Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

BACKGROUND

A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiography recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection.

BACKGROUND

A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Comparing cost aspects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery with coronary artery stenting

Randomized trials have compared revascularization of coronary artery disease by coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CABG is an expensive treatment. However, it manages to improve quality of life, restore general well being, and alleviate symptoms of patients. Coronary stents have improved the safety and durability of PCI. Nonetheless, stenting remains limited by a relatively high in-stent restenosis and thrombosis rate. The costs and cost-effectiveness for these different treatment modalities are relevant issues because cardiovascular disease and its management are prime targets for cost reduction initiatives. There is a debate as to which is the optimal treatment strategy as well as to the cost-effectiveness comparing CABG and PCI. This review provides an overview of cost-effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI. PCI has high costs due to the need for subsequent revascularization procedures, with absence of mortality and survival benefit compared with CABG. Despite the relative lower initial costs of PCI in the first year, PCI is not a cost-effective intervention in comparison with CABG. However, the studies undertaken to date have predominantly been short term and provide a very limited evidence base by which to assess the cost-effectiveness of modern clinical practice. It seems that in longer term, the benefits of CABG may exceed those of stenting and the difference in net cost may be in favour of CABG as the risk of repeat revascularization still increases with PCI regardless of the use of DES. However, to date no long-term data are available in cost-effectiveness between CABG and PCI. The 5-year outcome of the ongoing SYNTAX trial is essential and might therefore provide new insights into the comparison of cost-effectiveness between CABG and DES PCI.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation 10-year anniversary: review of current evidence and clinical implications

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is currently the standard of care to treat patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and is generally accepted to alleviate symptoms and prolong survival. Based on the results of randomized trials, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the new standard of care for patients with symptomatic AS who are deemed 'inoperable'. Debatably, TAVI is also an alternative to SAVR in selected patients who are at high risk but operable. As we approach 10 years of clinical experience with TAVI, with over 50 000 implantations in 40 countries, a review of the current literature and clinical outcomes with this rapidly evolving technology is appropriate.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 10-year anniversary part II: clinical implications

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been increasingly recognized as a curative treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Despite important improvements in current device technology and implantation techniques, specific complications still remain and warrant consideration. Vascular complications and peri-procedural neurological events were the first concerns to emerge with this new technology. Recently, significant post procedural para-valvular leak has been shown to be more frequent after TAVI than after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and its potential association with worse long-term prognostic has raised concerns. In moving toward treatment of lower risk populations, structural integrity and long-term durability of heat valve prosthesis are becoming of central importance. Emerging technologies and newer generations of devices seem promising in dealing with these matters.

Non-inferiority study design: lessons to be learned from cardiovascular trials

The non-inferiority trial design has gained popularity within the last decades to compare a new treatment to the standard active control. In contrast to superiority trials, this design is complex and is based on assumptions that cannot be validated directly. Many readers and even investigators, therefore, have difficulty grasping the full methodological nature of non-inferiority trials. Non-inferiority margins are often arbitrarily chosen such that a favourable margin can bias a trial towards declaring non-inferiority. Pitfalls of non-inferiority trials are not fully appreciated, and without having identified these shortcomings, objective conclusions from non-inferiority trials cannot be made. This methodological review elaborates on what is a non-inferiority trial, why such a trial is performed, what the hazards are, and how conclusions from non-inferiority trials are derived, by providing examples of recent cardiovascular trials.

Clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using valve academic research consortium definitions: a weighted meta-analysis of 3,519 patients from 16 studies

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to perform a weighted meta-analysis to determine the rates of major outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) definitions and to evaluate their current use in the literature.

BACKGROUND

Recently, the published VARC definitions have helped to add uniformity to reporting outcomes after TAVR.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from January 1, 2011, through October 12, 2011, was conducted using predefined criteria. We included studies reporting at least 1 outcome using VARC definitions.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies including 3,519 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate rates of outcomes were determined according to VARC's definitions: device success, 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.7% to 95.5%); all-cause 30-day mortality, 7.8% (95% CI: 5.5% to 11.1%); myocardial infarction, 1.1% (95% CI: 0.2% to 2.0%); acute kidney injury stage II/III, 7.5% (95% CI: 5.1% to 11.4%); life-threatening bleeding, 15.6% (95% CI: 11.7% to 20.7%); major vascular complications, 11.9% (95% CI: 8.6% to 16.4%); major stroke, 3.2% (95% CI: 2.1% to 4.8%); and new permanent pacemaker implantation, 13.9% (95% CI: 10.6% to 18.9%). Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis use was associated with a significant higher rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation compared with the Edwards prosthesis (28.9% [95% CI: 23.0% to 36.0%] vs. 4.9% [95% CI: 3.9% to 6.2%], p < 0.0001). The 30-day safety composite endpoint rate was 32.7% (95% CI: 27.5% to 38.8%) and the 1-year total mortality rate was 22.1% (95% CI: 17.9% to 26.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

VARC definitions have already been used by the TAVR clinical research community, establishing a new standard for reporting clinical outcomes. Future revisions of the VARC definitions are needed based on evolving TAVR clinical experiences.

Do differences in repeat revascularization explain the antianginal benefits of bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention?: implications for future treatment comparisons

BACKGROUND

Patients with multivessel coronary disease treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have less angina than those treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, there is uncertainty as to the mechanism of greater angina relief with CABG and whether more frequent repeat revascularization in patients treated with PCI could account for this treatment difference.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery trial, 1800 patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG or PCI with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1, 6, and 12 months, using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form General Health Survey, and the association between repeat revascularization and health status during follow-up was assessed using longitudinal models. In adjusted analyses, patients who underwent repeat revascularization had worse angina frequency scores than patients who did not in both treatment groups, with differences of 8.5 points at 6 months and 3.1 points at 12 months in patients treated with PCI and 19.8 points at 6 months and 11.2 points at 12 months in patients with patients treated with CABG. Among patients who did not require repeat revascularization, the adjusted effect of CABG versus PCI on 12-month angina frequency scores was nearly identical to the overall benefit in the intention-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated with PCI or CABG, the occurrence of repeat revascularization during follow-up did not fully explain the antianginal benefit of CABG in the overall population. The differential association between repeat revascularization and anginal status, according to the type of initial revascularization procedure, suggests that this end point should play a limited role in any direct comparison of the 2 treatment strategies.

Coronary Revascularisation in Patients Eligible Only for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting – A Review with a Specific Focus on the Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Nested Registries

In many patients, comparable results can be achieved either with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The comparison of PCI versus CABG is frequently reported in randomised trials, national registries, multicentre collaborations and single-centre experiences. However, the patients included in these analyses are either highly selected (trials), or comprehensive (national registries and retrospective studies). Large registries differ from each other since indications for PCI or CABG may be different among geographic regions, hence the large PCI:CABG ratio variability that has been described. Some patients can only undergo bypass surgery because they have too complex coronary artery disease deemed unsuitable to be treated with PCI. In contrast, PCI can be the only treatment option if patients are deemed inoperable due to advanced age or severe co-morbidities. Separate analyses of these patients that are excluded from randomisation is needed to fully understand the strength, limitations and outcomes of PCI and CABG in selected patients. This review summarises the data of patients ineligible for randomisation and focuses specifically on the Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) PCI and CABG nested registries.

Appropriate coronary artery bypass grafting use in the percutaneous coronary intervention era: are we finally making progress?

Appropriate use criteria integrate guidelines, clinical trial evidence, and expert opinion in order to determine the most appropriate care for a range of distinct clinical scenarios. Inappropriate use estimates cannot be neglected. Approximately 12%-14% of all percutaneous coronary interventions and 1%-2% of all coronary artery bypass grafting procedures in patients with stable angina are deemed inappropriate. Several reasons for this difference are identified. Continuous improvement of the criteria, multidisciplinary discussions, and the correct financial incentives will be essential in reducing the number of inappropriate procedures, improve patient outcomes, and contain costs.

Incidence, predictors and outcomes of incomplete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting: a subgroup analysis of 3-year SYNTAX data

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether incomplete revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has an effect on long-term outcomes.

METHODS

During a heart team discussion to evaluate whether patients were eligible for randomization in the SYNTAX trial, both the cardiologist and surgeon agreed on which vessels needed revascularization. This statement was compared with the actual revascularization after treatment. Incomplete revascularization was defined as when a preoperatively identified vessel with a lesion was not revascularized. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), the composite safety endpoint of death/stroke/myocardial infarction (MI), and individual MACCE components death, MI and repeat revascularization at 3 years. Predictors of incomplete revascularization were explored.

RESULTS

Incomplete revascularization was found in 43.3% (388/896) PCI and 36.8% (320/870) CABG patients. Patients with complete revascularization by PCI had lower rates of MACCE (66.5 versus 76.2%, P < 0.001), the composite safety endpoint (83.4 versus 87.9%, P = 0.05) and repeat revascularization (75.5 versus 83.9%, P < 0.001), but not death and MI. In the CABG group, no difference in outcomes was seen between incomplete and complete revascularization groups. Incomplete revascularization was identified as independent predictor of MACCE in PCI (HR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.15-2.08, P = 0.004) but not CABG patients. Independent predictors of incomplete revascularization by PCI were hyperlipidaemia (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.04-2.42, P = 0.031), a total occlusion (OR = 2.46, 95% CI 1.66-3.64, P < 0.001) and the number of vessels (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.41-1.77, P < 0.001). Independent predictors of incomplete revascularization by CABG were unstable angina (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-1.98, P = 0.038), diffuse disease or narrowed ( < 2 mm) segment distal to the lesion (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.31-2.69, P = 0.001) and the number of vessels (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.53-1.89, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the hypothesis-generating nature of this data, this study demonstrates that incomplete revascularization is associated with adverse events during follow-up after PCI but not CABG.

Abstract 12: Determinants of Health-Related Quality of Life after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Bypass Surgery: Insights from the SYNTAX Trial

Background: Patients with multivessel or left main CAD treated with CABG have a small but significant improvement in angina as compared to those treated with PCI. However, there is uncertainty as to the mechanism of greater angina relief with CABG and whether the greater need for repeat revascularization in PCI patients could account for this treatment difference.

Methods: In the SYNTAX trial, 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main CAD were randomized to CABG (n=897) or PCI with paclitaxel-eluting stents (n=903). Health-related quality of life was assessed at baseline, 1, 6, and 12 months using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire and the SF-36 General Health Survey. Longitudinal random effect growth curve models were used to examine the association between patient-related factors, treatment-related factors, clinical outcomes, and follow-up health status.

Results: Older age, male sex, and absence of angina at baseline were associated with less angina at 12 months, whereas completeness of revascularization was not. The need for repeat revascularization was associated with worse angina frequency scores in both treatment groups, with differences in PCI patients of 7.8 points at 6 months (p<0.001) and 2.9 points at 12 months (p=0.07) and in CABG patients of 16.4 points at 6 months (p<0.001) and 9.1 points at 12 months (p<0.001). Among patients who did not require repeat revascularization, the effect of CABG vs. PCI on 12-month angina frequency scores was 1.6 points–nearly identical to the overall benefit in the intention-to-treat analysis.

Conclusions: Patients with multivessel or left main CAD who required repeat revascularization had substantially worse angina and overall health status during follow-up. However, this factor explained little of the treatment benefit observed with CABG over PCI in the overall population, suggesting that some of the anti-anginal benefit of CABG may result from mechanisms unrelated to relief of myocardial ischemia. In addition, there was a substantial difference in the magnitude of association between repeat revascularization and anginal status in patients treated with CABG as compared with PCI, suggesting that this endpoint should play a limited role in any direct comparison of the two treatment strategies.

Economic outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease: one-year results from the SYNTAX trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to revascularization for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that, despite higher initial costs, long-term costs with bypass surgery (CABG) in multivessel CAD are similar to those for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of drug-eluting stents (DES) on these results is unknown.

METHODS

The SYNTAX trial randomized 1,800 patients with left main or three-vessel CAD to either CABG (n = 897) or PCI using paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 903). Resource utilization data were collected prospectively for all patients, and cumulative 1-year costs were assessed from the perspective of the U.S. healthcare system.

RESULTS

Total costs for the initial hospitalization were $5,693/patient higher with CABG, whereas follow-up costs were $2,282/patient higher with PCI due mainly to more frequent revascularization procedures and higher outpatient medication costs. Total 1-year costs were thus $3,590/patient higher with CABG, while quality-adjusted life expectancy was slightly higher with PCI. Although PCI was an economically dominant strategy for the overall population, cost-effectiveness varied considerably according to angiographic complexity. For patients with high angiographic complexity (SYNTAX score > 32), total 1-year costs were similar for CABG and PCI, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG was $43,486 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with three-vessel or left main CAD, PCI is an economically attractive strategy over the first year for patients with low and moderate angiographic complexity, while CABG is favored among patients with high angiographic complexity.

Surgery in current therapy for infective endocarditis

The introduction of the Duke criteria and transesophageal echocardiography has improved early recognition of infective endocarditis but patients are still at high risk for severe morbidity or death. Whether an exclusively antibiotic regimen is superior to surgical intervention is subject to ongoing debate. Current guidelines indicate when surgery is the preferred treatment, but decisions are often based on physician preferences. Surgery has shown to decrease the risk of short-term mortality in patients who present with specific symptoms or microorganisms; nevertheless even then it often remains unclear when surgery should be performed. In this review we i) systematically reviewed the current literature comparing medical to surgical therapy to evaluate if surgery is the preferred option, ii) performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting propensity matched analyses, and iii), briefly summarized the current indications for surgery.

Quality of life after PCI with drug-eluting stents or coronary-artery bypass surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that among patients undergoing multivessel revascularization, coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), as compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) either by means of balloon angioplasty or with the use of bare-metal stents, results in greater relief from angina and improved quality of life. The effect of PCI with the use of drug-eluting stents on these outcomes is unknown.

METHODS

In a large, randomized trial, we assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo either CABG (897 patients) or PCI with paclitaxel-eluting stents (903 patients). Health-related quality of life was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months with the use of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). The primary end point was the score on the angina-frequency subscale of the SAQ (on which scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status).

RESULTS

The scores on each of the SAQ and SF-36 subscales were significantly higher at 6 and 12 months than at baseline in both groups. The score on the angina-frequency subscale of the SAQ increased to a greater extent with CABG than with PCI at both 6 and 12 months (P=0.04 and P=0.03, respectively), but the between-group differences were small (mean treatment effect of 1.7 points at both time points). The proportion of patients who were free from angina was similar in the two groups at 1 month and 6 months and was higher in the CABG group than in the PCI group at 12 months (76.3% vs. 71.6%, P=0.05). Scores on all the other SAQ and SF-36 subscales were either higher in the PCI group (mainly at 1 month) or were similar in the two groups throughout the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, there was greater relief from angina after CABG than after PCI at 6 and 12 months, although the extent of the benefit was small. (Funded by Boston Scientific; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.).

The evolution of advanced techniques for the management of symptomatic aortic stenosis in the elderly population: conventional surgical management vs transcatheter valve implantation

The shifting age demographic of the adult population has affected every area of contemporary medical and surgical practice. Many more people are living well, not just into their 70s but into their 80s and beyond. Their expectations of treatment for every illness have shifted markedly upwards at the same time. Despite the decline in cases of rheumatic fever in Westernised populations in recent times, the ageing population has led to no decline in the prevalence of valvular aortic stenosis. This is now realised to be an active pro-inflammatory disease, rather than a degenerative process. Thus the condition has remained in the mainstream and continues to be responsible for considerable morbidity, hospitalisation and mortality among the elderly and very elderly. Management has always been based on the triage of cases for direct intervention to the valve by surgery. Just as expectations have risen from patients, the techniques, application and monitoring of cardiac surgery have also made huge strides forward to meet this aspiration. More and more, surgeons are routinely asked to consider procedures in frailer, more elderly patients with more severe disease and co-morbidity. Managing the stenosis is rarely the only issue confronting the operating surgeon. Attempts to provide alternatives to open valve replacement surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass have now emerged. These are based around the transcutaneous placement of a valve prosthesis. While these technologies were initially highly selective in their application, they have now reached a stage to be compared with contemporary standards of cardiac surgical practice.

New Anticoagulants in Cardiac Surgery

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy is a key part of the management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery and one of the cornerstones to prevent complications after coronary bypass or valvular heart surgery. The use of anticoagulants and antiplatelets is life-saving, but these agents also contribute to the risk of bleeding. The only orally active anticoagulants that are licensed for long-term use are vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), such as warfarin and are often prescribed after mechanical heart valve implantation or in case of atrial fibrillation. Bleeding is a significant adverse event. Another major drawback of warfarin is the need for routine coagulation monitoring and even with monitoring, the international normalised ratio is frequently outside the therapeutic range. Development of new antithrombotic drugs has been targeted to improve the clinical benefit by reducing bleeding and thromboembolic complications and improving the ease of use. The many limitations of VKAs have provoked the development of new oral anticoagulants. Recently, dabigatran etexilate and ticagrelor have been introduced as possible substitutes. Furthermore, agents are evaluated to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes. Clopidogrel is often used, but this increases the risk of bleeding in patients in which coronary artery bypass grafting is necessary. This review outlines the alternatives of warfarin and clopidogrel therapy for patients with a mechanical heart valve or who undergo bypass surgery. It also establishes a five-year view for key contenders to replace the existing standard therapy.

Relationship between the logistic EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score in patients implanted with the CoreValve ReValving system--a Bern-Rotterdam Study

BACKGROUND

Surgical risk scores, such as the logistic EuroSCORE (LES) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS) score, are commonly used to identify high-risk or "inoperable" patients for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In Europe, the LES plays an important role in selecting patients for implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve System. What is less clear, however, is the role of the STS score of these patients and the relationship between the LES and STS.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to examine the correlation between LES and STS scores and their performance characteristics in high-risk surgical patients implanted with the Medtronic CoreValve System.

METHODS

All consecutive patients (n = 168) in whom a CoreValve bioprosthesis was implanted between November 2005 and June 2009 at 2 centers (Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, and Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) were included for analysis. Patient demographics were recorded in a prospective database. Logistic EuroSCORE and STS scores were calculated on a prospective and retrospective basis, respectively.

RESULTS

Observed mortality was 11.1%. The mean LES was 3 times higher than the mean STS score (LES 20.2% +/- 13.9% vs STS 6.7% +/- 5.8%). Based on the various LES and STS cutoff values used in previous and ongoing TAVI trials, 53% of patients had an LES > or =15%, 16% had an STS > or =10%, and 40% had an LES > or =20% or STS > or =10%. Pearson correlation coefficient revealed a reasonable (moderate) linear relationship between the LES and STS scores, r = 0.58, P < .001. Although the STS score outperformed the LES, both models had suboptimal discriminatory power (c-statistic, 0.49 for LES and 0.69 for STS) and calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical judgment and the Heart Team concept should play a key role in selecting patients for TAVI, whereas currently available surgical risk score algorithms should be used to guide clinical decision making.

Surgical treatment of active native aortic valve endocarditis with allografts and mechanical prostheses

BACKGROUND

Surgical intervention for persistent active native aortic valve endocarditis (NVE) remains challenging. We analyzed our combined experience with allografts and mechanical prostheses (MP) in NVE operations.

METHODS

Between 1980 and 2002, 138 patients (81% males) underwent aortic valve replacement for NVE in 2 centers (106 allografts; 32 MPs). Perioperative characteristics and early and late morbidity and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean age was 47 years (range, 14 to 76 years), and 34% required emergency surgery. Abscess rate was 38% for allografts vs 18% for MPs. Concomitant mitral valve replacement was required in 38% MP patients and in 5% allograft patients. Hospital mortality was 8% (n = 11; p = 0.25): 10 allograft patients (9%) and 1 MP patient (3%). During a mean 8-year follow-up (range, 0 to 25 years) 33 patients died: 22 allograft (24%) and 11 MP patients (21%; p = 0.14). Survival at 15 years was 59% +/- 6% for allograft patients and 66% +/- 9% for MP patients (p = 0.68). Late recurrent endocarditis developed in 6 allograft patients and 1 MP patient (p = 0.29). Overall 15-year freedom from reoperation was 76% +/- 9% for allografts and 93% +/- 6% for MPs (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical prostheses have comparable rates of midterm survival and freedom from recurrent infection. However, this is in combination with extensive excision of destructive tissue in a specific patient subset. Allograft reoperation rates increase with time. The importance of the mechanical prosthesis in NVE might be established in the coming years.

Complexity of coronary vasculature predicts outcome of surgery for left main disease

BACKGROUND

The SYNTAX score, a comprehensive angiographic scoring system, was recently developed as a tool for risk stratification during the SYNTAX trial (randomized trial comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention). We applied the SYNTAX score in patients with left main coronary artery disease who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting to examine its role in predicting incidences of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) within 30 days and 1 year.

METHODS

One hundred forty-eight patients were studied. Their angiograms were scored according to the SYNTAX score. The MACCE-free survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined risk factors for MACCE. Performance of the SYNTAX score was studied with respect to discrimination by receiver-operating characteristic curves with their area under the curve (c-index). Classification and regression tree analysis was performed to identify the best outcome predictors and develop a risk stratification model.

RESULTS

Overall SYNTAX score ranged from 11 to 53 (mean, 24 +/- 9). At 30 days and 1 year, 15 (10%) and 19 (13%) patients experienced MACCE. Patients with a higher SYNTAX score had a significantly (p < 0.0001) poorer MACCE-free survival. In multivariate analysis, SYNTAX score, female sex, and incomplete revascularization were associated with a higher rate of MACCE in 30 days. The SYNTAX score was the single predictor for MACCE in 1 year. The c-index of the SYNTAX score was 0.88 for 30 days and 0.90 for 1 year, respectively. The SYNTAX score was the best single discriminator between patients with and those without MACCE, with a discrimination level of 36.5.

CONCLUSIONS

The SYNTAX score is the first coronary vasculature complexity score predictive for postoperative outcome in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. The outcomes of the ongoing SYNTAX trial will definitively define the role of the SYNTAX score in predicting short-term and long-term incidence of MACCE.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both).

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry.

RESULTS

Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.)

New Trends and Developments in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis – Towards Optimal Treatment?

Over the next few decades the number of patients diagnosed with aortic stenosis is expected to rise as the population ages and the use of several diagnostic tools expands. This will result in a growing need for both medical and surgical treatment and stimulate the development of new diagnostic and surgical techniques. This article briefly describes the prevalence, pathogenesis and clinical presentation of patients with aortic stenosis and focuses on developments in diagnostic tools, treatment strategies and treatment modalities: the use of echocardiography, tissue Doppler imaging, stress testing and biomarkers is discussed, as well as timing of surgery and the role microsimulation can play in prosthesis selection. Furthermore, newly developed transcatheter valve implantation techniques and their possible role in treating ‘inoperable’ or ‘elderly’ patients are discussed.

Surgical implications of coronary arterial anatomy in adults with congenital cardiac disease

In adults with congenital heart disease coronary arterial anatomy, normal as well as anomalous, may have implications in surgical reconstruction of an underlying cardiac structure.

In addition to the diagnostic imaging, necessary in surgery for adult congenital heart disease, additional information with regard to the spatial relation between the relevant cardiac structure and the coronary arterial system may be required for planning the operation and providing a good outcome.

The congenital cardiac surgeon should have the necessary skills in coronary artery bypass techniques.

With lack of adequate data, the estimation of mortality due to complications as a result of coronary damage in surgery for adult congenital cardiac disease of below 1% seems fair.