User login
Brilinta reduces MACE in THEMIS trial
The maker of ticagrelor has released top-line results from the phase 3 trial known as THEMIS.
AstraZeneca announced that THEMIS met its primary endpoint of reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes with no history of heart attack or stroke. (MACE is a composite of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke.)
The trial (NCT01991795) explored these risks by comparing ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. The oral, reversibly binding, direct-acting P2Y12 receptor antagonist is currently indicated for reducing MACE among patients with acute coronary syndrome or a history of MI. According to the press release, the multinational, randomized, double-blind trial is exploring the use of ticagrelor/aspirin among patients with CAD and type 2 diabetes because of this population’s high risk and the lack of treatment options.
Gabriel Steg, MD, THEMIS cochair and professor at Université Paris–Diderot, said in the release that “patients who have both stable coronary artery disease and diabetes are a sizable group which remains at particularly high risk of major adverse cardiac events. The optimal long-term antiplatelet therapy in that group is not fully established.” He added that the full results from the THEMIS trial will be presented later this year.
Ticagrelor comes with risks of significant and sometimes fatal bleeding; as such it is contraindicated for patients with pathological bleeding risk or history of intracranial hemorrhage. Its use is also discouraged among patients with severe hepatic impairment and in patients who are breastfeeding. Although usually self-limiting when related to ticagrelor use, dyspnea was reported in about 14% of patients taking the drug. Dyspnea and bleeding were among the most common adverse reactions seen with ticagrelor.
The maker of ticagrelor has released top-line results from the phase 3 trial known as THEMIS.
AstraZeneca announced that THEMIS met its primary endpoint of reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes with no history of heart attack or stroke. (MACE is a composite of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke.)
The trial (NCT01991795) explored these risks by comparing ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. The oral, reversibly binding, direct-acting P2Y12 receptor antagonist is currently indicated for reducing MACE among patients with acute coronary syndrome or a history of MI. According to the press release, the multinational, randomized, double-blind trial is exploring the use of ticagrelor/aspirin among patients with CAD and type 2 diabetes because of this population’s high risk and the lack of treatment options.
Gabriel Steg, MD, THEMIS cochair and professor at Université Paris–Diderot, said in the release that “patients who have both stable coronary artery disease and diabetes are a sizable group which remains at particularly high risk of major adverse cardiac events. The optimal long-term antiplatelet therapy in that group is not fully established.” He added that the full results from the THEMIS trial will be presented later this year.
Ticagrelor comes with risks of significant and sometimes fatal bleeding; as such it is contraindicated for patients with pathological bleeding risk or history of intracranial hemorrhage. Its use is also discouraged among patients with severe hepatic impairment and in patients who are breastfeeding. Although usually self-limiting when related to ticagrelor use, dyspnea was reported in about 14% of patients taking the drug. Dyspnea and bleeding were among the most common adverse reactions seen with ticagrelor.
The maker of ticagrelor has released top-line results from the phase 3 trial known as THEMIS.
AstraZeneca announced that THEMIS met its primary endpoint of reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes with no history of heart attack or stroke. (MACE is a composite of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke.)
The trial (NCT01991795) explored these risks by comparing ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. The oral, reversibly binding, direct-acting P2Y12 receptor antagonist is currently indicated for reducing MACE among patients with acute coronary syndrome or a history of MI. According to the press release, the multinational, randomized, double-blind trial is exploring the use of ticagrelor/aspirin among patients with CAD and type 2 diabetes because of this population’s high risk and the lack of treatment options.
Gabriel Steg, MD, THEMIS cochair and professor at Université Paris–Diderot, said in the release that “patients who have both stable coronary artery disease and diabetes are a sizable group which remains at particularly high risk of major adverse cardiac events. The optimal long-term antiplatelet therapy in that group is not fully established.” He added that the full results from the THEMIS trial will be presented later this year.
Ticagrelor comes with risks of significant and sometimes fatal bleeding; as such it is contraindicated for patients with pathological bleeding risk or history of intracranial hemorrhage. Its use is also discouraged among patients with severe hepatic impairment and in patients who are breastfeeding. Although usually self-limiting when related to ticagrelor use, dyspnea was reported in about 14% of patients taking the drug. Dyspnea and bleeding were among the most common adverse reactions seen with ticagrelor.
FDA approves Orsiro stent for coronary artery disease
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Orsiro, an ultrathin drug-eluting stent (DES), for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
FDA approval was based on 2-year results from BIOFLOW-V, an international, randomized trial in 1,344 patients with coronary artery disease who received either Orsiro or Xience, the current clinical standard. At 2 years, patients who received Orsiro had a 37% lower target lesion failure rate, a 47% lower ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate, and a 70% lower spontaneous MI rate. These results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting in November 2018.
Orsiro previously received CE marking in Europe in 2011 and has been used to treat more than 1 million patients. The device elutes sirolimus and is available in 52 sizes ranging from 2.25 to 4.0 mm in diameter and lengths up to 40 mm, according to Biotronik’s press release.
“Orsiro has set a new standard for safety and efficacy clinical endpoints, including statistically lower target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI rates. BIOFLOW-V data are the best clinical outcomes witnessed with modern DES. It was largely thought that efficacy findings were unsurpassable, but Orsiro proves we can further reduce event rates with meaningful innovation,” David Kandzari, MD, a cardiologist at Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta and principal U.S. investigator for BIOFLOW-V, said in the press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Orsiro, an ultrathin drug-eluting stent (DES), for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
FDA approval was based on 2-year results from BIOFLOW-V, an international, randomized trial in 1,344 patients with coronary artery disease who received either Orsiro or Xience, the current clinical standard. At 2 years, patients who received Orsiro had a 37% lower target lesion failure rate, a 47% lower ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate, and a 70% lower spontaneous MI rate. These results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting in November 2018.
Orsiro previously received CE marking in Europe in 2011 and has been used to treat more than 1 million patients. The device elutes sirolimus and is available in 52 sizes ranging from 2.25 to 4.0 mm in diameter and lengths up to 40 mm, according to Biotronik’s press release.
“Orsiro has set a new standard for safety and efficacy clinical endpoints, including statistically lower target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI rates. BIOFLOW-V data are the best clinical outcomes witnessed with modern DES. It was largely thought that efficacy findings were unsurpassable, but Orsiro proves we can further reduce event rates with meaningful innovation,” David Kandzari, MD, a cardiologist at Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta and principal U.S. investigator for BIOFLOW-V, said in the press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Orsiro, an ultrathin drug-eluting stent (DES), for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
FDA approval was based on 2-year results from BIOFLOW-V, an international, randomized trial in 1,344 patients with coronary artery disease who received either Orsiro or Xience, the current clinical standard. At 2 years, patients who received Orsiro had a 37% lower target lesion failure rate, a 47% lower ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate, and a 70% lower spontaneous MI rate. These results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting in November 2018.
Orsiro previously received CE marking in Europe in 2011 and has been used to treat more than 1 million patients. The device elutes sirolimus and is available in 52 sizes ranging from 2.25 to 4.0 mm in diameter and lengths up to 40 mm, according to Biotronik’s press release.
“Orsiro has set a new standard for safety and efficacy clinical endpoints, including statistically lower target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI rates. BIOFLOW-V data are the best clinical outcomes witnessed with modern DES. It was largely thought that efficacy findings were unsurpassable, but Orsiro proves we can further reduce event rates with meaningful innovation,” David Kandzari, MD, a cardiologist at Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta and principal U.S. investigator for BIOFLOW-V, said in the press release.
Stroke endovascular therapy: The more you do, the better you do
HONOLULU – The well-documented link between higher procedure volumes and better procedure efficacy also applies to endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke.
in analysis of data from two different U.S. sources: the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the state of Florida, Sunil A. Sheth, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The finding raises questions about how to best triage patients with an acute ischemic stroke, suggesting that, in at least some situations, patients might be better served being taken to a higher-volume center even if it’s not the closest, noted Dr. Sheth, The results also suggest that the findings in the trials proving the value of EST run primarily at large, tertiary care, referral centers might not be generalizable to all centers that start an endovascular program.
The study looked at data collected during 2006-2016 in Florida and during 2012-2016 in the NIS, and found that in both databases the rate of EST procedures performed showed steadily increasing use over time, with a sharp increase in the number of centers performing EST in 2015. Each of the two data sets also showed that better discharge outcomes occurred in patients treated at centers with the highest procedural volumes.
In the nationwide NIS data, for every 10 additional patients a center treated with EST annually, the incidence of a “good” hospital-discharge outcome (defined as either discharge home or to an acute rehabilitation hospital) rose by 30%, compared with lower-volume centers in a multivariate regression analysis, a statistically significant relationship, said Dr. Sheth, a neurologist at the University of Texas, Houston. This volume-outcome relationship held fairly constant through volumes up to about 50 EST cases annually. “The more the better,” he observed.
“The data suggest that EST outcomes are not always the same,” but right now most emergency medical service systems do not take EST case volume into account when deciding where to take an acute stroke patient, Dr. Sheth said in an interview. But he cautioned against an oversimplified focus on just EST case volume.
A link between volume and better outcomes “is easy to understand and not surprising. We see this relationship for a variety of procedures. The data suggest we need to consider procedure volumes. But volume is only part of makes for good outcomes; it’s not the only factor,” he stressed.
Dr. Sheth and his associates used data collected by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration on 3,890 acute ischemic stroke patients treated with EST at 56 Florida hospitals and on 42,505 such patients in the NIS database treated at 2,260 U.S. hospitals. During the 11-year period for Florida data collection, the number of centers performing EST in the state rose steadily at an average rate of about four new centers per year. Although the number of EST procedures done also rose sharply, in general over time a higher percentage of patients underwent treatment at lower-volume centers. Similar patterns existed in the national data. The Florida data showed a statistically significant 10% improvement in good discharge outcomes for every 10 additional EST patients a center treated a year, consistent with the NIS data.
Concurrently with Dr. Sheth’s report, the results also appeared in an article published online (Stroke. 2019 Feb 6. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023967).
Dr. Sheth reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sheth SA et al. ISC 2019, Abstract 002.
The idea that when centers perform more of a procedure, such as endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, they more often do it better is intuitively plausible, which helps makes these findings believable. It’s also a relationship we’ve already seen for other types of endovascular therapies. What this study did not address were other factors beyond case volume also might also make important contributions to outcome, such as the speed of treatment delivery.
Volume thresholds for endovascular stroke programs will come eventually, but for the time being our focus should be on insuring wide access to endovascular treatment.
Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, a neurologist and chief of staff for the San Francisco Veteran Affairs Health Care System, made these comments in an interview. He reported no disclosures.
The idea that when centers perform more of a procedure, such as endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, they more often do it better is intuitively plausible, which helps makes these findings believable. It’s also a relationship we’ve already seen for other types of endovascular therapies. What this study did not address were other factors beyond case volume also might also make important contributions to outcome, such as the speed of treatment delivery.
Volume thresholds for endovascular stroke programs will come eventually, but for the time being our focus should be on insuring wide access to endovascular treatment.
Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, a neurologist and chief of staff for the San Francisco Veteran Affairs Health Care System, made these comments in an interview. He reported no disclosures.
The idea that when centers perform more of a procedure, such as endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, they more often do it better is intuitively plausible, which helps makes these findings believable. It’s also a relationship we’ve already seen for other types of endovascular therapies. What this study did not address were other factors beyond case volume also might also make important contributions to outcome, such as the speed of treatment delivery.
Volume thresholds for endovascular stroke programs will come eventually, but for the time being our focus should be on insuring wide access to endovascular treatment.
Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, a neurologist and chief of staff for the San Francisco Veteran Affairs Health Care System, made these comments in an interview. He reported no disclosures.
HONOLULU – The well-documented link between higher procedure volumes and better procedure efficacy also applies to endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke.
in analysis of data from two different U.S. sources: the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the state of Florida, Sunil A. Sheth, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The finding raises questions about how to best triage patients with an acute ischemic stroke, suggesting that, in at least some situations, patients might be better served being taken to a higher-volume center even if it’s not the closest, noted Dr. Sheth, The results also suggest that the findings in the trials proving the value of EST run primarily at large, tertiary care, referral centers might not be generalizable to all centers that start an endovascular program.
The study looked at data collected during 2006-2016 in Florida and during 2012-2016 in the NIS, and found that in both databases the rate of EST procedures performed showed steadily increasing use over time, with a sharp increase in the number of centers performing EST in 2015. Each of the two data sets also showed that better discharge outcomes occurred in patients treated at centers with the highest procedural volumes.
In the nationwide NIS data, for every 10 additional patients a center treated with EST annually, the incidence of a “good” hospital-discharge outcome (defined as either discharge home or to an acute rehabilitation hospital) rose by 30%, compared with lower-volume centers in a multivariate regression analysis, a statistically significant relationship, said Dr. Sheth, a neurologist at the University of Texas, Houston. This volume-outcome relationship held fairly constant through volumes up to about 50 EST cases annually. “The more the better,” he observed.
“The data suggest that EST outcomes are not always the same,” but right now most emergency medical service systems do not take EST case volume into account when deciding where to take an acute stroke patient, Dr. Sheth said in an interview. But he cautioned against an oversimplified focus on just EST case volume.
A link between volume and better outcomes “is easy to understand and not surprising. We see this relationship for a variety of procedures. The data suggest we need to consider procedure volumes. But volume is only part of makes for good outcomes; it’s not the only factor,” he stressed.
Dr. Sheth and his associates used data collected by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration on 3,890 acute ischemic stroke patients treated with EST at 56 Florida hospitals and on 42,505 such patients in the NIS database treated at 2,260 U.S. hospitals. During the 11-year period for Florida data collection, the number of centers performing EST in the state rose steadily at an average rate of about four new centers per year. Although the number of EST procedures done also rose sharply, in general over time a higher percentage of patients underwent treatment at lower-volume centers. Similar patterns existed in the national data. The Florida data showed a statistically significant 10% improvement in good discharge outcomes for every 10 additional EST patients a center treated a year, consistent with the NIS data.
Concurrently with Dr. Sheth’s report, the results also appeared in an article published online (Stroke. 2019 Feb 6. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023967).
Dr. Sheth reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sheth SA et al. ISC 2019, Abstract 002.
HONOLULU – The well-documented link between higher procedure volumes and better procedure efficacy also applies to endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke.
in analysis of data from two different U.S. sources: the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the state of Florida, Sunil A. Sheth, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
The finding raises questions about how to best triage patients with an acute ischemic stroke, suggesting that, in at least some situations, patients might be better served being taken to a higher-volume center even if it’s not the closest, noted Dr. Sheth, The results also suggest that the findings in the trials proving the value of EST run primarily at large, tertiary care, referral centers might not be generalizable to all centers that start an endovascular program.
The study looked at data collected during 2006-2016 in Florida and during 2012-2016 in the NIS, and found that in both databases the rate of EST procedures performed showed steadily increasing use over time, with a sharp increase in the number of centers performing EST in 2015. Each of the two data sets also showed that better discharge outcomes occurred in patients treated at centers with the highest procedural volumes.
In the nationwide NIS data, for every 10 additional patients a center treated with EST annually, the incidence of a “good” hospital-discharge outcome (defined as either discharge home or to an acute rehabilitation hospital) rose by 30%, compared with lower-volume centers in a multivariate regression analysis, a statistically significant relationship, said Dr. Sheth, a neurologist at the University of Texas, Houston. This volume-outcome relationship held fairly constant through volumes up to about 50 EST cases annually. “The more the better,” he observed.
“The data suggest that EST outcomes are not always the same,” but right now most emergency medical service systems do not take EST case volume into account when deciding where to take an acute stroke patient, Dr. Sheth said in an interview. But he cautioned against an oversimplified focus on just EST case volume.
A link between volume and better outcomes “is easy to understand and not surprising. We see this relationship for a variety of procedures. The data suggest we need to consider procedure volumes. But volume is only part of makes for good outcomes; it’s not the only factor,” he stressed.
Dr. Sheth and his associates used data collected by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration on 3,890 acute ischemic stroke patients treated with EST at 56 Florida hospitals and on 42,505 such patients in the NIS database treated at 2,260 U.S. hospitals. During the 11-year period for Florida data collection, the number of centers performing EST in the state rose steadily at an average rate of about four new centers per year. Although the number of EST procedures done also rose sharply, in general over time a higher percentage of patients underwent treatment at lower-volume centers. Similar patterns existed in the national data. The Florida data showed a statistically significant 10% improvement in good discharge outcomes for every 10 additional EST patients a center treated a year, consistent with the NIS data.
Concurrently with Dr. Sheth’s report, the results also appeared in an article published online (Stroke. 2019 Feb 6. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023967).
Dr. Sheth reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Sheth SA et al. ISC 2019, Abstract 002.
REPORTING FROM ISC 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
Minimally invasive ICH lysis safely helps when clot adequately shrinks
HONOLULU – A minimally invasive approach to lysing an intracerebral hemorrhage clot was safe but failed to produce a statistically significant improvement in long-term functional outcome when compared with usual medical management in a phase 3 randomized trial of 499 patients. However, the results also showed that when the procedure met its acute goal of cutting residual clot to a volume of 15 mL or less, it significantly boosted the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 when assessed a year after treatment, Daniel F. Hanley Jr., MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“Improved function and increased survival was produced by surgical [clot] reduction to 15 mL or less,” said Dr. Hanley, professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and one of the organizers of the MISTIE III trial.
When assessed by another measure, treated patients showed significant, long-term functional improvement compared with controls when their clot burden dropped by at least 70% following the lytic procedure.
“This is the first description of specific thresholds of hematoma evacuation that impact functional outcomes in intracerebral hemorrhage surgery trials,” said Issam A. Awad, MD, professor of surgery and director of neurovascular surgery at the University of Chicago and coprincipal investigator of the trial.
The problem in the trial was that the surgeons who performed the interventions did not treat many patients aggressively enough to reach these thresholds. They achieved the prespecified goal of residual clot of 15 mL or less in 59% of patients, Dr. Hanley reported, even though the study protocol called for serial infusions of 1 mg of tissue plasminogen activator (Alteplase) into the clot via a placed catheter as many as nine times, administered at 8 hour intervals, with treatment to continue until patients reached the goal residual volume or until they had received all nine doses. In actual practice during the study, operators administered a median of four lytic doses.
“We showed that this goal was important, but not all sites embraced the goal,” Dr. Hanley said. Even though the participating clinicians had a specific interest in intracerebral hemorrhage patients and in this procedure, several nonetheless “had a poor understanding of the goal,” he said in an interview. He attributed the less-than-aggressive approach many operators took to the safety concern that further doses of the lytic drug could trigger recurrent hemorrhage.
“We showed that the goal was important. I think they will embrace the [hematoma evacuation] goal when they see these data,” Dr. Hanley predicted.
An as-treated analysis of the data that focused on the 145 of 246 patients who were treated with minimally invasive lysis and reached the target residual volume and who were then functionally assessed a year later, showed that the rate of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 was 53%, compared with 42% among the controls, an 11% difference.
This shows “a large treatment effect. This is a big, transformative treatment,” Dr. Hanley said. “Our data clearly show that more than half the patients had a positive outcome when their surgeons were more aggressive about clot removal.” He cautioned that the trial was not just about the volume of clot removed but was also about doing it in a gentle way, with a minimum of tissue trauma. Other approaches to reducing hematoma volume may be faster or more complete but they cannot now match the record of safety and efficacy documented in MISTIE III for minimally invasive clot lysis, Dr. Hanley noted.
MISTIE III (Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Rt-PA for ICH Evacuation Phase III) enrolled patients at 78 centers in the United States and several other countries during 2013-2017. Patients had to enroll 12-72 hours after onset and present with a hematoma volume of at least 30 mL. Participating neurosurgeons used image-guided neuronavigation to place a 4- to 6-mm cannula through the clot, ideally straight through the hematoma’s long axis and with the tip placed within the largest clot segment. Among the 110 surgeons who performed this procedure during the study, 88% had never done it before, and operator and site experience linked with better performance. No surgeon who had already performed four minimally invasive lytic cases, and no center that had already performed seven cases, had a subsequent patient with a residual volume that exceeded 30 mL, Dr. Awad said. The surgical experience during the trial showed that catheter repositioning and using a second catheter were both safe ways to maximize evacuation of the hematoma, he added.
The trial’s primary endpoint, the rate of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 at 1 year after treatment in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included all patients regardless of the amount of hematoma evacuation they received, showed a 45% rate among the patients who underwent minimally invasive lysis and a 41% rate among those in the control arm, a difference that was not statistically significant. Safety assessments showed that patients treated with the investigational approach had significantly lower mortality 7 days after treatment: 0.8% compared with 4.0%. By 1 year after treatment, mortality was cut by one-third in the minimally invasive patients, compared with the control patients, also a statistically significant difference. The rates of symptomatic bleeds and brain infections were similar in the two treatment groups, Dr. Hanley reported. Concurrently with his talk at the conference, a paper with the primary study results appeared online (Lancet. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]30195-3).
MISTIE III was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The trial received no commercial support aside from free tissue plasminogen activator (Alteplase) supplied by Genentech. Dr. Hanley has been a consultant to BrainScope, Neurotrope, Portola, and Op2Lysis, and he has served as an expert witness on behalf of Medtronic. Dr. Awad had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Hanley DF et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB4; Awad IS et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB5.
The MISTIE III results showed that this approach to clot lysis is safe and feasible for surgeons to perform even if they have had limited experience with the procedure. I think that based on these findings, minimally-invasive clot lysis will become widely adopted. It’s pretty simple to perform in most patients. At my center in Houston, we already use it on a routine basis in patients like those enrolled in MISTIE III.
Some people may focus on the neutral primary endpoint result from the MISTIE III trial, but the study made two very important findings. First, the results showed that we have improved medical management of patients who have an intracerebral hemorrhage. The 1-year functional outcomes of patients in the control group of the study who had a 41% rate of scoring 0-3 on the modified Rankin Scale after 1 year was much better than we have seen in these patients in the past. Second, the results gave a clear signal that the more clot an operator can lyse to get the residual clot to 15 mL or less, the better patients do. Faster clot lysis might also be important.
It’s hard to call the minimally-invasive approach used in MISTIE III the new standard-of-care approach for these patients given the neutral primary endpoint of the study. On the other hand, if you have a treatment that poses little risk to patients and that you know could benefit them if it succeeds in minimizing residual clot volume, then it makes sense to try it. It’s a low-risk treatment with reasonable potential for benefit. Its demonstrated safety is very important.
Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD , is a professor of neurology and chair of neurology at the University of Texas, Houston. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
The MISTIE III results showed that this approach to clot lysis is safe and feasible for surgeons to perform even if they have had limited experience with the procedure. I think that based on these findings, minimally-invasive clot lysis will become widely adopted. It’s pretty simple to perform in most patients. At my center in Houston, we already use it on a routine basis in patients like those enrolled in MISTIE III.
Some people may focus on the neutral primary endpoint result from the MISTIE III trial, but the study made two very important findings. First, the results showed that we have improved medical management of patients who have an intracerebral hemorrhage. The 1-year functional outcomes of patients in the control group of the study who had a 41% rate of scoring 0-3 on the modified Rankin Scale after 1 year was much better than we have seen in these patients in the past. Second, the results gave a clear signal that the more clot an operator can lyse to get the residual clot to 15 mL or less, the better patients do. Faster clot lysis might also be important.
It’s hard to call the minimally-invasive approach used in MISTIE III the new standard-of-care approach for these patients given the neutral primary endpoint of the study. On the other hand, if you have a treatment that poses little risk to patients and that you know could benefit them if it succeeds in minimizing residual clot volume, then it makes sense to try it. It’s a low-risk treatment with reasonable potential for benefit. Its demonstrated safety is very important.
Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD , is a professor of neurology and chair of neurology at the University of Texas, Houston. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
The MISTIE III results showed that this approach to clot lysis is safe and feasible for surgeons to perform even if they have had limited experience with the procedure. I think that based on these findings, minimally-invasive clot lysis will become widely adopted. It’s pretty simple to perform in most patients. At my center in Houston, we already use it on a routine basis in patients like those enrolled in MISTIE III.
Some people may focus on the neutral primary endpoint result from the MISTIE III trial, but the study made two very important findings. First, the results showed that we have improved medical management of patients who have an intracerebral hemorrhage. The 1-year functional outcomes of patients in the control group of the study who had a 41% rate of scoring 0-3 on the modified Rankin Scale after 1 year was much better than we have seen in these patients in the past. Second, the results gave a clear signal that the more clot an operator can lyse to get the residual clot to 15 mL or less, the better patients do. Faster clot lysis might also be important.
It’s hard to call the minimally-invasive approach used in MISTIE III the new standard-of-care approach for these patients given the neutral primary endpoint of the study. On the other hand, if you have a treatment that poses little risk to patients and that you know could benefit them if it succeeds in minimizing residual clot volume, then it makes sense to try it. It’s a low-risk treatment with reasonable potential for benefit. Its demonstrated safety is very important.
Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD , is a professor of neurology and chair of neurology at the University of Texas, Houston. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
HONOLULU – A minimally invasive approach to lysing an intracerebral hemorrhage clot was safe but failed to produce a statistically significant improvement in long-term functional outcome when compared with usual medical management in a phase 3 randomized trial of 499 patients. However, the results also showed that when the procedure met its acute goal of cutting residual clot to a volume of 15 mL or less, it significantly boosted the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 when assessed a year after treatment, Daniel F. Hanley Jr., MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“Improved function and increased survival was produced by surgical [clot] reduction to 15 mL or less,” said Dr. Hanley, professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and one of the organizers of the MISTIE III trial.
When assessed by another measure, treated patients showed significant, long-term functional improvement compared with controls when their clot burden dropped by at least 70% following the lytic procedure.
“This is the first description of specific thresholds of hematoma evacuation that impact functional outcomes in intracerebral hemorrhage surgery trials,” said Issam A. Awad, MD, professor of surgery and director of neurovascular surgery at the University of Chicago and coprincipal investigator of the trial.
The problem in the trial was that the surgeons who performed the interventions did not treat many patients aggressively enough to reach these thresholds. They achieved the prespecified goal of residual clot of 15 mL or less in 59% of patients, Dr. Hanley reported, even though the study protocol called for serial infusions of 1 mg of tissue plasminogen activator (Alteplase) into the clot via a placed catheter as many as nine times, administered at 8 hour intervals, with treatment to continue until patients reached the goal residual volume or until they had received all nine doses. In actual practice during the study, operators administered a median of four lytic doses.
“We showed that this goal was important, but not all sites embraced the goal,” Dr. Hanley said. Even though the participating clinicians had a specific interest in intracerebral hemorrhage patients and in this procedure, several nonetheless “had a poor understanding of the goal,” he said in an interview. He attributed the less-than-aggressive approach many operators took to the safety concern that further doses of the lytic drug could trigger recurrent hemorrhage.
“We showed that the goal was important. I think they will embrace the [hematoma evacuation] goal when they see these data,” Dr. Hanley predicted.
An as-treated analysis of the data that focused on the 145 of 246 patients who were treated with minimally invasive lysis and reached the target residual volume and who were then functionally assessed a year later, showed that the rate of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 was 53%, compared with 42% among the controls, an 11% difference.
This shows “a large treatment effect. This is a big, transformative treatment,” Dr. Hanley said. “Our data clearly show that more than half the patients had a positive outcome when their surgeons were more aggressive about clot removal.” He cautioned that the trial was not just about the volume of clot removed but was also about doing it in a gentle way, with a minimum of tissue trauma. Other approaches to reducing hematoma volume may be faster or more complete but they cannot now match the record of safety and efficacy documented in MISTIE III for minimally invasive clot lysis, Dr. Hanley noted.
MISTIE III (Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Rt-PA for ICH Evacuation Phase III) enrolled patients at 78 centers in the United States and several other countries during 2013-2017. Patients had to enroll 12-72 hours after onset and present with a hematoma volume of at least 30 mL. Participating neurosurgeons used image-guided neuronavigation to place a 4- to 6-mm cannula through the clot, ideally straight through the hematoma’s long axis and with the tip placed within the largest clot segment. Among the 110 surgeons who performed this procedure during the study, 88% had never done it before, and operator and site experience linked with better performance. No surgeon who had already performed four minimally invasive lytic cases, and no center that had already performed seven cases, had a subsequent patient with a residual volume that exceeded 30 mL, Dr. Awad said. The surgical experience during the trial showed that catheter repositioning and using a second catheter were both safe ways to maximize evacuation of the hematoma, he added.
The trial’s primary endpoint, the rate of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 at 1 year after treatment in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included all patients regardless of the amount of hematoma evacuation they received, showed a 45% rate among the patients who underwent minimally invasive lysis and a 41% rate among those in the control arm, a difference that was not statistically significant. Safety assessments showed that patients treated with the investigational approach had significantly lower mortality 7 days after treatment: 0.8% compared with 4.0%. By 1 year after treatment, mortality was cut by one-third in the minimally invasive patients, compared with the control patients, also a statistically significant difference. The rates of symptomatic bleeds and brain infections were similar in the two treatment groups, Dr. Hanley reported. Concurrently with his talk at the conference, a paper with the primary study results appeared online (Lancet. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]30195-3).
MISTIE III was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The trial received no commercial support aside from free tissue plasminogen activator (Alteplase) supplied by Genentech. Dr. Hanley has been a consultant to BrainScope, Neurotrope, Portola, and Op2Lysis, and he has served as an expert witness on behalf of Medtronic. Dr. Awad had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Hanley DF et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB4; Awad IS et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB5.
HONOLULU – A minimally invasive approach to lysing an intracerebral hemorrhage clot was safe but failed to produce a statistically significant improvement in long-term functional outcome when compared with usual medical management in a phase 3 randomized trial of 499 patients. However, the results also showed that when the procedure met its acute goal of cutting residual clot to a volume of 15 mL or less, it significantly boosted the percentage of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 when assessed a year after treatment, Daniel F. Hanley Jr., MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
“Improved function and increased survival was produced by surgical [clot] reduction to 15 mL or less,” said Dr. Hanley, professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and one of the organizers of the MISTIE III trial.
When assessed by another measure, treated patients showed significant, long-term functional improvement compared with controls when their clot burden dropped by at least 70% following the lytic procedure.
“This is the first description of specific thresholds of hematoma evacuation that impact functional outcomes in intracerebral hemorrhage surgery trials,” said Issam A. Awad, MD, professor of surgery and director of neurovascular surgery at the University of Chicago and coprincipal investigator of the trial.
The problem in the trial was that the surgeons who performed the interventions did not treat many patients aggressively enough to reach these thresholds. They achieved the prespecified goal of residual clot of 15 mL or less in 59% of patients, Dr. Hanley reported, even though the study protocol called for serial infusions of 1 mg of tissue plasminogen activator (Alteplase) into the clot via a placed catheter as many as nine times, administered at 8 hour intervals, with treatment to continue until patients reached the goal residual volume or until they had received all nine doses. In actual practice during the study, operators administered a median of four lytic doses.
“We showed that this goal was important, but not all sites embraced the goal,” Dr. Hanley said. Even though the participating clinicians had a specific interest in intracerebral hemorrhage patients and in this procedure, several nonetheless “had a poor understanding of the goal,” he said in an interview. He attributed the less-than-aggressive approach many operators took to the safety concern that further doses of the lytic drug could trigger recurrent hemorrhage.
“We showed that the goal was important. I think they will embrace the [hematoma evacuation] goal when they see these data,” Dr. Hanley predicted.
An as-treated analysis of the data that focused on the 145 of 246 patients who were treated with minimally invasive lysis and reached the target residual volume and who were then functionally assessed a year later, showed that the rate of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 was 53%, compared with 42% among the controls, an 11% difference.
This shows “a large treatment effect. This is a big, transformative treatment,” Dr. Hanley said. “Our data clearly show that more than half the patients had a positive outcome when their surgeons were more aggressive about clot removal.” He cautioned that the trial was not just about the volume of clot removed but was also about doing it in a gentle way, with a minimum of tissue trauma. Other approaches to reducing hematoma volume may be faster or more complete but they cannot now match the record of safety and efficacy documented in MISTIE III for minimally invasive clot lysis, Dr. Hanley noted.
MISTIE III (Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Rt-PA for ICH Evacuation Phase III) enrolled patients at 78 centers in the United States and several other countries during 2013-2017. Patients had to enroll 12-72 hours after onset and present with a hematoma volume of at least 30 mL. Participating neurosurgeons used image-guided neuronavigation to place a 4- to 6-mm cannula through the clot, ideally straight through the hematoma’s long axis and with the tip placed within the largest clot segment. Among the 110 surgeons who performed this procedure during the study, 88% had never done it before, and operator and site experience linked with better performance. No surgeon who had already performed four minimally invasive lytic cases, and no center that had already performed seven cases, had a subsequent patient with a residual volume that exceeded 30 mL, Dr. Awad said. The surgical experience during the trial showed that catheter repositioning and using a second catheter were both safe ways to maximize evacuation of the hematoma, he added.
The trial’s primary endpoint, the rate of patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3 at 1 year after treatment in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included all patients regardless of the amount of hematoma evacuation they received, showed a 45% rate among the patients who underwent minimally invasive lysis and a 41% rate among those in the control arm, a difference that was not statistically significant. Safety assessments showed that patients treated with the investigational approach had significantly lower mortality 7 days after treatment: 0.8% compared with 4.0%. By 1 year after treatment, mortality was cut by one-third in the minimally invasive patients, compared with the control patients, also a statistically significant difference. The rates of symptomatic bleeds and brain infections were similar in the two treatment groups, Dr. Hanley reported. Concurrently with his talk at the conference, a paper with the primary study results appeared online (Lancet. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[19]30195-3).
MISTIE III was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The trial received no commercial support aside from free tissue plasminogen activator (Alteplase) supplied by Genentech. Dr. Hanley has been a consultant to BrainScope, Neurotrope, Portola, and Op2Lysis, and he has served as an expert witness on behalf of Medtronic. Dr. Awad had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Hanley DF et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB4; Awad IS et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB5.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2019
Key clinical point: Minimally-invasive intracerebral clot lysis was safe and often effective when the residual clot shrank to 15 mL or less.
Major finding: One year after entry, 45% of MISTIE-treated patients and 41% of controls had a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3.
Study details: MISTIE III, a multicenter, international, randomized trial of 499 patients.
Disclosures: MISTIE III was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The trial received no commercial support aside from free tissue plasminogen activator (Alteplase) supplied by Genentech. Dr. Hanley has been a consultant to BrainScope, Neurotrope, Portola, and Op2Lysis, and he has served as an expert witness on behalf of Medtronic. Dr. Awad had no disclosures.
Source: Hanley DF et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB4; Awad IS et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB5.
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
Impella RP shows higher mortality in postapproval study
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter on Feb. 4, 2019, to health care providers regarding interim results from a postapproval study for Abiomed’s Impella RP System because these results appear to have a higher mortality rate than was seen in premarket clinical studies.
As a condition of its approval, the FDA mandated Abiomed to perform a postapproval study (PAS); this study reflects use in a broader population than the premarket studies, which adhered to stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Earlier in January, Abiomed submitted data to the FDA suggesting that differences in preimplant characteristics between patients in the PAS and those in the premarket clinical studies may explain the difference in mortality. Specifically, 16 of the 23 patients enrolled in the PAS would not have met the enrollment criteria for the premarket clinical studies because they were in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest, were treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event.
“Although the FDA is concerned about the high mortality rate from the interim PAS results,” they wrote in the letter, which is available on the FDA website, “we believe that, when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP system continue to outweigh the risks.”
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter on Feb. 4, 2019, to health care providers regarding interim results from a postapproval study for Abiomed’s Impella RP System because these results appear to have a higher mortality rate than was seen in premarket clinical studies.
As a condition of its approval, the FDA mandated Abiomed to perform a postapproval study (PAS); this study reflects use in a broader population than the premarket studies, which adhered to stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Earlier in January, Abiomed submitted data to the FDA suggesting that differences in preimplant characteristics between patients in the PAS and those in the premarket clinical studies may explain the difference in mortality. Specifically, 16 of the 23 patients enrolled in the PAS would not have met the enrollment criteria for the premarket clinical studies because they were in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest, were treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event.
“Although the FDA is concerned about the high mortality rate from the interim PAS results,” they wrote in the letter, which is available on the FDA website, “we believe that, when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP system continue to outweigh the risks.”
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter on Feb. 4, 2019, to health care providers regarding interim results from a postapproval study for Abiomed’s Impella RP System because these results appear to have a higher mortality rate than was seen in premarket clinical studies.
As a condition of its approval, the FDA mandated Abiomed to perform a postapproval study (PAS); this study reflects use in a broader population than the premarket studies, which adhered to stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Earlier in January, Abiomed submitted data to the FDA suggesting that differences in preimplant characteristics between patients in the PAS and those in the premarket clinical studies may explain the difference in mortality. Specifically, 16 of the 23 patients enrolled in the PAS would not have met the enrollment criteria for the premarket clinical studies because they were in cardiogenic shock for longer than 48 hours, experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest, were treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump, or suffered a preimplant hypoxic or ischemic neurologic event.
“Although the FDA is concerned about the high mortality rate from the interim PAS results,” they wrote in the letter, which is available on the FDA website, “we believe that, when the device is used for the currently approved indication in appropriately selected patients, the benefits of the Impella RP system continue to outweigh the risks.”
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
EVAR insights from the GREAT registry
CHICAGO – The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment is a unique resource that, although still early in its planned 10-year follow-up period, has already yielded important insights into one of the hottest topics in endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: that is, the impact of the proximal aortic neck, Clayton J. Brinster, MD, said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.
The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is a prospective, observational, real-world registry that enrolled more than 5,000 consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil before enrollment closed in October 2016.
GREAT is the largest stent graft registry in the world. One of its special features is that it has essentially no exclusion criteria. This enables researchers to compare outcomes in patients undergoing on-label EVAR using devices deployed within the official instructions for use (IFU) to results in real-world practice, which not infrequently entails treatment for nonstandard indications using devices outside the narrowly defined IFU generated via pivotal clinical trials, explained Dr. Brinster, a vascular surgeon at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans.
The biggest limitation of GREAT is that it’s sponsored by Gore and restricted to recipients of GORE thoracic and abdominal stent grafts. However, the registry has an oversight and safety monitoring board that is independent of the company, Dr. Brinster continued.
He highlighted three recently published studies that have utilized early GREAT data to examine the impact on EVAR outcomes of various features of the proximal aortic neck.
Noncylindrical neck anatomy
An international team of investigators analyzed the incidence and impact of noncylindrical neck anatomy, defined as a 2-mm or greater change in diameter over the first 15 mm of proximal aortic neck length. Of 3,077 GREAT participants treated with the Gore Excluder endograft, 1,312, or 43%, had an hourglass, tapered, or conical neck shape that qualified as noncylindrical. Noncylindrical necks were more common in women. Fifteen percent of patients with a noncylindrical neck received the device outside the Excluder IFU, as did 11% with a cylindrical neck.
After an average follow-up of about 20 months, the noncylindrical neck group had a 3.1% rate of device-related intervention, significantly better than the 4.9% rate in patients with a cylindrical neck. In a multivariate regression analysis, female gender and maximum abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter were significant risk factors for device-related or endoleak-specific reintervention; noncylindrical neck morphology was not. Indeed, women were 2.2-fold more likely to require device-related reintervention than men (J Vasc Surg. 2018; 68[6]:1714-24).
Large proximal aortic neck
Of 3,166 consecutive patients in GREAT, 37.6% had a large aortic neck diameter, defined as 25 mm or wider. The rate of 5-year freedom from type Ia endoleak was 96.8% in the large-neck group, significantly less than the 98.6% rate in patients with a normal aortic neck diameter. Of note, rates didn’t diverge until after 2 years of follow-up, emphasizing the need for careful long-term surveillance despite initial technical success.
The 5-year rate of freedom from the primary composite endpoint of type Ia endoleak, reintervention, aortic rupture, or isolated aortic-related mortality was also significantly worse in the large-neck group: 81.3% versus 87%. Moreover, the 5-year survival rate was only 64.6% in the large–aortic neck group, compared with 76.5% in the comparator arm, even though aortic-related mortality didn’t differ between the two groups. “The findings raise the question of whether young patients, with predicted life expectancies exceeding 10 years, should receive standard endovascular intervention if they have large aortic neck diameters at baseline (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56[2]:189-99).
Severe neck angulation
Australian investigators wondered if the IFU for the Gore C3 Excluder was overly restrictive in defining abdominal aortic aneurysms with necks greater than 60 degrees as off-label for the device. In the first 1,394 patients enrolled in GREAT, the researchers identified 127 (9.2%) who exhibited more than 60 and less than 140 degrees of neck angulation and didn’t require endoanchors for proximal fixation. Their mean neck angle was 78 degrees, with a mean neck length of 29 mm. Mean graft oversizing was 23.5%, which was also outside the Excluder IFU.
During a median follow-up of 236 days there were 7 type Ia endoleaks, for an incidence of 5.6%. The degree of neck angulation, neck length, and the amount of oversizing were not associated with endoleak (Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;49:152-57). However, Dr. Brinster wants to see longer follow-up data before he is prepared to accept that a mean 23.5% graft oversizing is a benign intervention.
“One must remember that, with that percentage of oversizing in an already abnormal neck, aortic neck dilation could be a significant problem longer term,” the vascular surgeon said.
Dr. Brinster reported having no conflicts regarding his presentation.
bjancin@mdedge.com
CHICAGO – The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment is a unique resource that, although still early in its planned 10-year follow-up period, has already yielded important insights into one of the hottest topics in endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: that is, the impact of the proximal aortic neck, Clayton J. Brinster, MD, said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.
The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is a prospective, observational, real-world registry that enrolled more than 5,000 consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil before enrollment closed in October 2016.
GREAT is the largest stent graft registry in the world. One of its special features is that it has essentially no exclusion criteria. This enables researchers to compare outcomes in patients undergoing on-label EVAR using devices deployed within the official instructions for use (IFU) to results in real-world practice, which not infrequently entails treatment for nonstandard indications using devices outside the narrowly defined IFU generated via pivotal clinical trials, explained Dr. Brinster, a vascular surgeon at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans.
The biggest limitation of GREAT is that it’s sponsored by Gore and restricted to recipients of GORE thoracic and abdominal stent grafts. However, the registry has an oversight and safety monitoring board that is independent of the company, Dr. Brinster continued.
He highlighted three recently published studies that have utilized early GREAT data to examine the impact on EVAR outcomes of various features of the proximal aortic neck.
Noncylindrical neck anatomy
An international team of investigators analyzed the incidence and impact of noncylindrical neck anatomy, defined as a 2-mm or greater change in diameter over the first 15 mm of proximal aortic neck length. Of 3,077 GREAT participants treated with the Gore Excluder endograft, 1,312, or 43%, had an hourglass, tapered, or conical neck shape that qualified as noncylindrical. Noncylindrical necks were more common in women. Fifteen percent of patients with a noncylindrical neck received the device outside the Excluder IFU, as did 11% with a cylindrical neck.
After an average follow-up of about 20 months, the noncylindrical neck group had a 3.1% rate of device-related intervention, significantly better than the 4.9% rate in patients with a cylindrical neck. In a multivariate regression analysis, female gender and maximum abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter were significant risk factors for device-related or endoleak-specific reintervention; noncylindrical neck morphology was not. Indeed, women were 2.2-fold more likely to require device-related reintervention than men (J Vasc Surg. 2018; 68[6]:1714-24).
Large proximal aortic neck
Of 3,166 consecutive patients in GREAT, 37.6% had a large aortic neck diameter, defined as 25 mm or wider. The rate of 5-year freedom from type Ia endoleak was 96.8% in the large-neck group, significantly less than the 98.6% rate in patients with a normal aortic neck diameter. Of note, rates didn’t diverge until after 2 years of follow-up, emphasizing the need for careful long-term surveillance despite initial technical success.
The 5-year rate of freedom from the primary composite endpoint of type Ia endoleak, reintervention, aortic rupture, or isolated aortic-related mortality was also significantly worse in the large-neck group: 81.3% versus 87%. Moreover, the 5-year survival rate was only 64.6% in the large–aortic neck group, compared with 76.5% in the comparator arm, even though aortic-related mortality didn’t differ between the two groups. “The findings raise the question of whether young patients, with predicted life expectancies exceeding 10 years, should receive standard endovascular intervention if they have large aortic neck diameters at baseline (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56[2]:189-99).
Severe neck angulation
Australian investigators wondered if the IFU for the Gore C3 Excluder was overly restrictive in defining abdominal aortic aneurysms with necks greater than 60 degrees as off-label for the device. In the first 1,394 patients enrolled in GREAT, the researchers identified 127 (9.2%) who exhibited more than 60 and less than 140 degrees of neck angulation and didn’t require endoanchors for proximal fixation. Their mean neck angle was 78 degrees, with a mean neck length of 29 mm. Mean graft oversizing was 23.5%, which was also outside the Excluder IFU.
During a median follow-up of 236 days there were 7 type Ia endoleaks, for an incidence of 5.6%. The degree of neck angulation, neck length, and the amount of oversizing were not associated with endoleak (Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;49:152-57). However, Dr. Brinster wants to see longer follow-up data before he is prepared to accept that a mean 23.5% graft oversizing is a benign intervention.
“One must remember that, with that percentage of oversizing in an already abnormal neck, aortic neck dilation could be a significant problem longer term,” the vascular surgeon said.
Dr. Brinster reported having no conflicts regarding his presentation.
bjancin@mdedge.com
CHICAGO – The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment is a unique resource that, although still early in its planned 10-year follow-up period, has already yielded important insights into one of the hottest topics in endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: that is, the impact of the proximal aortic neck, Clayton J. Brinster, MD, said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.
The Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT) is a prospective, observational, real-world registry that enrolled more than 5,000 consecutive patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil before enrollment closed in October 2016.
GREAT is the largest stent graft registry in the world. One of its special features is that it has essentially no exclusion criteria. This enables researchers to compare outcomes in patients undergoing on-label EVAR using devices deployed within the official instructions for use (IFU) to results in real-world practice, which not infrequently entails treatment for nonstandard indications using devices outside the narrowly defined IFU generated via pivotal clinical trials, explained Dr. Brinster, a vascular surgeon at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans.
The biggest limitation of GREAT is that it’s sponsored by Gore and restricted to recipients of GORE thoracic and abdominal stent grafts. However, the registry has an oversight and safety monitoring board that is independent of the company, Dr. Brinster continued.
He highlighted three recently published studies that have utilized early GREAT data to examine the impact on EVAR outcomes of various features of the proximal aortic neck.
Noncylindrical neck anatomy
An international team of investigators analyzed the incidence and impact of noncylindrical neck anatomy, defined as a 2-mm or greater change in diameter over the first 15 mm of proximal aortic neck length. Of 3,077 GREAT participants treated with the Gore Excluder endograft, 1,312, or 43%, had an hourglass, tapered, or conical neck shape that qualified as noncylindrical. Noncylindrical necks were more common in women. Fifteen percent of patients with a noncylindrical neck received the device outside the Excluder IFU, as did 11% with a cylindrical neck.
After an average follow-up of about 20 months, the noncylindrical neck group had a 3.1% rate of device-related intervention, significantly better than the 4.9% rate in patients with a cylindrical neck. In a multivariate regression analysis, female gender and maximum abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter were significant risk factors for device-related or endoleak-specific reintervention; noncylindrical neck morphology was not. Indeed, women were 2.2-fold more likely to require device-related reintervention than men (J Vasc Surg. 2018; 68[6]:1714-24).
Large proximal aortic neck
Of 3,166 consecutive patients in GREAT, 37.6% had a large aortic neck diameter, defined as 25 mm or wider. The rate of 5-year freedom from type Ia endoleak was 96.8% in the large-neck group, significantly less than the 98.6% rate in patients with a normal aortic neck diameter. Of note, rates didn’t diverge until after 2 years of follow-up, emphasizing the need for careful long-term surveillance despite initial technical success.
The 5-year rate of freedom from the primary composite endpoint of type Ia endoleak, reintervention, aortic rupture, or isolated aortic-related mortality was also significantly worse in the large-neck group: 81.3% versus 87%. Moreover, the 5-year survival rate was only 64.6% in the large–aortic neck group, compared with 76.5% in the comparator arm, even though aortic-related mortality didn’t differ between the two groups. “The findings raise the question of whether young patients, with predicted life expectancies exceeding 10 years, should receive standard endovascular intervention if they have large aortic neck diameters at baseline (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56[2]:189-99).
Severe neck angulation
Australian investigators wondered if the IFU for the Gore C3 Excluder was overly restrictive in defining abdominal aortic aneurysms with necks greater than 60 degrees as off-label for the device. In the first 1,394 patients enrolled in GREAT, the researchers identified 127 (9.2%) who exhibited more than 60 and less than 140 degrees of neck angulation and didn’t require endoanchors for proximal fixation. Their mean neck angle was 78 degrees, with a mean neck length of 29 mm. Mean graft oversizing was 23.5%, which was also outside the Excluder IFU.
During a median follow-up of 236 days there were 7 type Ia endoleaks, for an incidence of 5.6%. The degree of neck angulation, neck length, and the amount of oversizing were not associated with endoleak (Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;49:152-57). However, Dr. Brinster wants to see longer follow-up data before he is prepared to accept that a mean 23.5% graft oversizing is a benign intervention.
“One must remember that, with that percentage of oversizing in an already abnormal neck, aortic neck dilation could be a significant problem longer term,” the vascular surgeon said.
Dr. Brinster reported having no conflicts regarding his presentation.
bjancin@mdedge.com
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE NORTHWESTERN VASCULAR SYMPOSIUM
For CABG, multiple and single arterial grafts show no survival difference
No significant difference in rate of death was found in patients who underwent either bilateral or single internal thoracic artery grafting during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, according to a randomized trial of patients who were scheduled to undergo CABG.
“At 10 years, in intention-to-treat analyses, there were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality,” wrote lead author David P. Taggart, MD, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and his coauthors, adding that “the results of this trial are not consistent with data from previous, nonrandomized studies.” The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In the multicenter, unblinded Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART), 3,102 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were divided into two groups: the bilateral-graft group (1,548 patients) and the single-graft group (1,554). They were assigned to receive bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts or a standard single left internal thoracic artery graft during CABG, respectively. However, 13.9% of the patients in the bilateral-graft group received only a single internal thoracic artery graft, while 21.8% of those in the single-graft group also received a radial artery graft.
At 10-year follow-up, 644 patients (20.8%) had died; 315 deaths (20.3%) occurred in the bilateral-graft group and 329 (21.2%) occurred in the single-graft group. A total of 385 patients (24.9%) suffered MI, stroke, or death in the bilateral-graft group, compared with 425 (27.3%) in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.03).
The coauthors noted several reasons that the results of their trial may not have matched previous data, including conflicting evidence about vein graft failure’s clinical effect on survival and the aforementioned patients who were assigned to a specific group but received alternate grafting. In addition, they acknowledged that ART was an unblinded trial and “biases may be introduced in the treatment of patients, depending on their randomization assignment.”
The study was supported by grants from the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the National Institute of Health Research Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation Program. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Taggart DP et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808783.
Do the results of the Arterial Revascularization Trial undercut observational studies that elevated bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting? Not just yet, according to Stuart J. Head, MD, PhD, and Arie Pieter Kappetein, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, the Netherlands.
They also recognized the study’s limitations in regard to groups receiving unassigned grafts and potential selection bias. Until another ongoing study on multiple arterial grafts is completed, the authors recommended that “CABG [coronary artery bypass grafting] with both internal thoracic arteries should not be abandoned. It should still be performed in patients with a low risk of sternal wound complications and a good long-term survival prognosis and by surgeons who are experienced in performing multiarterial CABG procedures.”
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1814681). No conflicts of interest were reported.
Do the results of the Arterial Revascularization Trial undercut observational studies that elevated bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting? Not just yet, according to Stuart J. Head, MD, PhD, and Arie Pieter Kappetein, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, the Netherlands.
They also recognized the study’s limitations in regard to groups receiving unassigned grafts and potential selection bias. Until another ongoing study on multiple arterial grafts is completed, the authors recommended that “CABG [coronary artery bypass grafting] with both internal thoracic arteries should not be abandoned. It should still be performed in patients with a low risk of sternal wound complications and a good long-term survival prognosis and by surgeons who are experienced in performing multiarterial CABG procedures.”
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1814681). No conflicts of interest were reported.
Do the results of the Arterial Revascularization Trial undercut observational studies that elevated bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting? Not just yet, according to Stuart J. Head, MD, PhD, and Arie Pieter Kappetein, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, the Netherlands.
They also recognized the study’s limitations in regard to groups receiving unassigned grafts and potential selection bias. Until another ongoing study on multiple arterial grafts is completed, the authors recommended that “CABG [coronary artery bypass grafting] with both internal thoracic arteries should not be abandoned. It should still be performed in patients with a low risk of sternal wound complications and a good long-term survival prognosis and by surgeons who are experienced in performing multiarterial CABG procedures.”
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1814681). No conflicts of interest were reported.
No significant difference in rate of death was found in patients who underwent either bilateral or single internal thoracic artery grafting during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, according to a randomized trial of patients who were scheduled to undergo CABG.
“At 10 years, in intention-to-treat analyses, there were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality,” wrote lead author David P. Taggart, MD, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and his coauthors, adding that “the results of this trial are not consistent with data from previous, nonrandomized studies.” The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In the multicenter, unblinded Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART), 3,102 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were divided into two groups: the bilateral-graft group (1,548 patients) and the single-graft group (1,554). They were assigned to receive bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts or a standard single left internal thoracic artery graft during CABG, respectively. However, 13.9% of the patients in the bilateral-graft group received only a single internal thoracic artery graft, while 21.8% of those in the single-graft group also received a radial artery graft.
At 10-year follow-up, 644 patients (20.8%) had died; 315 deaths (20.3%) occurred in the bilateral-graft group and 329 (21.2%) occurred in the single-graft group. A total of 385 patients (24.9%) suffered MI, stroke, or death in the bilateral-graft group, compared with 425 (27.3%) in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.03).
The coauthors noted several reasons that the results of their trial may not have matched previous data, including conflicting evidence about vein graft failure’s clinical effect on survival and the aforementioned patients who were assigned to a specific group but received alternate grafting. In addition, they acknowledged that ART was an unblinded trial and “biases may be introduced in the treatment of patients, depending on their randomization assignment.”
The study was supported by grants from the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the National Institute of Health Research Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation Program. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Taggart DP et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808783.
No significant difference in rate of death was found in patients who underwent either bilateral or single internal thoracic artery grafting during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, according to a randomized trial of patients who were scheduled to undergo CABG.
“At 10 years, in intention-to-treat analyses, there were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality,” wrote lead author David P. Taggart, MD, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and his coauthors, adding that “the results of this trial are not consistent with data from previous, nonrandomized studies.” The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In the multicenter, unblinded Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART), 3,102 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were divided into two groups: the bilateral-graft group (1,548 patients) and the single-graft group (1,554). They were assigned to receive bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts or a standard single left internal thoracic artery graft during CABG, respectively. However, 13.9% of the patients in the bilateral-graft group received only a single internal thoracic artery graft, while 21.8% of those in the single-graft group also received a radial artery graft.
At 10-year follow-up, 644 patients (20.8%) had died; 315 deaths (20.3%) occurred in the bilateral-graft group and 329 (21.2%) occurred in the single-graft group. A total of 385 patients (24.9%) suffered MI, stroke, or death in the bilateral-graft group, compared with 425 (27.3%) in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.03).
The coauthors noted several reasons that the results of their trial may not have matched previous data, including conflicting evidence about vein graft failure’s clinical effect on survival and the aforementioned patients who were assigned to a specific group but received alternate grafting. In addition, they acknowledged that ART was an unblinded trial and “biases may be introduced in the treatment of patients, depending on their randomization assignment.”
The study was supported by grants from the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the National Institute of Health Research Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation Program. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Taggart DP et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808783.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Key clinical point:
Major finding: At 10-year follow-up, there were 315 deaths (20.3% of patients) in the bilateral-graft group and 329 deaths (21.2%) in the single-graft group.
Study details: A two-group, multicenter, randomized, unblinded trial of 3,102 patients who were scheduled to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting.
Disclosures: The study was supported by grants from the British Heart Foundation, the U.K. Medical Research Council, and the National Institute of Health Research Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation Program. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
Source: Taggart DP et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808783.