User login
The largest randomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection systems during transcatheter aortic valve replacement yielded puzzling and somewhat contradictory results, according to a report presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Virtually every device in this industry-sponsored study involving 363 elderly patients (mean age, 83.4 years) with severe aortic stenosis trapped particulate debris as intended, the mean volume of new lesions in the protected areas of the brain was reduced by 42%, and the number and volume of new lesions correlated with neurocognitive outcomes at 30 days.
However, the reduction in lesion volume did not achieve statistical significance, and the improvement in neurocognitive function also did not reach statistical significance.
In addition, “the sample size was clearly too low to assess clinical outcomes, and in retrospect, was also too low to evaluate follow-up MRI findings or neurocognitive outcomes.” Nevertheless, the trial “provides reassuring evidence of device safety,” said Samir R. Kapadia, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.023).
In this prospective study, the investigators assessed patients at 17 medical centers in the United States and 2 in Germany. In addition to being elderly, the study patients were at high risk because of frequent comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation (31.7%) and prior stroke (5.8%).
The remaining 123 patients underwent TAVR but not MRI in a safety arm of the trial.
The protection devices were placed “without safety concerns” in most patients. The rate of major adverse events with the device was 7.3%, markedly less than the 18.3% prespecified performance goal for this outcome. Total procedure time was lengthened by only 13 minutes when the device was used, and total fluoroscopy time was increased by only 3 minutes. These findings demonstrate the overall safety of using the device, Dr. Kapadia said.
Debris including thrombus with tissue elements, artery wall particles, calcifications, valve tissue, and foreign materials was retrieved from the filters in 99% of patients.
The mean volume of new cerebral lesions in areas of the brain protected by the device was reduced by 42%, compared with that in patients who underwent TAVR without the protection device. However, this reduction was not statistically significant, so the primary efficacy endpoint of the study was not met.
Similarly, neurocognitive testing at 30 days showed that the volume of new lesions correlated with poorer outcomes. However, the difference in neurocognitive function between the intervention group and the control group did not reach statistical significance.
The 5-day “window” for MRI assessment having been too long was among the study’s limitations, Dr. Kapadia said.
Claret Medical funded the study and Dr. Kapadia’s associates reported numerous ties to industry sources. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The authors have demonstrated the safety of cerebral protection systems, but not their clinical benefit in terms of preventing adverse neurological outcomes. As they note, a larger study group might produce a statistical difference. Commentary on the added cost of the device would be helpful to weigh their cost effectiveness.
The authors have demonstrated the safety of cerebral protection systems, but not their clinical benefit in terms of preventing adverse neurological outcomes. As they note, a larger study group might produce a statistical difference. Commentary on the added cost of the device would be helpful to weigh their cost effectiveness.
The authors have demonstrated the safety of cerebral protection systems, but not their clinical benefit in terms of preventing adverse neurological outcomes. As they note, a larger study group might produce a statistical difference. Commentary on the added cost of the device would be helpful to weigh their cost effectiveness.
The largest randomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection systems during transcatheter aortic valve replacement yielded puzzling and somewhat contradictory results, according to a report presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Virtually every device in this industry-sponsored study involving 363 elderly patients (mean age, 83.4 years) with severe aortic stenosis trapped particulate debris as intended, the mean volume of new lesions in the protected areas of the brain was reduced by 42%, and the number and volume of new lesions correlated with neurocognitive outcomes at 30 days.
However, the reduction in lesion volume did not achieve statistical significance, and the improvement in neurocognitive function also did not reach statistical significance.
In addition, “the sample size was clearly too low to assess clinical outcomes, and in retrospect, was also too low to evaluate follow-up MRI findings or neurocognitive outcomes.” Nevertheless, the trial “provides reassuring evidence of device safety,” said Samir R. Kapadia, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.023).
In this prospective study, the investigators assessed patients at 17 medical centers in the United States and 2 in Germany. In addition to being elderly, the study patients were at high risk because of frequent comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation (31.7%) and prior stroke (5.8%).
The remaining 123 patients underwent TAVR but not MRI in a safety arm of the trial.
The protection devices were placed “without safety concerns” in most patients. The rate of major adverse events with the device was 7.3%, markedly less than the 18.3% prespecified performance goal for this outcome. Total procedure time was lengthened by only 13 minutes when the device was used, and total fluoroscopy time was increased by only 3 minutes. These findings demonstrate the overall safety of using the device, Dr. Kapadia said.
Debris including thrombus with tissue elements, artery wall particles, calcifications, valve tissue, and foreign materials was retrieved from the filters in 99% of patients.
The mean volume of new cerebral lesions in areas of the brain protected by the device was reduced by 42%, compared with that in patients who underwent TAVR without the protection device. However, this reduction was not statistically significant, so the primary efficacy endpoint of the study was not met.
Similarly, neurocognitive testing at 30 days showed that the volume of new lesions correlated with poorer outcomes. However, the difference in neurocognitive function between the intervention group and the control group did not reach statistical significance.
The 5-day “window” for MRI assessment having been too long was among the study’s limitations, Dr. Kapadia said.
Claret Medical funded the study and Dr. Kapadia’s associates reported numerous ties to industry sources. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The largest randomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection systems during transcatheter aortic valve replacement yielded puzzling and somewhat contradictory results, according to a report presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Virtually every device in this industry-sponsored study involving 363 elderly patients (mean age, 83.4 years) with severe aortic stenosis trapped particulate debris as intended, the mean volume of new lesions in the protected areas of the brain was reduced by 42%, and the number and volume of new lesions correlated with neurocognitive outcomes at 30 days.
However, the reduction in lesion volume did not achieve statistical significance, and the improvement in neurocognitive function also did not reach statistical significance.
In addition, “the sample size was clearly too low to assess clinical outcomes, and in retrospect, was also too low to evaluate follow-up MRI findings or neurocognitive outcomes.” Nevertheless, the trial “provides reassuring evidence of device safety,” said Samir R. Kapadia, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.023).
In this prospective study, the investigators assessed patients at 17 medical centers in the United States and 2 in Germany. In addition to being elderly, the study patients were at high risk because of frequent comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation (31.7%) and prior stroke (5.8%).
The remaining 123 patients underwent TAVR but not MRI in a safety arm of the trial.
The protection devices were placed “without safety concerns” in most patients. The rate of major adverse events with the device was 7.3%, markedly less than the 18.3% prespecified performance goal for this outcome. Total procedure time was lengthened by only 13 minutes when the device was used, and total fluoroscopy time was increased by only 3 minutes. These findings demonstrate the overall safety of using the device, Dr. Kapadia said.
Debris including thrombus with tissue elements, artery wall particles, calcifications, valve tissue, and foreign materials was retrieved from the filters in 99% of patients.
The mean volume of new cerebral lesions in areas of the brain protected by the device was reduced by 42%, compared with that in patients who underwent TAVR without the protection device. However, this reduction was not statistically significant, so the primary efficacy endpoint of the study was not met.
Similarly, neurocognitive testing at 30 days showed that the volume of new lesions correlated with poorer outcomes. However, the difference in neurocognitive function between the intervention group and the control group did not reach statistical significance.
The 5-day “window” for MRI assessment having been too long was among the study’s limitations, Dr. Kapadia said.
Claret Medical funded the study and Dr. Kapadia’s associates reported numerous ties to industry sources. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.