Impact of Periprocedural Myocardial Biomarker Elevation on Mortality Following Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the association between biomarker elevation, with creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) or cardiac troponin (cTn), following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and mortality in patients undergoing PCI for stable angina with normal baseline values. BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown a strong association between post-PCI CK-MB elevation and subsequent mortality. However, the prognostic significance of troponin elevation following coronary intervention is still debated. METHODS: Patient-level data from 5 contemporary coronary stent trials and 1 large registry were pooled. Mortality of patients with stable angina, with normal baseline biomarkers, was compared between patients with and those without different cutoff values of cTn and CK-MB. RESULTS: A total of 13,452 patients were included in this pooled analysis. The overall percentage of patients with elevated biomarkers following PCI was 23.9% for CK-MB and 68.4% for cTn. In the patient cohort for whom both assays were available (n = 8,859), 2.4% had both CK-MB ≥5 × the upper limit of normal (ULN) and cTn ≥35 × ULN, while 92% had both CK-MB <5 × ULN and cTn <35 × ULN. Among patients with CK-MB ≥5 × ULN (n = 315), 212 (67.3%) also had cTn ≥35 × ULN. Conversely, 390 of patients (64.8%) who had cTn ≥35 × ULN did not have CK-MB ≥5 × ULN. A total of 259 patients (1.9%) died at 1 year; 20 (7.7%) had CK-MB ≥5 × ULN, and 23 (8.8%) had cTn ≥35 × ULN. In the Cox multivariate analysis, in which the CK-MB and cTn ratios post-procedure were forced into the model, age, prior myocardial infarction, lesion complexity, hyperlipidemia, and CK-MB ratio (≥10) post-procedure were associated with increased 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Following elective PCI in patients in stable condition treated with second-generation drug-eluting stent, CK-MB and cTn elevations remain common. After multivariate adjustment, there was an increased mortality rate with elevation of CK-MB after PCI, whereas cTn elevation was not independently associated with mortality at 1 year.

Does Large Vessel Size Justify Use of Bare-Metal Stents in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) showed improved efficacy and safety compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and international guidelines recommend their use as first line treatment. Yet, BMS are still widely used in practice, especially in large coronary vessels. We aimed to compare efficacy and safety of second-generation DES over BMS in large coronary culprit ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction lesions. METHODS: We evaluated impact of large coronary stents (maximum size ≥3.50 mm) or smaller stents (<3.50 mm), among 1498 patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, randomly allocated to everolimus-eluting DES or to an equivalent BMS platform in the EXAMINATION trial (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial). Clinical events up to 5 years of follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: Large coronary stents were used in 683 patients (45.9%). At 5-year follow-up, the crude rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization, was similar among patients treated with large or smaller coronary stents. The impact of DES versus BMS implantation was consistent irrespective of the stent size both for the primary end point (Pint=0.82) and other secondary ischemic end points. Within patients treated with bigger stents, DES implantation was associated to a trend toward a reduction of target lesion (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27-1.02; P=0.05) and target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.03; P=0.066). CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support the preferential use of BMS for patients with large coronary vessels. DES may warrant improved efficacy irrespective of stent size among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00828087.

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC)

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.(AU)

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC).

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.

Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesised that ticagrelor, in combination with aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor alone, improves outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared with standard antiplatelet regimens. METHODS: GLOBAL LEADERS was a randomised, open-label superiority trial at 130 sites in 18 countries. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a biolimus A9-eluting stent for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned (1:1) to 75-100 mg aspirin daily plus 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily for 1 month, followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy, or standard dual antiplatelet therapy with 75-100 mg aspirin daily plus either 75 mg clopidogrel daily (for patients with stable coronary artery disease) or 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily (for patients with acute coronary syndromes) for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months. Randomisation was concealed, stratified by centre and clinical presentation (stable coronary artery disease vs acute coronary syndrome), and blocked, with randomly varied block sizes of two and four. The primary endpoint at 2 years was a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction as assessed by a core lab in a blinded manner. The key secondary safety endpoint was site-reported bleeding assessed according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria (grade 3 or 5). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01813435, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2013, and Nov 9, 2015, 15 968 participants were randomly assigned, 7980 to the experimental group and 7988 to the control group. At 2 years, 304 (3·81%) participants in the experimental group had died or had a non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction, compared with 349 (4·37%) participants in the control group (rate ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·75-1·01]; p=0·073]). There was no evidence for a difference in treatment effects for the primary endpoint across prespecified subgroups of acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease (p=0·93). Grade 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 163 participants in the experimental group and 169 in the control group (2·04% vs 2·12%; rate ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·78-1·20]; p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: Ticagrelor in combination with aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor alone for 23 months was not superior to 12 months of standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by 12 months of aspirin alone in the prevention of all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention. FUNDING: AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and The Medicines Company.

Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document.

The Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-2 initiative revisited the clinical and angiographic end point definitions in coronary device trials, proposed in 2007, to make them more suitable for use in clinical trials that include increasingly complex lesion and patient populations and incorporate novel devices such as bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. In addition, recommendations for the incorporation of patient-related outcomes in clinical trials are proposed. Academic Research Consortium-2 is a collaborative effort between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe, device manufacturers, and European, US, and Asian regulatory bodies. Several in-person meetings were held to discuss the changes that have occurred in the device landscape and in clinical trials and regulatory pathways in the last decade. The consensus-based end point definitions in this document are endorsed by the stakeholders of this document and strongly advocated for clinical trial purposes. This Academic Research Consortium-2 document provides further standardization of end point definitions for coronary device trials, incorporating advances in technology and knowledge. Their use will aid interpretation of trial outcomes and comparison among studies, thus facilitating the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of these devices.

Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document.

The Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-2 initiative revisited the clinical and angiographic end point definitions in coronary device trials, proposed in 2007, to make them more suitable for use in clinical trials that include increasingly complex lesion and patient populations and incorporate novel devices such as bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. In addition, recommendations for the incorporation of patient-related outcomes in clinical trials are proposed. Academic Research Consortium-2 is a collaborative effort between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe, device manufacturers, and European, US, and Asian regulatory bodies. Several in-person meetings were held to discuss the changes that have occurred in the device landscape and in clinical trials and regulatory pathways in the last decade. The consensus-based end point definitions in this document are endorsed by the stakeholders of this document and strongly advocated for clinical trial purposes. This Academic Research Consortium-2 document provides further standardization of end point definitions for coronary device trials, incorporating advances in technology and knowledge. Their use will aid interpretation of trial outcomes and comparison among studies, thus facilitating the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of these devices.

Comparison of valve performance of the mechanically expanding Lotus and the balloon-expanded SAPIEN3 transcatheter heart valves: an observational study with independent core laboratory analysis.

Aims: The Lotus and SAPIEN3 are second-generation transcatheter heart valves, which are designed to minimize paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We sought to compare both devices for valve performance and with emphasis on PAR by independent core laboratory analysis. Methods and results: A total of 162 (79 Lotus and 83 SAPIEN3) consecutive patients (51% female, 80 ± 8 years, Logistic EuroSCORE 14.8 ± 9.4%) who underwent TAVR because of aortic stenosis were included. Patients with aortic valve-in-valve treatment were excluded. Pre-discharge echocardiograms were analysed by an independent core laboratory using the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria. There were no differences in baseline and procedural characteristics, except for a larger aortic annulus and sizing indices in SAPIEN3-treated patients and frequency of post-dilatation (0% in Lotus and 13.1% in SAPIEN3). Both valves have similar mean residual gradient, indexed effective orifice area and Doppler velocity index when adjusted to valve size. The frequency of mild (13.9% vs. 31.3%) and at least moderate (1.3% vs. 3.6%) PAR was less after Lotus than after SAPIEN3 implantation (P = 0.02). Multi-slice computed tomography-based annulus and left ventricular outflow tract diameters, calcification and percentage of oversizing were not different between those with or without mild or more PAR. On multivariate analysis, the use of Lotus valve was associated with less (odds ratio OR, 0.41, P = 0.03) occurrence of PAR. Conclusion: Overall, haemodynamic performance was comparable between the Lotus and SAPIEN3 valves. Lotus valve required less oversizing and was associated with less PAR than SAPIEN3.

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.

Quality-of-Life After Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left-Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial.

BACKGROUND: The EXCEL (Evaluation of Xience Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial compared outcomes in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using everolimus-eluting stents. Whereas rates of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction were similar at 36 months, event timing and repeat revascularization rates differed by treatment group. OBJECTIVES: To understand the effects of revascularization strategy from the patient's perspective, a prospective quality of life (QoL) substudy was performed alongside the EXCEL trial. METHODS: Between September 2010 and March 2014, 1,905 patients with LMCAD were randomized to undergo CABG or PCI, of whom 1,788 participated in the QoL substudy. QoL was assessed at baseline and 1, 12, and 36 months using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, the Rose Dyspnea Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-8, and the EQ-5D. Differences between PCI and CABG were assessed using longitudinal random-effect growth curve models. RESULTS: Over 36 months, both PCI and CABG were associated with significant improvements in QoL compared with baseline. At 1 month, PCI was associated with better QoL than CABG. By 12 months though, these differences were largely attenuated, and by 36 months, there were no significant QoL differences between PCI and CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Among selected patients with LMCAD, both PCI and CABG result in similar QoL improvement through 36 months, although a greater early benefit is seen with PCI. Taken together with the 3-year clinical results of EXCEL, these findings suggest that PCI and CABG provide similar intermediate-term outcomes for patients with LMCAD. (Evaluation of Xience Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).

Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three vessel disease: 1-year results of the SYNTAX II study.

Aims: To investigate if recent technical and procedural developments in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly influence outcomes in appropriately selected patients with three-vessel (3VD) coronary artery disease. Methods and results: The SYNTAX II study is a multicenter, all-comers, open-label, single arm study that investigated the impact of a contemporary PCI strategy on clinical outcomes in patients with 3VD in 22 centres from four European countries. The SYNTAX-II strategy includes: heart team decision-making utilizing the SYNTAX Score II (a clinical tool combining anatomical and clinical factors), coronary physiology guided revascularisation, implantation of thin strut bioresorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided stent implantation, contemporary chronic total occlusion revascularisation techniques and guideline-directed medical therapy. The rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE [composite of all-cause death, cerebrovascular event, any myocardial infarction and any revascularisation]) at one year was compared to a predefined PCI cohort from the original SYNTAX-I trial selected on the basis of equipoise 4-year mortality between CABG and PCI. As an exploratory endpoint, comparisons were made with the historical CABG cohort of the original SYNTAX-I trial. Overall 708 patients were screened and discussed within the heart team; 454 patients were deemed appropriate to undergo PCI. At one year, the SYNTAX-II strategy was superior to the equipoise-derived SYNTAX-I PCI cohort (MACCE SYNTAX-II 10.6% vs. SYNTAX-I 17.4%; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.85, P = 0.006). This difference was driven by a significant reduction in the incidence of MI (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.70, P = 0.007) and revascularisation (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.9, P = 0.015). Rates of all-cause death (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27-1.73, P = 0.43) and stroke (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.10-4.89, P = 0.71) were similar. The rate of definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower in SYNTAX-II (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.97, P = 0.045). Conclusion: At one year, clinical outcomes with the SYNTAX-II strategy were associated with improved clinical results compared to the PCI performed in comparable patients from the original SYNTAX-I trial. Longer term follow-up is awaited and a randomized clinical trial with contemporary CABG is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015832.

Effect of Post-Dilatation Following Primary PCI With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent Implantation: An Angiographic and Optical Coherence Tomography TROFI II Substudy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the effect of post-dilatation on angiographic and intracoronary imaging parameters in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention comparing the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES). BACKGROUND: Routine post-dilatation of BRS has been suggested to improve post-procedural angiographic and subsequent device-related clinical outcomes. METHODS: In the ABSORB STEMI TROFI II trial, 191 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to treatment with BRS (n = 95) or EES (n = 96). Minimal lumen area and healing score as assessed by optical coherence tomography at 6 months were compared between BRS- and EES-treated patients stratified according to post-dilatation status. RESULTS: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with post-dilatation was performed in 48 (50.5%) BRS- and 25 (25.5%) EES-treated lesions. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and post-procedural minimal lumen diameter between groups. In the BRS group, lesions with post-dilatation were associated with a trend toward a smaller minimal lumen area at 6 months (5.07 ± 1.68 mm2 vs. 5.72 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.09) and significantly larger angiographic late lumen loss (0.28 ± 0.34 mm vs. 0.12 ± 0.25 mm; p = 0.02), whereas no difference was observed in the EES arm (5.46 ± 2.18 mm2 vs. 5.55 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.85). The neointimal healing score was low and comparable between groups with and without post-dilation (BRS: 1.55 ± 2.61 vs. 1.92 ± 2.17; p = 0.48; EES: 2.50 ± 3.33 vs. 2.90 ± 4.80; p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of selected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with BRS or EES, post-dilatation did not translate into larger lumen area or improved arterial healing at follow-up. (ABSORB STEMI: The TROFI II; NCT01986803).

Detecting Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction in Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the differences in detecting (e.g., triggering) periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) among 3 current definitions. BACKGROUND: PMI is a frequent component of primary endpoints in coronary device trials. Identification of all potential suspected events is critical for accurate event ascertainment. Automatic triggers based on study databases prevent underreporting of events. METHODS: We generated automated algorithms to trigger PMI based on each definition and compared results using data from the RESOLUTE all comers trial. RESULTS: The operationalization of current PMI definitions was achieved by defining programmable algorithms used to interrogate the study database. From a total of 636 PMI triggers, we identified 234 for the World Health Organization extended definition, 382 for the Third Universal definition, and 216 for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition. Differences among the biomarkers used, different cutoff values, and in the hierarchy among biomarkers within definitions, yielded a different number of triggers, and identified unique triggers for each definition. Only 38 triggers were consistently identified by all definitions. Availability of ECG data, eCRF data on clinical presentation, and the reporting of >2 post-procedural values of the same biomarker influenced considerably the number of PMI triggers identified. CONCLUSIONS: PMI definitions are not interchangeable. The number of triggers identified and consequently the potential number of events varies significantly, highlighting the importance of rigorous methodology when PMI is a component of a powered endpoint. Emphasis on collection of biomarkers, ECG data, and clinical status at baseline may improve the correct identification of PMI triggers.

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.

Trial design: Rivaroxaban for the prevention of major cardiovascular events after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Rationale and design of the GALILEO study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antithrombotic treatment after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is unknown and determined empirically. The direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban may potentially reduce TAVR-related thrombotic complications and premature valve failure. DESIGN: GALILEO is an international, randomized, open-label, event-driven, phase III trial in more than 1,520 patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent a successful TAVR (ClinicalTrials.govNCT02556203). Patients are randomized (1:1 ratio), 1 to 7days after a successful TAVR, to either a rivaroxaban-based strategy or an antiplatelet-based strategy. In the experimental arm, subjects receive rivaroxaban (10mg once daily [OD]) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, 75-100mg OD) for 90days followed by rivaroxaban alone. In the control arm, subjects receive clopidogrel (75mg OD) plus ASA (as above) for 90days followed by ASA alone. In case new-onset atrial fibrillation occurs after randomization, full oral anticoagulation will be implemented with maintenance of the original treatment assignment. The primary efficacy end point is the composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, symptomatic valve thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, and systemic embolism. The primary safety end point is the composite of life-threatening, disabling, and major bleeding, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. CONCLUSIONS: GALILEO will test the hypothesis that a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy reduces the risk of thromboembolic complications post-TAVR with an acceptable risk of bleeding compared with the currently recommended antiplatelet therapy-based strategy in subjects without need of chronic oral anticoagulation.

Rationale and design of the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to UNload the Left ventricle in patients with ADvanced heart failure (TAVR UNLOAD) trial.

BACKGROUND: Coexistence of moderate aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is not uncommon. Moderate AS increases afterload, whereas pharmacologic reduction of afterload is a pillar of contemporary HF management. HYPOTHESIS: Unloading the left ventricle by reducing the transaortic gradient with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with moderate AS and HF with reduced ejection fraction. STUDY DESIGN: The TAVR UNLOAD (NCT02661451) is an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of TAVR with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in addition to optimal heart failure therapy (OHFT) vs OHFT alone in patients with moderate AS (defined by a mean transaortic gradient ≥20 mm Hg and <40 mm Hg, and an aortic valve area >1.0 cm2 and ≤1.5 cm2 at rest or after dobutamine stress echocardiography) and reduced ejection fraction. A total of 600 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion. Clinical follow-up is scheduled at 1, 6, and 12 months, and 2 years after randomization. The primary end point is the hierarchical occurrence of all-cause death, disabling stroke, hospitalizations related to HF, symptomatic aortic valve disease or nondisabling stroke, and the change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 1 year. Secondary end points capture effects on clinical outcome, biomarkers, echocardiographic parameters, and quality of life. SUMMARY: The TAVR UNLOAD trial aims to test the hypothesis that TAVR on top of OHFT improves clinical outcomes in patients with moderate AS and HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Five-year outcomes of chronic total occlusion treatment with a biolimus A9-eluting biodegradable polymer stent versus a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent in the LEADERS all-comers trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on long-term follow-up of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO). The LEADERS CTO sub-study compared the long-term results in CTO and non-CTO lesions of a Biolimus A9™-eluting stent (BES) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). METHODS: Among 1,707 patients enrolled in the prospective, multi-center, all-comers LEADERS trial, 81 with CTOs were treated with either a BES (n = 45) or a SES (n = 36). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: At 5 years, the rate of MACE was numerically higher in the CTO group than in the non-CTO group (29.6% vs. 23.3%; p = 0.173), with a significant increase in the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (21.0 vs. 12.6; p = 0.033), but no difference in stent thrombosis (ST). Patients with CTO receiving a BES demonstrated a lower incidence of MACE (22.2% vs. 38.9%; p = 0.147) with a significant reduction in TLR compared to patients receiving a SES (11.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.0214) with an incidence similar to that observed in the non-CTO group treated with BES (11.6%). Definite ST at 5 years nearly halved in the BES group (4.4% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.478) with no ST in the BES group after the first year (0% vs. 8.3%, p for interaction = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a BES showed a reduction in MACE, TVR, TLR, and ST over time in the CTO subset with similar outcome as for non-CTO lesions.

Design and rationale for a randomised comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease: the EXCEL trial.

AIMS: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is the standard of care for revascularisation of patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Recent studies have suggested that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) may provide comparable outcomes in selected patients with LMCAD without extensive CAD. We therefore designed a trial to investigate whether PCI with XIENCE cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES) would result in non-inferior or superior clinical outcomes to CABG in selected patients with LMCAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, international study of 1,900 randomised subjects. Patients with significant LMCAD with a SYNTAX score ≤32 and local Heart Team consensus that the subject is appropriate for revascularisation by both PCI and CABG are consented and randomised 1:1 to undergo PCI using CoCr-EES or CABG. All patients undergo follow-up for five years. The primary endpoint is the three-year composite rate of death, stroke or myocardial infarction, assessed at a median follow-up of at least three years (with at least two-year follow-up in all patients), powered for sequential non-inferiority and superiority testing. CONCLUSIONS: The EXCEL study will define the contemporary roles of CABG and PCI using XIENCE CoCr-EES in patients with LMCAD disease with low and intermediate SYNTAX scores.

Rationale and design of the SYNTAX II trial evaluating the short to long-term outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularisation in patients with de novo three-vessel disease.

AIMS: The applicability of the results of the SYNTAX trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for the treatment of patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) has been challenged by recent major technical and procedural developments in coronary revascularisation. Functional assessment of coronary lesions has contributed to marked improvements in both safety and efficacy of DES implantation. In addition, the recent development of the SYNTAX score II, a clinical tool based on anatomical and clinical factors, allows individualised objective decision making regarding the optimal revascularisation modality in patients with complex CAD. The ongoing SYNTAX II trial is currently evaluating the effectiveness of the clinical and technological advances in the treatment of patients with complex (de novo three-vessel) CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SYNTAX II trial is a multicentre, all-comers, open-label, single-arm trial aiming to recruit 450 patients with de novo three-vessel CAD in approximately 25 European interventional cardiology centres. All patients will be selected and treated following the SYNTAX II strategy, which includes: a) establishing the appropriateness of revascularisation utilising the SYNTAX score II as a clinical tool to allow objective decision making by the Heart Team, b) ischaemia-driven revascularisation based on functional intracoronary assessment, c) implantation of the new-generation everolimus-eluting platinum chromium coronary stent with thin struts and abluminal bioabsorbable polymer coating to promote rapid vessel healing, d) intravascular ultrasound-guided DES implantation, and e) treatment at centres with expertise in CTO recanalisation. The primary endpoint is a composite of the major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) rate at one-year follow-up compared to the historical PCI arm of the SYNTAX trial. An exploratory endpoint will be MACCE at five-year follow-up compared to the historical surgical arm of the SYNTAX trial. CONCLUSIONS: The SYNTAX II trial will provide valuable information on outcomes of state-of-the-art PCI for the contemporary management of complex (de novo three-vessel) CAD. SYNTAX II will be of critical value in the design of future trials in this arena.

Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5-year results of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Data for the safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents at long-term follow-up, and specifically in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, are scarce. In the EXAMINATION trial, we compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In this study, we assessed the 5-year outcomes of the population in the EXAMINATION trial. METHODS: In the multicentre EXAMINATION trial, done in Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EES or BMS. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated and central randomisation (by telephone) was used to allocate patients in blocks of four or six, stratified by centre. Patients were masked to treatment assignment. At 5 years, we assessed the combined patient-oriented outcome of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. FINDINGS: 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). At 5 years, complete clinical follow-up data were obtained for 731 patients treated with EES and 727 treated with BMS (97% of both groups). The patient-oriented endpoint occurred in 159 (21%) patients in the EES group versus 192 (26%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·65-0·98; p=0·033). This difference was mainly driven by a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (65 [9%] vs 88 [12%]; 0·72, 0·52-0·10; p=0·047). INTERPRETATION: Our findings should be taken as a point of reference for the assessment of new bioresorbable polymer-based metallic stents or bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. FUNDING: Spanish Heart Foundation.