TransCatheter aortic valve implantation and fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting for treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis and compl

Patients with severe aortic stenosis present frequently (∼50%) with concomitant obstructive coronary artery disease. Current guidelines recommend combined surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the preferred treatment. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represent a valid treatment alternative. We aimed to test the non-inferiority of FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI versus SAVR plus CABG in patients with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary artery disease. This international, multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial was conducted at 18 tertiary medical centres across Europe. Patients (aged ≥70 years) with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary artery disease, deemed feasible for percutaneous or surgical treatment according to the on-site Heart Team, were randomly assigned (1:1) to FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI or SAVR plus CABG according to a computer-generated sequence with random permuted blocks sizes stratified by site. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, clinically driven target-vessel revascularisation, valve reintervention, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding at 1 year post-treatment. The trial was powered for non-inferiority (with a margin of 15%) and if met, for superiority. The primary and safety analyses were done per an intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03424941) and is closed. Between May 31, 2018, and June 30, 2023, 172 patients were enrolled, of whom 91 were assigned to the FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI group and 81 to the SAVR plus CABG group. The mean age of patients was 76·5 years (SD 3·9). 118 (69%) of 172 patients were male and 54 (31%) patients were female. FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI resulted in favourable outcomes for the primary endpoint (four [4%] of 91 patients) versus SAVR plus CABG (17 [23%] of 77 patients; risk difference -18·5 [90% CI -27·8 to -9·7]), which was below the 15% prespecified non-inferiority margin (pnon-inferiority<0·001). FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI was superior to SAVR plus CABG (hazard ratio 0·17 [95% CI 0·06-0·51]; psuperiority<0·001), which was driven mainly by all-cause mortality (none [0%] of 91 patients vs seven (10%) of 77 patients; p=0·0025) and life-threatening bleeding (two [2%] vs nine [12%]; p=0·010). The TCW trial is the first trial to compare percutaneous treatment versus surgical treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary artery disease, showing favourable primary endpoint and mortality outcomes with percutaneous treatment. Isala Heart Centre and Medtronic.

Kedhi E ，Hermanides RS ，Dambrink JE ，Singh SK ，Ten Berg JM ，van Ginkel D ，Hudec M ，Amoroso G ，Amat-Santos IJ ，Andreas M ，Campante Teles R ，Bonnet G ，Van Belle E ，Conradi L ，van Garsse L ，Wojakowski W ，Voudris V ，Sacha J ，Cervinka P ，Lipsic E ，Somi S ，Nombela-Franco L ，Postma S ，Piayda K ，De Luca G ，Kolkman E ，Malinowski KP ，Modine T ，TCW study group ... -  《-》

Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for coronary revascularisation guidance (FAVOR III Europe): a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) or non-hyperaemic pressure ratios are recommended to assess functional relevance of intermediate coronary stenosis. Both diagnostic methods require the placement of a pressure wire in the coronary artery during invasive coronary angiography. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based computational method for the estimation of FFR that does not require the use of pressure wires. We aimed to investigate whether a QFR-based diagnostic strategy yields a non-inferior 12-month clinical outcome compared with an FFR-based strategy. FAVOR III Europe was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial comparing a QFR-based with an FFR-based diagnostic strategy for patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. Enrolment was performed in 34 centres across 11 European countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with either chronic coronary syndrome or stabilised acute coronary syndrome, and with at least one intermediate non-culprit stenosis (40-90% diameter stenosis by visual estimate; referred to here as a study lesion), were randomly assigned (1:1) to the QFR-guided or the FFR-guided group. Randomisation was done using a concealed web-based system and was stratified by diabetes and presence of a left anterior descending coronary artery study lesion. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularisation at 12 months. The predefined non-inferiority margin was 3·4% and the primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03729739) and long-term follow-up is ongoing. Between Nov 6, 2018, and July 21, 2023, 2000 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the QFR-guided strategy (1008 patients) or the FFR-guided strategy (992 patients). The median age was 67·3 years (IQR 59·9-74·7); 1538 (76·9%) patients were male and 462 (23·1%) were female. Median follow-up time was 365 days (IQR 365-365). At 12 months, a primary endpoint event had occurred in 67 (6·7%) patients in the QFR group, and in 41 (4·2%) patients in the FFR group (hazard ratio 1·63 [95% CI 1·11-2·41]). The event proportion difference was 2·5% (90% two-sided CI 0·9-4·2). The upper limit of the 90% CI exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 3·4%. Therefore, QFR did not meet non-inferiority to FFR. A total of 18 (1·8%) patients in each group experienced an adverse procedural event, the most frequent being procedure-related myocardial infarction, which occurred in ten (1·0%) patients in the QFR group and seven (0·7%) in the FFR group. One patient in the QFR group died in relation to the index procedure. The results of the FAVOR III Europe trial do not support the use of QFR if FFR is available to guide revascularisation decisions in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. This finding could have implications for current clinical guidelines recommending QFR for this purpose. Medis Medical Imaging Systems and Aarhus University.

Andersen BK ，Sejr-Hansen M ，Maillard L ，Campo G ，Råmunddal T ，Stähli BE ，Guiducci V ，Serafino LD ，Escaned J ，Santos IA ，López-Palop R ，Landmesser U ，Dieu RS ，Mejía-Rentería H ，Koltowski L ，Žiubrytė G ，Cetran L ，Adjedj J ，Abdelwahed YS ，Liu T ，Mogensen LJH ，Eftekhari A ，Westra J ，Lenk K ，Casella G ，Van Belle E ，Biscaglia S ，Olsen NT ，Knaapen P ，Kochman J ，Santos RC ，Scarsini R ，Christiansen EH ，Holm NR ... -  《-》

TransCatheter aortic valve implantation and fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting for treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis and multi

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) frequently present with concomitant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). In those, current guidelines recommend combined coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the preferred treatment option, although this surgical approach is associated with a high rate of clinical events. Combined transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without FFR have evolved as a valid alternative for cardiac surgery in patients with AS and multivessel or advanced CAD. To date, no dedicated trial has prospectively evaluated the outcomes of a percutaneous versus surgical treatment for patients with both severe AS and CAD. To investigate whether fractional-flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI and TAVI is noninferior to combined CABG and SAVR for the treatment of severe AS and multivessel or advanced CAD. The Transcatheter Valve and Vessels (TCW) trial (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03424941) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, open label, international trial. Patients ≥ 70 years with severe AS and multivessel (≥ 2 vessels) or advanced CAD, deemed feasible by the heart team for both; a full percutaneous or surgical treatment, will be randomised in a 1:1 fashion to either FFR-guided PCI followed by TAVI (intervention arm) vs. CABG and SAVR (control arm). The primary endpoint is a patient-oriented composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, unscheduled clinically-driven target vessel revascularization, valve reintervention, and life threatening or disabling bleeding at 1 year. The TCW trial is powered for noninferiority, and if met, superiority will be tested. Assuming a primary endpoint rate of 30% in the CABG-SAVR arm, with a significance level α of 5%, a noninferiority limit delta of 15% and a loss to follow-up of 2%, a total of 328 patients are needed to obtain a power of 90%. The primary endpoint analysis is performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The TCW Trial is the first prospective randomized trial that will study if a less invasive percutaneous treatment for severe AS and concomitant advanced CAD (i.e., FFR-guided PCI-TAVI) is noninferior to the guidelines recommended approach (CABG-SAVR).

Kedhi E ，Rroku A ，Hermanides RS ，Dambrink JH ，Singh S ，Berg JT ，van Ginkel DJ ，Hudec M ，Amoroso G ，Amat-Santos IJ ，Andreas M ，Teles RC ，Bonnet G ，Van Belle E ，Conradi L ，van Garsse L ，Wojakowski W ，Voudris V ，Sacha J ，Cervinka P ，Lipsic E ，Somi S ，Nombela-Franco L ，Postma S ，Piayda K ，De Luca G ，Malinofski K ，Modine T ... -  《-》

PCI in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation.

The benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease and severe aortic stenosis who are undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear. In an international trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and at least one coronary-artery stenosis with a fractional flow reserve of 0.80 or less or a diameter stenosis of at least 90% either to undergo PCI or to receive conservative treatment, with all patients also undergoing TAVI. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event, defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization. Safety, including bleeding events and procedural complications, was assessed. A total of 455 patients underwent randomization: 227 to the PCI group and 228 to the conservative-treatment group. The median age of the patients was 82 years (interquartile range, 78 to 85), and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Procedural Risk of Mortality score (on a scale from 0 to 100%, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure) was 3% (interquartile range, 2 to 4). At a median follow-up of 2 years (interquartile range, 1 to 4), a major adverse cardiac event (primary end point) had occurred in 60 patients (26%) in the PCI group and in 81 (36%) in the conservative-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.99; P = 0.04). A bleeding event occurred in 64 patients (28%) in the PCI group and in 45 (20%) in the conservative-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.22). In the PCI group, 7 patients (3%) had PCI procedure-related complications. Among patients with coronary artery disease who were undergoing TAVI, PCI was associated with a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years than conservative treatment. (Funded by Boston Scientific and the Danish Heart Foundation; NOTION-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03058627.).

Lønborg J ，Jabbari R ，Sabbah M ，Veien KT ，Niemelä M ，Freeman P ，Linder R ，Ioanes D ，Terkelsen CJ ，Kajander OA ，Koul S ，Savontaus M ，Karjalainen P ，Erglis A ，Minkkinen M ，Sørensen R ，Tilsted HH ，Holmvang L ，Bieliauskas G ，Ellert J ，Piuhola J ，Eftekhari A ，Angerås O ，Rück A ，Christiansen EH ，Jørgensen T ，Özbek BT ，Glinge C ，Søndergaard L ，De Backer O ，Engstrøm T ，NOTION-3 Study Group ... -  《-》

Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.

Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies. We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics. We included 11 randomised trials involving 11 518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09-1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19-1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86-1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87-1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score. CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies. None.

Head SJ ，Milojevic M ，Daemen J ，Ahn JM ，Boersma E ，Christiansen EH ，Domanski MJ ，Farkouh ME ，Flather M ，Fuster V ，Hlatky MA ，Holm NR ，Hueb WA ，Kamalesh M ，Kim YH ，Mäkikallio T ，Mohr FW ，Papageorgiou G ，Park SJ ，Rodriguez AE ，Sabik JF 3rd ，Stables RH ，Stone GW ，Serruys PW ，Kappetein AP ... -  《-》