There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients ...with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk.
We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke.
At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.95 to 1.25; P = 0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery.
Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).
Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. We ...evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients.
We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort.
The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoral-access cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation.
In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in patients who are inoperable or at high risk for surgery. However, the ...intermediate- to long-term mortality is high, emphasizing the importance of patient selection. We, therefore, sought to evaluate the prognostic value of frailty in older recipients of TAVR, hypothesizing that frail patients would experience a higher mortality rate and a higher likelihood of poor outcome 1 year after TAVR. This substudy of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves trial was conducted at 3 high-enrolling sites where frailty was assessed systematically before TAVR. In total, 244 patients received TAVR at the participating sites. Frailty was assessed using a composite of 4 markers (serum albumin, dominant handgrip strength, gait speed, and Katz activity of daily living survey), which were combined into a frailty score. The cohort was dichotomized at median frailty score. Outcomes measures were the time to death from any cause for >1 year of follow-up and poor outcome at 1 year. Poor outcome was defined as (1) death, (2) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score <60, or (3) decrease of ≥10 points in the KCCQ-OS score from baseline to 1 year. At 1 year, the Kaplan-Meier–estimated all-cause mortality rate was 32.7% in the frail group and 15.9% in the nonfrail group (log-rank p = 0.004). At 1 year, poor outcome occurred in 50.0% of the frail group and 31.5% of the nonfrail group (p = 0.02). In conclusion, frailty was associated with increased mortality and a higher rate of poor outcome 1 year after TAVR.
Abstract
Aims
The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for ...transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research.
Methods and results
Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs.
Conclusions
Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.
Graphical Abstract
Summary Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonstrates good 30 day clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at intermediate ...risk of surgical mortality. Here we report longer-term data in intermediate-risk patients given SAPIEN 3 TAVR and compare outcomes to those of intermediate-risk patients given surgical aortic valve replacement. Methods In the SAPIEN 3 observational study, 1077 intermediate-risk patients at 51 sites in the USA and Canada were assigned to receive TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve 952 88% via transfemoral access) between Feb 17, 2014, and Sept 3, 2014. In this population we assessed all-cause mortality and incidence of strokes, re-intervention, and aortic valve regurgitation at 1 year after implantation. Then we compared 1 year outcomes in this population with those for intermediate-risk patients treated with surgical valve replacement in the PARTNER 2A trial between Dec 23, 2011, and Nov 6, 2013, using a prespecified propensity score analysis to account for between-trial differences in baseline characteristics. The clinical events committee and echocardiographic core laboratory methods were the same for both studies. The primary endpoint was the composite of death from any cause, all strokes, and incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. We did non-inferiority (margin 7·5%) and superiority analyses in propensity score quintiles to calculate pooled weighted proportion differences for outcomes. Findings At 1 year follow-up of the SAPIEN 3 observational study, 79 of 1077 patients who initiated the TAVR procedure had died (all-cause mortality 7·4%; 6·5% in the transfemoral access subgroup), and disabling strokes had occurred in 24 (2%), aortic valve re-intervention in six (1%), and moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation in 13 (2%). In the propensity-score analysis we included 963 patients treated with SAPIEN 3 TAVR and 747 with surgical valve replacement. For the primary composite endpoint of mortality, strokes, and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, TAVR was both non-inferior (pooled weighted proportion difference of −9·2%; 90% CI −12·4 to −6; p<0·0001) and superior (−9·2%, 95% CI −13·0 to −5·4; p<0·0001) to surgical valve replacement. Interpretation TAVR with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis is associated with low mortality, strokes, and regurgitation at 1 year. The propensity score analysis indicates a significant superiority for our composite outcome with TAVR compared with surgery, suggesting that TAVR might be the preferred treatment alternative in intermediate-risk patients. Funding None.
The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and ...surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research.
Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs.
Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.
Display omitted
In patients with aortic stenosis (AS), risk stratification for aortic valve replacement (AVR) relies mainly on valve-related factors, symptoms and co-morbidities. We sought to evaluate the prognostic ...impact of a newly-defined staging classification characterizing the extent of extravalvular (extra-aortic valve) cardiac damage among patients with severe AS undergoing AVR.
Patients with severe AS from the PARTNER 2 trials were pooled and classified according to the presence or absence of cardiac damage as detected by echocardiography prior to AVR: no extravalvular cardiac damage (Stage 0), left ventricular damage (Stage 1), left atrial or mitral valve damage (Stage 2), pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage (Stage 3), or right ventricular damage (Stage 4). One-year outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier techniques and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify 1-year predictors of mortality. In 1661 patients with sufficient echocardiographic data to allow staging, 47 (2.8%) patients were classified as Stage 0, 212 (12.8%) as Stage 1, 844 (50.8%) as Stage 2, 413 (24.9%) as Stage 3, and 145 (8.7%) as Stage 4. One-year mortality was 4.4% in Stage 0, 9.2% in Stage 1, 14.4% in Stage 2, 21.3% in Stage 3, and 24.5% in Stage 4 (Ptrend < 0.0001). The extent of cardiac damage was independently associated with increased mortality after AVR (HR 1.46 per each increment in stage, 95% confidence interval 1.27-1.67, P < 0.0001).
This newly described staging classification objectively characterizes the extent of cardiac damage associated with AS and has important prognostic implications for clinical outcomes after AVR.
Summary Background Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation increases the risk of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether risk changes over time, depends on the ...underlying reason for DAPT cessation, or both is unknown. We assessed associations between different modes of DAPT cessation and cardiovascular risk after PCI. Methods The PARIS (patterns of non-adherence to anti-platelet regimens in stented patients) registry is a prospective observational study of patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation in 15 clinical sites in the USA and Europe between July 1, 2009, and Dec 2, 2010. Adult patients (aged 18 years or older) undergoing successful stent implantation in one or more native coronary artery and discharged on DAPT were eligible for enrolment. Patients were followed up at months 1, 6, 12, and 24 after implantation. Prespecified categories for DAPT cessation included physician-recommended discontinuation, brief interruption (for surgery), or disruption (non-compliance or because of bleeding). All adverse events and episodes of DAPT cessation were independently adjudicated. Using Cox models with time-varying covariates, we examined the effect of DAPT cessation on major adverse events (MACE composite of cardiac death, definite or probable stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularisation). Incidence rates for DAPT cessation and adverse events were calculated as Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to the first event. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00998127. Findings We enrolled 5031 patients undergoing PCI, including 5018 in the final study population. Over 2 years, the overall incidence of any DAPT cessation was 57·3%. Rate of any discontinuation was 40·8%, of interruption was 10·5%, and of disruption was 14·4%. The corresponding overall 2 year MACE rate was 11·5%, most of which (74%) occurred while patients were taking DAPT. Compared with those on DAPT, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACE due to interruption was 1·41 (95% CI 0·94–2·12; p=0·10) and to disruption was 1·50 (1·14–1.97; p=0·004). Within 7 days, 8–30 days, and more than 30 days after disruption, adjusted HRs were 7·04 (3·31–14·95), 2·17 (0·97–4·88), and 1·3 (0·97–1·76), respectively. By contrast with patients who remained on DAPT, those who discontinued had lower MACE risk (0·63 0·46–0·86). Results were similar after excluding patients receiving bare metal stents and using an alternative MACE definition that did not include target lesion revascularisation. Interpretation In a real-world setting, for patients undergoing PCI and discharged on DAPT, cardiac events after DAPT cessation depend on the clinical circumstance and reason for cessation and attenuates over time. While most events after PCI occur in patients on DAPT, early risk for events due to disruption is substantial irrespective of stent type. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis.
The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extravalvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown.
The purpose of this study was to ...describe the evolution of cardiac damage post-AVR and its association with outcomes.
Patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical AVR from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1 year (stage 0, no damage; stage 1, left ventricular damage; stage 2, left atrial or mitral valve damage; stage 3, pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage; and stage 4, right ventricular damage). Proportional hazards models determined association between change in cardiac damage post-AVR and 2-year outcomes.
Among 1,974 patients, 121 (6.1%) were stage 0, 287 (14.5%) stage 1, 1,014 (51.4%) stage 2, 412 (20.9%) stage 3, and 140 (7.1%) stage 4 pre-AVR. Two-year mortality was associated with extent of cardiac damage at baseline and 1 year. Compared with baseline, cardiac damage improved in ∼15%, remained unchanged in ∼60%, and worsened in ∼25% of patients at 1 year. The 1-year change in cardiac damage stage was independently associated with mortality (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.49; no change: 1.00; worsening: 1.95; P = 0.023) and composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.60; no change: 1.00; worsening: 2.25; P < 0.001) at 2 years.
In patients undergoing AVR, extent of extravalvular cardiac damage at baseline and its change at 1 year have important prognostic implications. These findings suggest that earlier detection of aortic stenosis and intervention before development of irreversible cardiac damage may improve global cardiac function and prognosis. (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - XT Intermediate and High Risk PII A, NCT01314313; The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves - PII B PARTNERII B, NCT02184442; and PARTNER 3 Trial: Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis P3, NCT02675114)
Display omitted
PDF
