TBD Meeting (4041-22)

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

The 1-year results of the Harmony transcatheter pulmonary valve to treat severe pulmonary regurgitation have shown a high rate of eliminating or reducing the degree of symptoms as well as freedom from endocarditis, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and the need for further interventions.

“Simply put, the good news is no endocarditis,” said Daniel S. Levi, MD, in presenting results from three different studies with 108 patients who received three different iterations of the device at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

courtesy University of California, Los Angeles

“Endocarditis has been an issue for us in the pulmonary position; we have yet to have an endocarditis in these patients in 1 year,” he stressed.

The studies evaluated three different versions of the Harmony valve: TPV22 (42 patients), the first version with a 22-mm diameter; the Clinical TPV25 (17 patients), the first iteration of a 25 mm–wide device that has since been discontinued; and the modified TPV25 (45 patients), the second version of the 25-mm valve. The three studies are the early feasibility study of the TPV22, the continued-access study of the TPV22 and the mTPV25, and the pivotal study that included all three versions.

At baseline, 89% of patients had severe and 11% had moderate pulmonary regurgitation (PR). At 1 year, 92% had none or trace PR, 3% had mild PR, and 4% moderate disease.  

Dr. Levi said the device “speaks for itself” in the results he presented. They include no deaths, no heart attacks, and no pulmonary thromboembolism. Other key outcomes include:

• One major stent fracture in one of the early feasibility study patients at 1-month follow-up.
• Four explants, with two in the discontinued cTPV25 and two with the TPV22 in the early-feasibility study.
• Four reinterventions, two with the discontinued cTPV25 and two valve-in-valve procedures with the mTPV25 in the continued-access study, one with stent placement in the right ventricular outflow tract.

Dr. Levi and coinvestigators also performed a breakdown of 1-year outcomes – freedom from PR, stenosis, and interventions – by device: 95.1% for TPV22; 89.7% for mTPV25; and 73.3% for the discontinued cTPV25.

Although the valve is indicated for adolescents and adults, most of the patients in the three studies were adults, with an average weight of 165 pounds (75 kg) who have had PR for decades, said Dr. Levi, an interventional pediatric cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “With a device like this we are hopefully shifting to treating that a little bit earlier, but fortunately we don’t usually need to treat it before puberty.” The 25-mm TPV gives “a really nice landing zone” for future valve placement. “The goal is to keep patients out of the operating room for at least a few decades if not their whole lives,” he said.

Dr. Levi said the Harmony investigators will follow outcomes with the 22- and modified 25-mm Harmony valves, both of which remain commercially available, out to 10 years.

The study represents the first collective cohort evaluating the Harmony device across the early feasibility, continued access and pivotal studies, said Brian Morray, MD. “It’s important that people understand that evolution and how that impacts the way we look at outcomes, because when you aggregate the data, particularly for the TPV25, some of the procedural outcomes and the adverse events are no longer really reflective in the current time frame.”

These Harmony results “represent another big step in the evolution of interventional cardiology and will be up there with development of the Melody valve and the utility and the use of the Sapien valve in the pulmonary position,” said Dr. Morray, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and an interventional cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Levi disclosed he is a consultant to Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Morray disclosed he is a clinical proctor for Abbott and a consultant to Medtronic, but not for the Harmony device.
 

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

Technical and procedural success rates for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI) have increased steadily over the past 6 years, with rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) declining to the 2%-or-lower range in that time.

“CTO PCI technical and procedural success rates are high and continue to increase over time,” Spyridon Kostantinis, MD said in presenting updated results from the international PROGRESS-CTO registry at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

Courtesy Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation

“The overall success rate increased from 81.6% in 2018 to 88.1% in 2021,” he added. The overall incidence of in-hospital MACE in that time was “an acceptable” 2.1% without significant changes over that period.

The analysis examined clinical, angiographic and procedural outcomes of 10,249 CTO PCIs performed on 10,019 patients from 63 centers in nine countries during 2016-2021. PROGRESS-CTO stands for Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention.

The target CTOs were highly complex, he said, with an average J-CTO (multicenter CTO registry in Japan) score of 2.4 ± 1.3 and PROGRESS-CTO score of 1.3 ± 1. The most common CTO target vessel was the right coronary artery (53%), followed by the left anterior descending artery (26%) and the circumflex artery (19%).

The registry also tracked how characteristics of the CTO PCI procedures themselves changed over time. “The septal and the epicardial collaterals were the most common collaterals used for retrograde crossing, with a decreasing trend for epicardial collaterals over time,” said Dr. Kostantinis, a research fellow at the Minneapolis Heart Institute.

Septal collateral use varied between 64% and 69% of cases from 2016 to 2021, but the share of epicardial collaterals declined from 35% to 22% in that time.

“Over time, the range of antegrade wiring as the final successfully crossing strategy increased from 46% in 2016 to 61% in 2021, with a decrease in antegrade dissection and re-entry (ADR) and no change in the retrograde approach,” Dr. Kostantinis said. The percentage of procedures using ADR as the final crossing strategy declined from 18% in 2016 to 12% in 2021, with the rate of retrograde crossings peaking at 21% in 2016 but leveling off to 18% or 19% in the subsequent years.

“An increasing use in the efficiency of antegrade wiring may reflect an improvement in guidewire retrograde crossing as well as the increasing operator expertise,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

The study also found that contrast volume, air kerma radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time declined steadily over time. “The potential explanations for these are using new x-ray systems as well as the use of intravascular imaging,” Dr. Kostantinis said.

In 2020, the rates of technical and procedural success, as well as the number of overall procedures, declined from 2019, while MACE rates ticked upward that year, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Kostantinis said.

“It is true that we noticed a rise in MACE rate from 1.6% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2020, but in 2021 that decreased again to 1.7%,” he said in an interview. “Another potential explanation is the higher angiographic complexity of CTOs treated during that year (2020) that resulted in more adverse events.”

Previous results from the PROGRESS-CTO registry reported the difference in MACE between 2019 and 2020 was significant (P  = .01). “So, yes, the difference between those 2 years is significant,” Dr. Kostantinis said. However, he noted, the overall trend was not significant, with a P value of .194.

The risk profile of CTO PCI has improved “slowly” over time, said Kirk N. Garratt, MD, but “it’s not yet were it needs to be.”

He added, “Undoubtedly we’ve learned that, without any question, one method for minimizing the risk is to concentrate these cases in the hands of those that do many of them.” As the number of procedures fell – an “embedded” pandemic impact –“I worry that it’s inevitable that complication rates will tick up a bit,” said Dr. Garratt, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del.

By the same token, he added, this situation with regard to CTOs “parallels what’s happening elsewhere in interventional medicine and medicine broadly; numbers are increasing and we’re busy again. In most domains we’re not as busy as we had been prepandemic, and time will allow us to catch up.”

PROGRESS-CTO has received funding from the Joseph F. and Mary M. Fleischhacker Foundation and the Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation Innovation Grant.

Dr. Kostantinis has no disclosures. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first randomized controlled study comparing the use of the emerging distal radial artery access to the traditional proximal access for cardiac catheterization has found no significant differences in postprocedure hand function and other secondary outcomes a month afterward, along with similar rates of bleeding and gaining successful RA access at the time of the procedure.

Karim Al-Azizi, MD, reported results of the single-center, Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery (DIPRA) study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions annual scientific sessions. DIPRA randomized 300 patients on a 1:1 basis to cardiac catheterization via either the distal or proximal RAs (dRA or pRA). The trial was conducted at the Baylor Scott & White Health The Heart Hospital–Plano in Richardson, Texas, where Dr. Al-Azizi is an interventional cardiologist and structural heart disease specialist.

“Distal radial artery access is a safe strategy for access for cardiovascular patients with a low complication rate,” Dr. Al-Azizi said. “Similarly, the success with distal vs. radial artery access was noted in the study: No significant bleeding or hematomas were noted in the dRA cohort.”

In an interview, Dr. Al-Azizi added, “Our study is the first of its kind and the first to evaluate the true hand function post distal/radial.”

He explained the rationale for the study. “One of the biggest criticisms that came up a few years ago when distal access was being developed and started gaining some momentum is the fact that it is yet unknown what would be the effect on hand function given the proximity to the fingers, proximity to the nerve, and despite that RA occlusion rates were lower.”

The final DIPRA analysis included 254 patients who completed their 30-day follow-up, 128 of whom were randomized to dRA access, 126 to pRA access. Demographics and procedural characteristics were balanced between both arms. The latter included similarities in sheath size used (6-French in 99.3% of both arms) and type of procedure (35.9% in the dRA and 32.9% in pRA arms had percutaneous coronary angioplasty).

To evaluate the primary outcome of hand function in the catheterization hand, the study used a composite of the Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb/forefinger pinch test. The composite score changed ­–.4 and .1 in the dRA and pRA arms, respectively (P = .07), which didn’t reach statistical significance, Dr. Al-Azizi said.

Outcomes at the time of intervention were similar. Successful RA access failed in six dRA patients, who were converted to pRA, and in two pRA patients. Overall rates for successful RA access were 96.7% in the distal arm and 98% in the proximal arm (P = .72). Bleeding rates were 0% and 1.4% in the respective arms (P = .25).

Dr. Al-Azizi said that he and his coinvestigators are collecting 1-year outcomes data that they will present next year.

The DIPRA findings “provide reassurance that hand function is not compromised regardless of access site,” Sunil V. Rao, MD, moderator of the session where Dr. Al-Azizi reported the results, said in an interview.

“Prior studies indicated no difference in hand function between radial and femoral access, and now these data indicate no difference between distal radial and proximal radial access.” Dr. Rao, the incoming SCAI president, is a professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and cardiology section chief at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“We do need more patient-reported outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. The DIPRA study is a great example of this,” Dr. Rao added. “The DIPRA study adds to the body of literature indicating that access site choice is an important aspect of the PCI procedure. With meticulous procedural technique, patients can have an excellent outcome from PCI procedures.”

Dr. Al-Azizi disclosed consulting for Edwards Lifesciences and Phillips. Dr. Rao has no disclosures.

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

The first in-human trials of a no-implant approach to interatrial shunting to alleviate heart failure symptoms have shown a signal that the procedure reduces peak exercise wedge pressure in recipients a month afterward, according to early trial results.

Colin M. Barker, MD, reported 30-day results of 31 patients who had no-implant interatrial shunting for heart failure across three studies, at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions scientific sessions. The studies included patients with HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF).

“At 30 days, there was a response with a decrease in the wedge pressures both at rest and at peak exercise, and that was consistent through all three of these initial trials,” Dr. Barker said. In all 33 patients who have been treated to date, there were no major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular or thromboembolic events through 1 month. (Two of the patients weren’t included in the results Dr. Barker presented.)

The three studies he reported on were the Alleviate-HF-1 (n = 15), Alleviate-HF-2 (n = 11) for patients with HFpEF, and Alleviate-HFrEF (n = 5). The average patient age was 67 years, and all were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV with elevated peak pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

The device that creates the no-implant shunt as “not very exotic, but it is very effective, and what it does is create a very predictable, reproducible atrial septostomy” between the left and right atria. The device obtains “almost a biopsy” that’s 7 mm in diameter. “There’s no hardware or foreign bodies left inside the patient,” said Dr. Barker, director of interventional cardiology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “There’s a natural healing process at the rims after the radiofrequency ablation has been done.” Femoral access was used.

Study participants were also asked to complete the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and at 1 and 3 months across all three studies, and at 6 months in the Alleviate-HF-1 study. “Just as important is how patients feel,” Dr. Barker said. KCCQ overall summary scores increased at each time interval across all three studies.

“Durability has been proven with multiple different imaging modalities,” Dr. Barker added, explaining that CT scans in 10 of 10 shunts demonstrated patency through 12 months, and 15 of 15 at 6 months. He noted that none of the created shunts have closed yet. At 6 months, the average shunt measured 7.5 mm (± 1.1 mm, n = 22), left atrial diameter decreased 2.4 mm (P = .031) in HFpEF patients, and no significant changes were observed in right ventricular fractional area change or right atrial volume index.

None of the septostomies have had to be closed or enlarged to date, Dr. Barker said. “We are creating an atrial septal defect that we have a lot of comfort and experience with closing with other devices if need be, but that hasn’t been an issue,” he said. “As of now, it’s one size, but as you can imagine, one-size-fits-all is not the way this will go, and this does allow for variations in size ultimately.”

Kirk N. Garratt, MD, director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Health at Christiana Care in Newark, Del., noted that the approach to unload the left atrium “is novel, but I think is becoming well accepted in the advanced HF population. There remain questions about long-term consequences of an intentional interatrial shunt – what happens to pulmonary flow dynamics and the like – but to date the impact of this approach has been favorable.

“The liabilities that come with an implanted device in the septal space, both in terms of the durability of the shunt and the impact that it would have on the ability to perform other transseptal procedures, is overcome with this approach,” he added. 

Dr. Barker disclosed he is an advisory board member and consultant to Alleviant Medical. Dr. Garratt is an advisory board member for Abbott.
 

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

Patients who have paclitaxel-coated stents and balloons have survival and outcomes comparable to those who have a bare-metal stent or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, according to updated results from a large study of almost 170,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

The SAFE-PAD study analyzed Medicare claims data of 168,533 patients, including 70,584 who were treated with drug-coated devices (DCD), from April 2015 through 2018.

Notably, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc, said in an interview, that included more than 32,000 patients with more than 5 years of follow-up. He presented the results at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions.

“What we’re seeing now with this study is that paclitaxel-coated devices [PCDs] have the same long-term survival compared to those treated with non–drug-coated devices (NDCDs),” said Dr. Secemsky, director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “I think this is another important piece and some of the longest-term data in this size population to demonstrate the long-term safety of PCD, and hopefully it will help us get back to normal practice that has been halted now for over 3 years.”

That was a reference to the 2018 meta-analysis by Konstantinos Katsanos, MD, PhD, of Patras University in Greece, and colleagues, which showed an increased risk of death after PCD placements. That study threw a wet blanket of sorts on PCD use, Dr. Secemsky said.

The median follow-up for SAFE-PAD (formally called the Safety Assessment of Femoropopliteal Endovascular treatment with Paclitaxel-coated Devices) was 3.5 years, with the longest follow-up, 6.3 years. The weighted cumulative incidence of mortality at 6.3 years was 63.6% with NDCDs and 62.5% with DCDs (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; P < .0001). A subgroup analysis found no link between DCDs and increased death in low-risk patients, low-comorbid patients, inpatient or outpatient treatment, patients without critical limb ischemia, or patients treated with stents or balloon angioplasty alone.

“This report and the length of follow-up is one more piece that has continued to demonstrate safety with PCDs,” Dr. Secemsky said. He added that these results fall in line with smaller studies that failed to show a link between DCDs and long-term mortality, notably the SWEDEPAD randomized study of 2,289 patients evaluated through 4 years, and a subanalysis of 4,000 patients in VOYAGER-PAD through 42 months of follow-up.

“So we’ve really shown through these data sets and others that we can’t replicate any harms that we’ve seen in that Katsanos meta-analysis, and it suggests that there was some bias in that meta-analysis.”

Strengths of the study are its size and the way it followed the patients longitudinally, Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, said in an interview.

With regard to its limitations, Dr. Parikh said, “On the other hand, it’s a claims database which doesn’t have the granularity about the patients’ specific procedural factors,” he said. “There are gaps that might further inform the value of lack thereof of the drug-coated device, but certainly at the topline, which is the hard endpoint of mortality, you can read quite a lot and you can assume that with such large numbers, the signal-to-noise ratio would be sufficiently sensitive that you get a real signal.”

With these updated SAFE-PAD results along with other studies, Dr. Parikh said, “If one weighs the risk benefit of  cardiac lesion revascularization regarding requiring a repeat procedure vs. the risk of mortality from paclitaxel, if there is such a thing, I think most physicians have come back and the pendulum has swung back considering it reasonable to use paclitaxel products.”

That’s a message that will resonate with patients reluctant to return to the hospital since the COVID-19 outbreak, he said. “If you can tell them we can avoid a repeat trip to the hospital, they’re all for it,” Dr. Parikh said.

The study results were published simultaneously with Dr. Secemsky’s presentation. Funding for SAFE-PAD came from a multi-industry consortium consisting of BD, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic and Philips, which wasn’t involved in the study design or analysis.

Dr. Secemsky disclosed relationships with Abbott, BD, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, CSI, Endovascular Engineering, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, Philips, and Venture Med. Dr. Parikh disclosed relationships with TriReme Medical, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Cordis, Janssen, Terumo, Canon, Shockwave, Abiomed, Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems, Inari and Surmodics.

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.
 

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.
 

The first-ever guidelines for interventional cardiologists using percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure recommend expanding the use of the procedure beyond the Food and Drug Administration–approved indication following PFO-associated ischemic stroke, adding clarification about the use of PFO with anticoagulation and hedging against abuse and overuse of the procedure, said the chair of the guideline writing committee.

“The most important things surrounding these guidelines are to help clinicians and policymakers – third-party payers – to address PFO in patient subsets that were not included in the large randomized clinical trials that led to FDA approval,” said writing group chair Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, chief of structural and interventional cardiology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions issued the guidelines at its annual scientific sessions meeting in Atlanta and published them simultaneously in the society’s journal.

The guidelines issue strong and conditional recommendations. The former means clinicians should order the intervention for most patients; the latter means decisionmaking is more nuanced and should consider contributing factors.

The guidelines clarify patient selection for PFO closure outside the “pretty narrow” indication the FDA approved, Dr. Kavinsky said, which is for PFO-associated ischemic stroke in patients aged 18-60 years.

“So what about patients who are older than 60? What about patients who had their stroke 10 years ago?” Dr. Kavinsky asked. “Those are issues that were unanswered in the randomized clinical trials.”

The guidelines also refine recommendations about anticoagulation in these patients, including its use after PFO closure in selected patients, Dr. Kavinsky noted. “It’s the opinion of the panel that although anticoagulants may be effective, because of issues of noncompliance, because of issues of interruption of therapy by physicians for a variety of reasons, including surgery or noncompliance, that it is preferable to do a PFO device closure to giving anticoagulant therapy.”

Many of the recommendations cover PFO closure alongside antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Key conditional recommendations for patients who haven’t had a PFO-related stroke are:

• Avoiding its routine use in patients with chronic migraines, prior decompression illness (DCI), thrombophilia, atrial septal aneurysm, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
• Considering PFO closure in patients with platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) with no other discernible cause of hypoxia or systemic embolism in whom other embolic causes have been ruled out.

In patients who’ve had a PFO-related stroke, the guidelines strongly recommend PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone, but conditionally, not in patients with atrial fibrillation who’ve had an ischemic stroke. They also conditionally suggest PFO closure rather than long-term antiplatelet therapy alone in PFO stroke patients aged 60 and older, as well as those with thrombophilia already on antiplatelet therapy but not anticoagulation. However, the guidelines make no recommendation on PFO closure based on how much time has passed since the previous stroke.

“Furthermore,” Dr. Kavinsky said, “in patients who require lifelong anticoagulation because of recurrent DVT or recurrent pulmonary emboli or thrombopenia, if they’ve had a PFO-mediated stroke, then it’s our opinion that they should have their PFO closed in addition to taking lifelong anticoagulation because of the same issues of noncompliance and interruption of therapy.” Those are conditional recommendations.

The guideline also checks a box in the FDA labeling that mandated agreement between cardiology and neurology in patient selection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued its own guideline in 2020 for patients with stroke and PFO. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology issued two position papers on expanded applications of PFO closure.

The recommendations on when PFO closure shouldn’t be done are noteworthy, Dr. Kavinsky said. “PFOs are present in 25% of the adult population, so the number of patients with PFO is huge and the indication for the FDA is really narrow: to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO-mediated stroke. So, there’s the tremendous potential for abuse out there, of excessive procedures, of doing unnecessary procedures.”

The guidelines are a follow-up to the operator institutional requirements document SCAI issued in 2019 that set requirements for hospital offering and physicians performing PFO closure, Dr. Kavinsky added.

In an editorial accompanying the published guideline, Robert J. Sommer, MD, and Jamil A. Aboulhosn, MD, wrote that they support the recommendations “which help spotlight and clarify the growing list of potential indications for PFO closure.” They noted that the guidelines panel’s “strong” recommendations were for indications validated by randomized trials and that “conditional” recommendations were based on panelists’ experience and observational data.

“It is critical to recognize that most of these guidelines represent consensus opinion only,” wrote Dr. Sommer, who specializes in adult congenital and pediatric cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Dr. Aboulhosn, an interventional cardiologist at Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center. They emphasized the guidelines’ “heavy emphasis” on shared decisionmaking with patients.

Dr. Kavinsky is a principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore and Associates, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Sommer is a principal investigator and investigator in studies sponsored by W.L. Gore & Associates. Dr. Aboulhosn is a consultant to Abbott Medical.