Among patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy was lower among those who initially underwent PCI of the culprit lesion only than among those who underwent immediate multivessel PCI. (Funded by the European Union 7th Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .).

Among patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, the risk of death or renal-replacement therapy at 30 days was lower with culprit-lesion-only PCI than with immediate multivessel PCI, and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. (Funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .).

Background: The role of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in cardiogenic shock is still a subject of intense debate despite the neutral results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) with subsequent downgrading in international guidelines. So far, randomized data on the impact of IABP on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction are lacking. Furthermore, only limited evidence is available on general long-term outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock treated by contemporary practice. Methods: The IABP-SHOCK II trial is a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Between 2009 and 2012, 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction undergoing early revascularization were randomized to IABP versus control. Results: Long-term follow-up was performed 6.2 years (interquartile range 5.6–6.7) after initial randomization. Follow-up was completed for 591 of 600 patients (98.5%). Mortality was not different between the IABP and the control group (66.3% versus 67.0%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88–1.11; P =0.98). There were also no differences in recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, or rehospitalization for cardiac reasons (all P >0.05). Survivors’ quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol 5D questionnaire and the New York Heart Association class did not differ between groups. Conclusions: IABP has no effect on all-cause mortality at 6-year long-term follow-up. Mortality is still very high, with two thirds of patients with cardiogenic shock dying despite contemporary treatment with revascularization therapy. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT00491036.

Aims Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as established treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Technical developments in valve design have addressed previous limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leakage. However, there are only limited data available for the comparison of newer generation self-expandable valve (SEV) and balloon-expandable valve (BEV). Methods and results SOLVE-TAVI is a multicentre, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI comparing SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). The primary efficacy composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate/severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 28.4% of SEV patients and 26.1% of BEV patients meeting the prespecified criteria of equivalence [rate difference −2.39 (90% confidence interval, CI −9.45 to 4.66); Pequivalence = 0.04]. Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality 3.2% vs. 2.3% [rate difference −0.93 (90% CI −4.78 to 2.92); Pequivalence < 0.001], stroke 0.5% vs. 4.7% [rate difference 4.20 (90% CI 0.12 to 8.27); Pequivalence = 0.003], moderate/severe paravalvular leak 3.4% vs. 1.5% [rate difference −1.89 (90% CI −5.86 to 2.08); Pequivalence = 0.0001], and permanent pacemaker implantation 23.0% vs. 19.2% [rate difference −3.85 (90% CI −10.41 to 2.72) in SEV vs. BEV patients; Pequivalence = 0.06]. Conclusion In patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI, newer generation SEV and BEV are equivalent for the primary valve-related efficacy endpoint. These findings support the safe application of these newer generation percutaneous valves in the majority of patients with some specific preferences based on individual valve anatomy.