovascular interventions. Systematic application of the proposed definitions and assessments will improve our ability to evaluate the risks of cardiovascular procedures and the safety and effectiveness of preventive therapies.

Proposed Standardized Neurological Endpoints for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: An Academic Research Consortium Initiative.

Surgical and catheter-based cardiovascular procedures and adjunctive pharmacology have an inherent risk of neurological complications. The current diversity of neurological endpoint definitions and ascertainment methods in clinical trials has led to uncertainties in the neurological risk attributable to cardiovascular procedures and inconsistent evaluation of therapies intended to prevent or mitigate neurological injury. Benefit-risk assessment of such procedures should be on the basis of an evaluation of well-defined neurological outcomes that are ascertained with consistent methods and capture the full spectrum of neurovascular injury and its clinical effect. The Neurologic Academic Research Consortium is an international collaboration intended to establish consensus on the definition, classification, and assessment of neurological endpoints applicable to clinical trials of a broad range of cardiovascular interventions. Systematic application of the proposed definitions and assessments will improve our ability to evaluate the risks of cardiovascular procedures and the safety and effectiveness of preventive therapies.

Neurologic Complications of Unprotected Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Neuro-TAVI Trial).

Cerebral embolization during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can lead to a spectrum of clinically relevant manifestations, ranging from overt stroke to mild neurologic or cognitive deficits and subclinical cerebral infarcts. This study sought to determine the frequency of neurologic injury, cerebral ischemic lesions, and cognitive dysfunction in subjects undergoing contemporary commercial TAVI in the United States. Neuro-TAVR is the first prospective, multicenter study to use serial systematic neurologic and cognitive assessments and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (at 4 ± 2 days after procedure) to investigate the incidence and severity of neurologic injury after contemporary unprotected TAVI in the United States. A total of 44 consecutive patients underwent TAVI at 5 US sites. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging lesions were detected in 94%, with a mean of 10.4 ± 15.3 lesions per subject and a median total lesion volume of 295 mm3 (interquartile range 71.6 to 799.6 mm3). New neurologic impairment (worsening in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score from baseline with new cerebral lesions) occurred in 22.6% (7 of 31) of subjects at discharge and 14.8% (4 of 27) at 30 days. In addition, cognitive decrements from baseline were identified by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in 33% (12 of 36) of subjects at discharge and 41% (13 of 32) at 30 days. In conclusion, this contemporary cohort of US patients confirms that TAVI results in cerebral infarction in most patients and that 1 in 5 patients have measurable neurologic impairment and 1 in 3 patients have decrease in cognitive measures by Montreal Cognitive Assessment score after TAVI, reinforcing the need for methods to mitigate the risk of brain injury during TAVI.

The TriGuard embolic deflection device for prevention of stroke and cerebral embolization during transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The incidence of embolic ischemic cerebral events during transcatheter aortic valve implantation remains high. The effects range from clinically silent embolic lesions in the brain to severe disabling stroke. Memory loss and other functional neurocognitive impairment are a direct result of embolic strokes. The TriGuard embolic deflection device is a nitinol frame filter that is placed across all three aortic cerebral vessel ostia to prevent particles from entering the brain circulation during the procedure. The results of clinical studies suggest that this procedure can lead to a reduction of embolic events, and an improvement of neurocognitive function when compared with unprotected transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

A prospective randomized evaluation of the TriGuard™ HDH embolic DEFLECTion device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from the DEFLECT III trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and performance of the TriGuard™ HDH Embolic Deflection Device (TriGuard) compared with no cerebral protection in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS AND RESULTS: From February 2014 to March 2015, 85 subjects undergoing TAVI at 13 centres in Europe and Israel were randomized to TriGuard protection vs. no protection. Subjects underwent neurologic and cognitive evaluation at baseline, pre-discharge and 30 days; cerebral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 4 ± 2 days post-procedure and at 30 days. Technical success, which included complete 3-vessel cerebral coverage, was achieved in 88.9% (40/45) of cases. The primary in-hospital procedural safety endpoint (death, stroke, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury, or major vascular complications) occurred in 21.7% of TriGuard and 30.8% of control subjects (P = 0.34). In the Per Treatment population (subjects with complete three-vessel cerebral coverage), TriGuard use was associated with greater freedom from new ischaemic brain lesions (26.9 vs. 11.5%), fewer new neurologic deficits detected by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (3.1 vs. 15.4%), improved Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, better performance on a delayed memory task (P = 0.028) at discharge, and a >2-fold increase in recovery of normal cognitive function (MoCA score >26) at 30 days. CONCLUSION: TriGuard cerebral protection during TAVI is safe and complete cerebral vessel coverage was achieved in 89% of subjects. In this exploratory study, subjects undergoing protected TAVI had more freedom from ischaemic brain lesions, fewer neurologic deficits, and improved cognitive function in some domains at discharge and 30 days compared with controls.

Safety and performance of a novel embolic deflection device in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the DEFLECT I study.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and performance of the TriGuard™ Embolic Deflection Device (EDD), a nitinol mesh filter positioned in the aortic arch across all three major cerebral artery take-offs to deflect emboli away from the cerebral circulation, in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The prospective, multicentre DEFLECT I study (NCT01448421) enrolled 37 consecutive subjects undergoing TAVR with the TriGuard EDD. Subjects underwent clinical and cognitive follow-up to 30 days; cerebral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) was performed pre-procedure and at 4±2 days post procedure. The device performed as intended with successful cerebral coverage in 80% (28/35) of cases. The primary safety endpoint (in-hospital EDD device- or EDD procedure-related cardiovascular mortality, major stroke disability, life-threatening bleeding, distal embolisation, major vascular complications, or need for acute cardiac surgery) occurred in 8.1% of subjects (VARC-defined two life-threatening bleeds and one vascular complication). The presence of new cerebral ischaemic lesions on post-procedure DW-MRI (n=28) was similar to historical controls (82% vs. 76%, p=NS). However, an exploratory analysis found that per-patient total lesion volume was 34% lower than reported historical data (0.2 vs. 0.3 cm3), and 89% lower in patients with complete (n=17) versus incomplete (n=10) cerebral vessel coverage (0.05 vs. 0.45 cm3, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the first-generation TriGuard EDD during TAVR is safe, and device performance was successful in 80% of cases during the highest embolic-risk portions of the TAVR procedure. The potential of the TriGuard EDD to reduce total cerebral ischaemic burden merits further randomised investigation.

Local delivery of paclitaxel in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite advancements from balloon angioplasty to drug-eluting stents, primary patency rates after endovascular revascularization of peripheral artery disease have remained inferior compared to surgery. Endovascular revascularization has been limited by restenosis and mechanical stent failure. Thus, there is increased research into other nonstent-based local drug delivery modalities, which can provide an active drug to inhibit restenosis focally and avoid the risk of systemic adverse effects. METHODS: This review will summarize the unique properties of paclitaxel and studies on paclitaxel local delivery for the treatment of peripheral artery disease. A MEDLINE search for relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature published in English was conducted. Search terms included but were not limited to paclitaxel pharmacodynamics, paclitaxel local drug delivery, and drug eluting balloons, with a focus on the use of paclitaxel in the context of coronary and peripheral vascular disease. RESULTS: The primary search produced 182 results of which 51 papers were relevant. Of the 51 relevant papers, 27 were original research papers and 24 were either review papers, commentary or opinion papers. CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel has several chemical properties, which make it ideal for local drug delivery including its hydrophobicity, ability to concentrate into the arterial intima layer and prolonged effect on cells even after brief exposure periods. Local delivery of paclitaxel via injection catheters, balloon catheters and coated balloons has shown encouraging results in terms of efficacy and safety in small-scale animal and clinical studies. Additional preclinical and clinical studies are needed to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of these treatments in humans.

Prognostic value of angiographic lesion complexity in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (from the acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy trial).

Although lesion complexity is predictive of outcomes after balloon angioplasty, it is unclear whether complex lesions continue to portend a worse prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary interventional therapies. We sought to assess the impact of angiographic lesion complexity, defined by the modified American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification, on clinical outcomes after PCI in patients with ACS and to determine whether an interaction exists between lesion complexity and antithrombin regimen outcomes after PCI. Among the 3,661 patients who underwent PCI in the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy study, patients with type C lesions (n = 1,654 [45%]) had higher 30-day rates of mortality (1.2% vs 0.6%, p = 0.049), myocardial infarction (9.2% vs 6.3%, p = 0.0006), and unplanned revascularization (4.3% vs 3.1%, p = 0.04) compared with those without type C lesions. In multivariate analysis, type C lesions were independently associated with myocardial infarction (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.37 [1.04 to 1.80], p = 0.02) and composite ischemia (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.49 [1.17 to 1.88], p = 0.001) at 30 days. Bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor reduced major bleeding complications with similar rates of composite ischemic events, regardless of the presence of type C lesions. There were no interactions between antithrombotic regimens and lesion complexity in terms of composite ischemia and major bleeding (p [interaction] = 0.91 and 0.80, respectively). In conclusion, patients with ACS with type C lesion characteristics undergoing PCI have an adverse short-term prognosis. Treatment with bivalirudin monotherapy reduces major hemorrhagic complications irrespective of lesion complexity with comparable suppression of adverse ischemic events as heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor.

Comparison between ticlopidine and clopidogrel in patients undergoing primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: results from the CADILLAC trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to examine whether clopidogrel and ticlopidine treatments produce similar clinical outcomes for patients receiving primary stenting for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Prior studies have yielded conflicting results on the relative safety and efficacy of clopidogrel and ticlopidine after stent implantation, warranting an evaluation in primary stenting for AMI. METHODS: In the multicenter, prospective CADILLAC trial, patients undergoing primary infarct stenting were treated at operator discretion with either ticlopidine (931 patients) or clopidogrel (163 patients) and then followed for 1 year. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable except for baseline TIMI 0/1 flow (72.5% clopidogrel vs. 63.9% ticlopidine, P = 0.04). RESULTS: Patients receiving clopidogrel had more recurrent ischemia in hospital (6.1 vs. 2.8%, P = 0.02) and at 30 days (10.5 vs. 5.8%, P = 0.02), more moderate and severe bleeding at 30 days (7.4 vs. 2.7%, P = 0.002), and similar rates of stent thrombosis out to 1 year (P = 0.11). By multivariable analysis, clopidogrel use was an independent predictor for recurrent ischemia in hospital (P = 0.0002), and at 30 days (P = 0.012); and of moderate and severe bleeding in hospital (P = 0.002), and at 30 days (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite thienopyridines similarities, their efficacy may be different within the first 30 days of primary stenting for AMI. A prospective, randomized trial is required to confirm these findings.

Effect of everolimus-eluting stents in different vessel sizes (from the pooled FUTURE I and II trials).

The everolimus-eluting stent (EES) has been shown to significantly decrease neointimal proliferation at 6 months compared with the bare metal stent (BMS) in patients with de novo coronary lesions. We report mid-term outcomes based on different vessel sizes in the combined FUTURE I and II trials. In the prospective, randomized, FUTURE I trial (single center) and expanded FUTURE II trial (multicenter), 106 patients (107 lesions) were randomized to EESs (n = 49 lesions) or BMSs (n = 58 lesions). Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on preprocedure reference diameter as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (small vessel < 2.75 mm, medium vessel 2.75 to 3.25 mm, and large vessel > 3.25 mm). At 6-month follow-up, EESs decreased in-stent late lumen loss (decreased rate range of 78% to 94%), resulting in significantly larger minimum lumen area as assessed by intravascular ultrasound (increased range of 34% to 42%) compared with the BMS across all vessel sizes. There were no cases of in-stent restenosis with EESs at any vessel size but 8 cases with BMSs (5 in small vessels). No stent thrombosis, aneurysm formation, or late stent incomplete apposition was observed in any group. The EES appears to be effective for treatment of de novo coronary lesions in decreasing neointimal proliferation at 6-month follow-up compared with BMSs, regardless of vessel size.