No abstract

BACKGROUNDPrevious trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aorticvalve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODSWe randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTSThe rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P = 0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.25). In the transfemoralaccess cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = 0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONSIn intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.) a bs tr ac t

Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Carotid-artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy are both options for treating carotid-artery stenosis, an important cause of stroke. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis to undergo carotid-artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. RESULTS For 2502 patients over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated 4-year rates of the primary end point between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.51; P = 0.51). There was no differential treatment effect with regard to the primary end point according to symptomatic status (P = 0.84) or sex (P = 0.34). The 4-year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% with stenting and 4.7% with endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 1.50; P = 0.03); the rates among symptomatic patients were 8.0% and 6.4% (hazard ratio, 1.37; P = 0.14), and the rates among asymptomatic patients were 4.5% and 2.7% (hazard ratio, 1.86; P = 0.07), respectively. Periprocedural rates of individual components of the end points differed between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group: for death (0.7% vs. 0.3%, P = 0.18), for stroke (4.1% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.01), and for myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.03). After this period, the incidences of ipsilateral stroke with stenting and with endarterectomy were similarly low (2.0% and 2.4%, respectively; P = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death did not differ significantly in the group undergoing carotid-artery stenting and the group undergoing carotid endarterectomy. During the periprocedural period, there was a higher risk of stroke with stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction with endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.)

No abstract

Background Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended after coronary stenting to prevent thrombotic complications, yet the benefits and risks of treatment beyond 1 year are uncertain. Methods Subjects were enrolled after a drug-eluting coronary stent procedure. After 12 months of thienopyridine (clopidogrel bisulfate [Plavix] or prasugrel [Effient/Efient]) with aspirin, subjects were randomized to continued thienopyridine or placebo for another 18 months; all continued aspirin. The co-primary effectiveness end points were stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) at 12 to 30 months. The primary safety end point was moderate or severe bleeding. Results Subjects (N=9,961) were randomized to continued thienopyridine or placebo. Continued thienopyridine reduced stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.4%, hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.48, P<0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.3% vs. 5.9%, hazard ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, P<0.001). Myocardial infarction was reduced (2.1% vs. 4.1%, hazard ratio 0.47, P<0.001). Rates of all-cause mortality in the continued thienopyridine and placebo groups were 2.0 and 1.5%, respectively (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% CI 1.00-1.85, P=0.052). Moderate or severe bleeding was increased with continued thienopyridine (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P=0.001). An elevated hazard for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction was observed in both groups during the 3 months following thienopyridine discontinuation. Conclusion Dual antiplatelet therapy beyond one year after drug-eluting stent placement significantly reduced the risks of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events compared with aspirin alone, but was associated with increased bleeding.

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).