Impact of mitral regurgitation on clinical outcomes of patients with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND Up to 1 in 6 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) present with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis and concomitant relevant mitral regurgitation (MR) is present in 30% to 55% of these patients. The effect of MR on clinical outcomes of LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 606 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, 113 (18.7%) patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis (mean gradient ≤40 mm Hg, aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) were analyzed. LEF-LG patients were dichotomized into ≤mild MR (n=52) and ≥moderate MR (n=61). Primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. No differences in mortality were observed at 30 days (P=0.76). At 1 year, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR had an adjusted 3-fold higher rate of all-cause mortality (11.5% versus 38.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.27 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-8.15]; P=0.011), as compared with LEF-LG patients with ≤mild MR. Mortality was mainly driven by cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.62; P=0.005). As compared with LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR assigned to medical therapy, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR undergoing TAVI had significantly lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.019-0.75) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Moderate or severe MR is a strong independent predictor of late mortality in LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI. However, LEF-LG patients assigned to medical therapy have a dismal prognosis independent of MR severity suggesting that TAVI should not be withheld from symptomatic patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis even in the presence of moderate or severe MR.

Long-term outcome after arterial ischemic stroke in children and young adults.

OBJECTIVE To compare long-term outcome of children and young adults with arterial ischemic stroke (AIS) from 2 large registries. METHODS Prospective cohort study comparing functional and psychosocial long-term outcome (≥2 years after AIS) in patients who had AIS during childhood (1 month-16 years) or young adulthood (16.1-45 years) between January 2000 and December 2008, who consented to follow-up. Data of children were collected prospectively in the Swiss Neuropediatric Stroke Registry, young adults in the Bernese stroke database. RESULTS Follow-up information was available in 95/116 children and 154/187 young adults. Median follow-up of survivors was 6.9 years (interquartile range 4.7-9.4) and did not differ between the groups (p = 0.122). Long-term functional outcome was similar (p = 0.896): 53 (56%) children and 84 (55%) young adults had a favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-1). Mortality in children was 14% (13/95) and in young adults 7% (11/154) (p = 0.121) and recurrence rate did not differ (p = 0.759). Overall psychosocial impairment and quality of life did not differ, except for more behavioral problems among children (13% vs 5%, p = 0.040) and more frequent reports of an impact of AIS on everyday life among adults (27% vs 64%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate regression analysis, low Pediatric NIH Stroke Scale/NIH Stroke Scale score was the most important predictor of favorable outcome (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION There were no major differences in long-term outcome after AIS in children and young adults for mortality, disability, quality of life, psychological, or social variables.

Clinical impact of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND The risk factors and clinical sequelae of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in the current era of drug-eluting stents, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, and potent P2Y12 inhibitors are not well established. We determined the frequency, predictors, and clinical impact of GIB after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in a contemporary cohort of consecutive patients treated with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS Between 2009 and 2012, all consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) GIB and cardiovascular outcomes were recorded within 1 year of follow-up. Among 6212 patients, 84.1% received new-generation drug-eluting stents and 19.5% received prasugrel. At 1 year, GIB had occurred in 65 patients (1.04%); 70.8% of all events and 84.4% of BARC ≥3B events were recorded >30 days after PCI. The majority of events (64.4%) were related to upper GIB with a more delayed time course compared with lower GIB. Increasing age, previous GIB, history of malignancy, smoking, and triple antithrombotic therapy (ie, oral anticoagulation plus dual antiplatelet therapy) were independent predictors of GIB in multivariable analysis. GIB was associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-6.92; P=0.001) and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-7.07; P<0.001) and was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality during 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, GIB has a profound effect on prognosis. Triple antithrombotic therapy emerged as the single drug-related predictor of GIB in addition to patient-related risk factors within 1 year of PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

Safety and efficacy of resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there remains debate about differences in efficacy and the risk of stent thrombosis between the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES compared with EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A systematic literature search of electronic resources was performed using specific search terms until September 2014. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between patients treated with R-ZES and EES up to maximum available follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization. The primary safety end point was definite or probable stent thrombosis. Secondary safety end points were cardiac death and target-vessel myocardial infarction. Five trials were identified, including a total of 9899 patients. Compared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.24; P=0.50), definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85; P=0.24), cardiac death (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P=0.91), and target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36; P=0.39). Moreover, R-ZES and EES had similar risks of late definite or probable very late stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.53-2.11; P=0.87). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was observed across trials. CONCLUSIONS R-ZES and EES provide similar safety and efficacy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Clinical Outcomes According to Diabetic Status in Patients Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) for a composite clinical end point in a population with minimal exclusion criteria. We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE) trial to compare the performance of BP-SES and DP-EES in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS BIOSCIENCE trial was an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing BP-SES versus DP-EES. The primary end point, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Among a total of 2119 patients enrolled between February 2012 and May 2013, 486 (22.9%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall diabetic patients experienced a significantly higher risk of target lesion failure compared with patients without diabetes mellitus (10.1% versus 5.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.56; P=0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences between BP-SES versus DP-EES in terms of the primary end point in both diabetic (10.9% versus 9.3%; HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67-2.10; P=0.56) and nondiabetic patients (5.3% versus 6.0%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33; P=0.55). Similarly, no significant differences in the risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis were recorded according to treatment arm in both study groups (4.0% versus 3.1%; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.49-3.41; P=0.60 for diabetic patients and 2.4% versus 3.4%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39-1.25; P=0.23, in nondiabetics). CONCLUSIONS In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, clinical outcomes among diabetic patients treated with BP-SES or DP-EES were comparable at 1 year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.