| 1. |
- Baumbach, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
LANDMARK comparison of early outcomes of newer-generation Myval transcatheter heart valve series with contemporary valves (Sapien and Evolut) in real-world individuals with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial.
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Lancet (London, England). - 1474-547X. ; 403:10445, s. 2695-2708
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an established, guideline-endorsed treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Precise sizing of the balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) series with the aortic annulus is facilitated by increasing its diameter in 1·5 mm increments, compared with the usual 3 mm increments in valve size. The LANDMARK trial aimed to show non-inferiority of the Myval THV series compared with the contemporary THVs Sapien Series (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) or Evolut Series (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA).In this prospective, multinational, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial across 31 hospitals in 16 countries (Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, and Brazil), 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned (1:1) to the Myval THV or a contemporary THV. Eligibility was primarily decided by the heart team in accordance with 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. As per the criteria of the third Valve Academic Research Consortium, the primary endpoint at 30 days was a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, bleeding (types 3 and 4), acute kidney injury (stages 2-4), major vascular complications, moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and conduction system disturbances resulting in a permanent pacemaker implantation. Non-inferiority of the study device was tested in the intention-to-treat population using a non-inferiority margin of 10·44% and assuming an event rate of 26·10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04275726, and EudraCT, 2020-000137-40, and is closed to new participants.Between Jan 6, 2021, and Dec 5, 2023, 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned, 384 to the Myval THV and 384 to a contemporary THV. 369 (48%) participants had their sex recorded as female, and 399 (52%) as male. The mean age of participants was 80·0 years (SD 5·7) for those treated with the Myval THV and 80·4 years (5·4) for those treated with a contemporary THV. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were the same in both groups (Myval 2·6% [IQR 1·7-4·0] vs contemporary 2·6% [1·7-4·0]). The primary endpoint showed non-inferiority of the Myval (25%) compared with contemporary THV (27%), with a risk difference of -2·3% (one-sided upper 95% CI 3·8, pnon-inferiority<0·0001). No significant difference was seen in individual components of the primary composite endpoint.In individuals with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis, the Myval THV met its primary endpoint at 30 days.Meril Life Sciences.
|
|
| 2. |
- Chieffo, Alaide, et al.
(författare)
-
Performing elective cardiac invasive procedures during the COVID-19 outbreak : a position statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention. - : Europa Digital & Publishing. - 1774-024X .- 1969-6213. ; 16:14, s. 1177-1186
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The rearrangement of healthcare services required to face the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a drastic reduction in elective cardiac invasive procedures. We are already facing a "second wave" of infections and we might be dealing during the next months with a "third wave" and subsequently new waves. Therefore, during the different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic we have to face the problems of how to perform elective cardiac invasive procedures in non-COVID patients and which patients/procedures should be prioritised. In this context, the interplay between the pandemic stage, the availability of healthcare resources and the priority of specific cardiac disorders is crucial. Clear pathways for "hot" or presumed "hot" patients and "cold" patients are mandatory in each hospital. Depending on the local testing capacity and intensity of transmission in the area, healthcare facilities may test patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection before the interventional procedure, regardless of risk assessment for COVID-19. Pre-hospital testing should always be conducted in the presence of symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In cases of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 positive patients, full personal protective equipment using FFP 2/N95 masks, eye protection, gowning and gloves is indicated during cardiac interventions for healthcare workers. When patients have tested negative for COVID-19, medical masks may be sufficient. Indeed, individual patients should themselves wear medical masks during cardiac interventions and outpatient visits.
|
|
| 3. |
- van der Sangen, Niels M. R., et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 42:10, s. 1038-
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dual antiplatelet therapy has long been the standard of care in preventing coronary and cerebrovascular thrombotic events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but choosing the optimal treatment duration and composition has become a major challenge. Numerous studies have shown that certain patients benefit from either shortened or extended treatment duration. Furthermore, trials evaluating novel antithrombotic strategies, such as P2Y(12) inhibitor monotherapy, low-dose factor Xa inhibitors on top of antiplatelet therapy, and platelet function- or genotype-guided (de-)escalation of treatment, have shown promising results. Current guidelines recommend risk stratification for tailoring treatment duration and composition. Although several risk stratification methods evaluating ischaemic and bleeding risk are available to clinicians, such as the use of risk scores, platelet function testing, and genotyping, risk stratification has not been broadly adopted in clinical practice. Multiple risk scores have been developed to determine the optimal treatment duration, but external validation studies have yielded conflicting results in terms of calibration and discrimination and there is limited evidence that their adoption improves clinical outcomes. Likewise, platelet function testing and genotyping can provide useful prognostic insights, but trials evaluating treatment strategies guided by these stratification methods have produced mixed results. This review critically appraises the currently available antithrombotic strategies and provides a viewpoint on the use of different risk stratification methods alongside clinical judgement in current clinical practice. [GRAPHICS]
|
|
