TBD Meeting (5166-21)

Transcatheter mitral valve repair with the PASCAL device showed high rates of survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years in the single-arm, safety and efficacy CLASP study.

The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano

The early reductions in mitral regurgitation (MR) were sustained with 97% of patients having MR grades of 2+ or less and 78% having MR grades of 1+ or less at 2 years.

There was also evidence of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling and significant improvements in functional status, Molly Szerlip, MD, Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Texas, reported as lead author. The results were published online May 18 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system is a favorable option for treating patients with MR,” she said in a simultaneous virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021).

The PASCAL system is not approved in the United States, but Dr. Szerlip observed that the investigators are eagerly awaiting results from the ongoing, pivotal CLASP IID/IIF trial comparing the edge-to-edge repair system with another such device, MitraClip, in 1,275 patients with functional or degenerative MR. The primary completion date is set for December 2023.

Abbott’s MitraClip has been available in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008; Edwards Lifesciences received a CE mark for the PASCAL system in 2019.

“The results of the CLASP study are remarkable and indicate an additional differentiated tool ready for clinical routine,” Georg Goliasch, MD, PhD, and Philipp Bartko, MD, both from the Medical University of Vienna, write in an accompanying editorial.

As both systems target similar lesions, there might be “significant overlap in this particular patient population,” Dr. Goliasch told this news organization. From a technical perspective, the separate leaflet grasping was initially one of the advantages of the PASCAL, but this has also been recently introduced for the MitraClip.

That said, the “PASCAL device may offer a leaflet repair with decreased mechanical leaflet traction – specifically appealing to treat ventricular secondary MR – because mechanical forces applied to leaflets remain low, and the [central] spacer augments the leaflet surface in a way that reduces restrictive diastolic opening,” he added. “However, this remains highly speculative.”

The CLASP study enrolled 124 patients (56% male) with symptomatic MR grade of at least 3+ who were receiving optimal medical therapy at 14 sites in five countries. Their mean age was 75 years, 69% had functional MR (FMR), 31% had degenerative MR (DMR), and 60% were NYHA functional class III to IVa.

The primary endpoints of procedural and clinical success and adverse events at 30 days and 1-year outcomes were published last year. Echocardiographic data were available for 36 patients at 2 years with follow-up ongoing.

Composite major adverse event rates were 8.1% at 30 days, 18.5% at 1 year, and 16.9% at 2 years, driven mostly by severe bleeding at 7.3%, 11.3%, and 7.3%, respectively, Dr. Szerlip said.

Kaplan-Meier estimates showed 80.3% survival at 2 years (72.3% FMR, 94.3% DMR) and 84.3% freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (77.5% FMR, 97.3% DMR). The annualized HF rehospitalization rate fell to 85% at 2 years.

These results, the authors noted, hinged on minimizing residual MR. In the FMR group, 100% and 95% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at 1 year and 2 years, respectively, compared with 95% and 99% treated with the MitraClip in the COAPT study.

In the DMR group, 100% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at both 1 and 2 years, which “compares favorably to 94% from the EXPAND study at 1 year” with the MitraClip NTR and XTR systems, they write.

In CLASP, the LV end-diastolic volume decreased by 11 mL at 30 days and continued to decrease at 1 year (25 mL) and 2 years (33 mL; P < .001).

LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) fell by 2.7 mm at 30 days, 3.9 mm at 1 year, and by 2.7 mm at 2 years (P = .002). At 2 years, 93% of patients were in NYHA class I or II (P < .001).

“The authors of the trial observed significant LV reverse remodeling with a decrease in LVEDD. These findings are indeed of particular interest and warrant further investigation by future studies as this has not been shown to such an extent in previous E2E [edge-to-edge] repair studies,” Dr. Goliasch said in an interview.

He raised an eyebrow, however, at the cross-trial comparisons, adding, “We should be very careful to draw any hasty conclusions considering the high proportion of missing echocardiographic data. Nevertheless, all these aspects might make the design of future studies for direct comparisons between E2E devices in the various structural aspects of mitral valve disease attractive to tailor treatment and optimize patient care.”

Dr. Szerlip and colleagues cited several study limitations including the absence of a control arm that may have contributed to a Hawthorne effect; not all patients had reached 2-year follow-up at the time of the analysis; and adjudication of events and assessment of the 6-minute walk test and quality-of-life measures were limited to 1 year based on the protocol.

The study was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Szerlip reported serving as a proctor/speaker for Edwards; a national principal investigator for EFS; a speaker for Boston Scientific, and serving on steering committees for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr. Goliasch and Dr. Bartko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transcatheter mitral valve repair with the PASCAL device showed high rates of survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years in the single-arm, safety and efficacy CLASP study.

The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano

The early reductions in mitral regurgitation (MR) were sustained with 97% of patients having MR grades of 2+ or less and 78% having MR grades of 1+ or less at 2 years.

There was also evidence of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling and significant improvements in functional status, Molly Szerlip, MD, Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Texas, reported as lead author. The results were published online May 18 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system is a favorable option for treating patients with MR,” she said in a simultaneous virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021).

The PASCAL system is not approved in the United States, but Dr. Szerlip observed that the investigators are eagerly awaiting results from the ongoing, pivotal CLASP IID/IIF trial comparing the edge-to-edge repair system with another such device, MitraClip, in 1,275 patients with functional or degenerative MR. The primary completion date is set for December 2023.

Abbott’s MitraClip has been available in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008; Edwards Lifesciences received a CE mark for the PASCAL system in 2019.

“The results of the CLASP study are remarkable and indicate an additional differentiated tool ready for clinical routine,” Georg Goliasch, MD, PhD, and Philipp Bartko, MD, both from the Medical University of Vienna, write in an accompanying editorial.

As both systems target similar lesions, there might be “significant overlap in this particular patient population,” Dr. Goliasch told this news organization. From a technical perspective, the separate leaflet grasping was initially one of the advantages of the PASCAL, but this has also been recently introduced for the MitraClip.

That said, the “PASCAL device may offer a leaflet repair with decreased mechanical leaflet traction – specifically appealing to treat ventricular secondary MR – because mechanical forces applied to leaflets remain low, and the [central] spacer augments the leaflet surface in a way that reduces restrictive diastolic opening,” he added. “However, this remains highly speculative.”

The CLASP study enrolled 124 patients (56% male) with symptomatic MR grade of at least 3+ who were receiving optimal medical therapy at 14 sites in five countries. Their mean age was 75 years, 69% had functional MR (FMR), 31% had degenerative MR (DMR), and 60% were NYHA functional class III to IVa.

The primary endpoints of procedural and clinical success and adverse events at 30 days and 1-year outcomes were published last year. Echocardiographic data were available for 36 patients at 2 years with follow-up ongoing.

Composite major adverse event rates were 8.1% at 30 days, 18.5% at 1 year, and 16.9% at 2 years, driven mostly by severe bleeding at 7.3%, 11.3%, and 7.3%, respectively, Dr. Szerlip said.

Kaplan-Meier estimates showed 80.3% survival at 2 years (72.3% FMR, 94.3% DMR) and 84.3% freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (77.5% FMR, 97.3% DMR). The annualized HF rehospitalization rate fell to 85% at 2 years.

These results, the authors noted, hinged on minimizing residual MR. In the FMR group, 100% and 95% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at 1 year and 2 years, respectively, compared with 95% and 99% treated with the MitraClip in the COAPT study.

In the DMR group, 100% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at both 1 and 2 years, which “compares favorably to 94% from the EXPAND study at 1 year” with the MitraClip NTR and XTR systems, they write.

In CLASP, the LV end-diastolic volume decreased by 11 mL at 30 days and continued to decrease at 1 year (25 mL) and 2 years (33 mL; P < .001).

LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) fell by 2.7 mm at 30 days, 3.9 mm at 1 year, and by 2.7 mm at 2 years (P = .002). At 2 years, 93% of patients were in NYHA class I or II (P < .001).

“The authors of the trial observed significant LV reverse remodeling with a decrease in LVEDD. These findings are indeed of particular interest and warrant further investigation by future studies as this has not been shown to such an extent in previous E2E [edge-to-edge] repair studies,” Dr. Goliasch said in an interview.

He raised an eyebrow, however, at the cross-trial comparisons, adding, “We should be very careful to draw any hasty conclusions considering the high proportion of missing echocardiographic data. Nevertheless, all these aspects might make the design of future studies for direct comparisons between E2E devices in the various structural aspects of mitral valve disease attractive to tailor treatment and optimize patient care.”

Dr. Szerlip and colleagues cited several study limitations including the absence of a control arm that may have contributed to a Hawthorne effect; not all patients had reached 2-year follow-up at the time of the analysis; and adjudication of events and assessment of the 6-minute walk test and quality-of-life measures were limited to 1 year based on the protocol.

The study was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Szerlip reported serving as a proctor/speaker for Edwards; a national principal investigator for EFS; a speaker for Boston Scientific, and serving on steering committees for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr. Goliasch and Dr. Bartko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transcatheter mitral valve repair with the PASCAL device showed high rates of survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years in the single-arm, safety and efficacy CLASP study.

The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano

The early reductions in mitral regurgitation (MR) were sustained with 97% of patients having MR grades of 2+ or less and 78% having MR grades of 1+ or less at 2 years.

There was also evidence of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling and significant improvements in functional status, Molly Szerlip, MD, Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Texas, reported as lead author. The results were published online May 18 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system is a favorable option for treating patients with MR,” she said in a simultaneous virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021).

The PASCAL system is not approved in the United States, but Dr. Szerlip observed that the investigators are eagerly awaiting results from the ongoing, pivotal CLASP IID/IIF trial comparing the edge-to-edge repair system with another such device, MitraClip, in 1,275 patients with functional or degenerative MR. The primary completion date is set for December 2023.

Abbott’s MitraClip has been available in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008; Edwards Lifesciences received a CE mark for the PASCAL system in 2019.

“The results of the CLASP study are remarkable and indicate an additional differentiated tool ready for clinical routine,” Georg Goliasch, MD, PhD, and Philipp Bartko, MD, both from the Medical University of Vienna, write in an accompanying editorial.

As both systems target similar lesions, there might be “significant overlap in this particular patient population,” Dr. Goliasch told this news organization. From a technical perspective, the separate leaflet grasping was initially one of the advantages of the PASCAL, but this has also been recently introduced for the MitraClip.

That said, the “PASCAL device may offer a leaflet repair with decreased mechanical leaflet traction – specifically appealing to treat ventricular secondary MR – because mechanical forces applied to leaflets remain low, and the [central] spacer augments the leaflet surface in a way that reduces restrictive diastolic opening,” he added. “However, this remains highly speculative.”

The CLASP study enrolled 124 patients (56% male) with symptomatic MR grade of at least 3+ who were receiving optimal medical therapy at 14 sites in five countries. Their mean age was 75 years, 69% had functional MR (FMR), 31% had degenerative MR (DMR), and 60% were NYHA functional class III to IVa.

The primary endpoints of procedural and clinical success and adverse events at 30 days and 1-year outcomes were published last year. Echocardiographic data were available for 36 patients at 2 years with follow-up ongoing.

Composite major adverse event rates were 8.1% at 30 days, 18.5% at 1 year, and 16.9% at 2 years, driven mostly by severe bleeding at 7.3%, 11.3%, and 7.3%, respectively, Dr. Szerlip said.

Kaplan-Meier estimates showed 80.3% survival at 2 years (72.3% FMR, 94.3% DMR) and 84.3% freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (77.5% FMR, 97.3% DMR). The annualized HF rehospitalization rate fell to 85% at 2 years.

These results, the authors noted, hinged on minimizing residual MR. In the FMR group, 100% and 95% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at 1 year and 2 years, respectively, compared with 95% and 99% treated with the MitraClip in the COAPT study.

In the DMR group, 100% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at both 1 and 2 years, which “compares favorably to 94% from the EXPAND study at 1 year” with the MitraClip NTR and XTR systems, they write.

In CLASP, the LV end-diastolic volume decreased by 11 mL at 30 days and continued to decrease at 1 year (25 mL) and 2 years (33 mL; P < .001).

LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) fell by 2.7 mm at 30 days, 3.9 mm at 1 year, and by 2.7 mm at 2 years (P = .002). At 2 years, 93% of patients were in NYHA class I or II (P < .001).

“The authors of the trial observed significant LV reverse remodeling with a decrease in LVEDD. These findings are indeed of particular interest and warrant further investigation by future studies as this has not been shown to such an extent in previous E2E [edge-to-edge] repair studies,” Dr. Goliasch said in an interview.

He raised an eyebrow, however, at the cross-trial comparisons, adding, “We should be very careful to draw any hasty conclusions considering the high proportion of missing echocardiographic data. Nevertheless, all these aspects might make the design of future studies for direct comparisons between E2E devices in the various structural aspects of mitral valve disease attractive to tailor treatment and optimize patient care.”

Dr. Szerlip and colleagues cited several study limitations including the absence of a control arm that may have contributed to a Hawthorne effect; not all patients had reached 2-year follow-up at the time of the analysis; and adjudication of events and assessment of the 6-minute walk test and quality-of-life measures were limited to 1 year based on the protocol.

The study was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Szerlip reported serving as a proctor/speaker for Edwards; a national principal investigator for EFS; a speaker for Boston Scientific, and serving on steering committees for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr. Goliasch and Dr. Bartko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After taking it on the chin for previously reporting Bayesian estimates, actual 2-year data from the EVOLUT Low Risk trial confirm that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke.

Among 1,414 as-treated patients, Kaplan-Meier rates for all-cause death or disabling stroke at 24 months were 4.3% with TAVR and 6.3% with surgery (P = .084).

There was also no difference in the individual components of all-cause death (3.5% vs. 4.4%; log-rank P = .366) and disabling stroke (1.5% vs. 2.7%; log-rank P = .119).

Recent low-risk TAVR studies have raised questions about whether there’s a possible catch-up for surgery between 12 and 24 months, given the early mortality benefit from the less-invasive transcatheter procedure, prompting a landmark analysis, John K. Forrest, MD, said during the virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, EuroPCR 2021.

“Between 1 and 2 years, there was no convergence of the Kaplan-Meier curves for death or disabling stroke,” with an incidence of 1.9% for the TAVR group and 2.1% for the surgery group (log-rank P = .742), said Dr. Forrest, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “The lines were almost superimposed upon each other.”

Session moderator Bernard Prendergast, MD, observed that the Bayesian analysis, which was reported in 2019 and used 12-month follow-up to predict 2-year outcomes, generated questions and criticism over whether this was an appropriate method, compared with traditional Kaplan-Meier analysis. “Indeed, some people accused the investigators of gaming it with this form of statistical analysis.”

To act as a “fact checker,” Dr. Prendergast called in Christopher Cook, MRC, from the PCR Clinical Research Group and Imperial College London. The key methodologic question, Dr. Cook said, is whether Bayesian methods accurately predict actual clinical outcomes in this randomized clinical trial. “The simple answer to this for me, is yes.”

He pointed out that the Kaplan-Meier data for the primary outcome at 2 years were, in fact, numerically better than Bayesian estimates of 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group.

“This validates the use of the original Bayesian methods to estimate patient outcomes in low-risk TAVI patients and, indeed, it may act as an example of where Bayesian methods can be safely applied in order to fast track potentially transformative procedures and technologies to our patients,” Dr. Cook said.

The rate of disabling stroke with TAVR was 1.5% in the new analysis, up from 1.1% in the Bayesian analysis, and 2.7% with surgery, down from 3.5% in the Bayesian analysis.

All-cause mortality, also noted earlier, was 3.5% with TAVR and 4.4% with surgery, whereas the Bayesian estimate was 4.5% for each group.

Dr. Prendergast of St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said the actual 2-year data are reassuring regarding the statistical tools used and supplement those recently reported from low-risk patients in PARTNER 3.

But, he asked, “what does this mean for practice, what does it mean for guidelines, and how long do we need to wait until we are comfortable and reassured that we can apply TAVI in younger and low-risk patients with a durable outcome?”

Dr. Forrest said that clinicians can be reassured that these patients “are doing very well” but that long-term follow-up is critical.

“We need to be realistic here. We’re really going to be interested in 5- and 10-year outcomes and potentially even thereafter,” he said. “What happens to these valves when they eventually fail? Are superior hemodynamics going to give us longer valve durability in some way or are there going to be other unforeseen things that come up 10 years out? We don’t know those answers.”

TAVR with a supra-annular, self-expanding valve (CoreValve , Evolut R, or Evolut PRO) had superior hemodynamics in the new 2-year analysis with lower aortic valve gradients (9.0 vs. 11.7 mm Hg) and larger valve areas (2.2 vs. 2.0 cm²).

Prosthesis-patient mismatch also favored TAVR, with moderate or severe mismatch occurring in 7.2% and 2.1%, respectively, compared with 19.1% and 4.9%, respectively, with surgery. “We know that this has an impact on long-term outcomes, so it’s important to note that significant difference here,” Dr. Forrest said.

The chink in TAVR’s armor remains paravalvular leak, particularly mild leak, which was significantly higher at 26.6%, compared with only 2.6% with surgery. Moderate to severe leaks were seen in 1.7% and 0.4%, respectively, reflecting the improvement in TAVR with new iterations, he said.

Surgery was also superior to TAVR with regard to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9% vs. 21.1%). This compares with Bayesian estimates of 6.7% and 23.0%, respectively.

Rates of myocardial infarction remained constant in the two analyses for the TAVR (2.2%) and surgery (1.6%) groups, whereas heart failure hospitalizations improved slightly, from 5.4% versus 7.9%, respectively, in the Bayesian analysis to 5.3% versus 7.1%, respectively, in the new analysis.

Fellow discussant Marie-Claude Morice, MD, Institute Hospitalier Jacques Cartier, Massy, France, highlighted several meta-analyses in different risk patients showing “a lot of good news,” including decreased stroke and mortality rates and the combined outcome clearly favoring TAVR.

“The remaining question is the longevity of the valve, but with 5 years’ follow-up we have for comparison [in high-risk patients], it is the same,” she said. “What this illustrates is that the tidal wave of TAVR is continuing, and we can look optimistically to the future. Is it the nonsymptomatic patients?”

Medtronic funded the study. Dr. Forrest reported grant support from, serving on the advisory board, and proctoring for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Prendergast has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences; and speaker/consultancy fees from Abbott, Anteris, and Edwards.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After taking it on the chin for previously reporting Bayesian estimates, actual 2-year data from the EVOLUT Low Risk trial confirm that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke.

Among 1,414 as-treated patients, Kaplan-Meier rates for all-cause death or disabling stroke at 24 months were 4.3% with TAVR and 6.3% with surgery (P = .084).

There was also no difference in the individual components of all-cause death (3.5% vs. 4.4%; log-rank P = .366) and disabling stroke (1.5% vs. 2.7%; log-rank P = .119).

Recent low-risk TAVR studies have raised questions about whether there’s a possible catch-up for surgery between 12 and 24 months, given the early mortality benefit from the less-invasive transcatheter procedure, prompting a landmark analysis, John K. Forrest, MD, said during the virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, EuroPCR 2021.

“Between 1 and 2 years, there was no convergence of the Kaplan-Meier curves for death or disabling stroke,” with an incidence of 1.9% for the TAVR group and 2.1% for the surgery group (log-rank P = .742), said Dr. Forrest, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “The lines were almost superimposed upon each other.”

Session moderator Bernard Prendergast, MD, observed that the Bayesian analysis, which was reported in 2019 and used 12-month follow-up to predict 2-year outcomes, generated questions and criticism over whether this was an appropriate method, compared with traditional Kaplan-Meier analysis. “Indeed, some people accused the investigators of gaming it with this form of statistical analysis.”

To act as a “fact checker,” Dr. Prendergast called in Christopher Cook, MRC, from the PCR Clinical Research Group and Imperial College London. The key methodologic question, Dr. Cook said, is whether Bayesian methods accurately predict actual clinical outcomes in this randomized clinical trial. “The simple answer to this for me, is yes.”

He pointed out that the Kaplan-Meier data for the primary outcome at 2 years were, in fact, numerically better than Bayesian estimates of 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group.

“This validates the use of the original Bayesian methods to estimate patient outcomes in low-risk TAVI patients and, indeed, it may act as an example of where Bayesian methods can be safely applied in order to fast track potentially transformative procedures and technologies to our patients,” Dr. Cook said.

The rate of disabling stroke with TAVR was 1.5% in the new analysis, up from 1.1% in the Bayesian analysis, and 2.7% with surgery, down from 3.5% in the Bayesian analysis.

All-cause mortality, also noted earlier, was 3.5% with TAVR and 4.4% with surgery, whereas the Bayesian estimate was 4.5% for each group.

Dr. Prendergast of St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said the actual 2-year data are reassuring regarding the statistical tools used and supplement those recently reported from low-risk patients in PARTNER 3.

But, he asked, “what does this mean for practice, what does it mean for guidelines, and how long do we need to wait until we are comfortable and reassured that we can apply TAVI in younger and low-risk patients with a durable outcome?”

Dr. Forrest said that clinicians can be reassured that these patients “are doing very well” but that long-term follow-up is critical.

“We need to be realistic here. We’re really going to be interested in 5- and 10-year outcomes and potentially even thereafter,” he said. “What happens to these valves when they eventually fail? Are superior hemodynamics going to give us longer valve durability in some way or are there going to be other unforeseen things that come up 10 years out? We don’t know those answers.”

TAVR with a supra-annular, self-expanding valve (CoreValve , Evolut R, or Evolut PRO) had superior hemodynamics in the new 2-year analysis with lower aortic valve gradients (9.0 vs. 11.7 mm Hg) and larger valve areas (2.2 vs. 2.0 cm²).

Prosthesis-patient mismatch also favored TAVR, with moderate or severe mismatch occurring in 7.2% and 2.1%, respectively, compared with 19.1% and 4.9%, respectively, with surgery. “We know that this has an impact on long-term outcomes, so it’s important to note that significant difference here,” Dr. Forrest said.

The chink in TAVR’s armor remains paravalvular leak, particularly mild leak, which was significantly higher at 26.6%, compared with only 2.6% with surgery. Moderate to severe leaks were seen in 1.7% and 0.4%, respectively, reflecting the improvement in TAVR with new iterations, he said.

Surgery was also superior to TAVR with regard to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9% vs. 21.1%). This compares with Bayesian estimates of 6.7% and 23.0%, respectively.

Rates of myocardial infarction remained constant in the two analyses for the TAVR (2.2%) and surgery (1.6%) groups, whereas heart failure hospitalizations improved slightly, from 5.4% versus 7.9%, respectively, in the Bayesian analysis to 5.3% versus 7.1%, respectively, in the new analysis.

Fellow discussant Marie-Claude Morice, MD, Institute Hospitalier Jacques Cartier, Massy, France, highlighted several meta-analyses in different risk patients showing “a lot of good news,” including decreased stroke and mortality rates and the combined outcome clearly favoring TAVR.

“The remaining question is the longevity of the valve, but with 5 years’ follow-up we have for comparison [in high-risk patients], it is the same,” she said. “What this illustrates is that the tidal wave of TAVR is continuing, and we can look optimistically to the future. Is it the nonsymptomatic patients?”

Medtronic funded the study. Dr. Forrest reported grant support from, serving on the advisory board, and proctoring for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Prendergast has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences; and speaker/consultancy fees from Abbott, Anteris, and Edwards.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After taking it on the chin for previously reporting Bayesian estimates, actual 2-year data from the EVOLUT Low Risk trial confirm that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior to surgery for the primary endpoint of death or disabling stroke.

Among 1,414 as-treated patients, Kaplan-Meier rates for all-cause death or disabling stroke at 24 months were 4.3% with TAVR and 6.3% with surgery (P = .084).

There was also no difference in the individual components of all-cause death (3.5% vs. 4.4%; log-rank P = .366) and disabling stroke (1.5% vs. 2.7%; log-rank P = .119).

Recent low-risk TAVR studies have raised questions about whether there’s a possible catch-up for surgery between 12 and 24 months, given the early mortality benefit from the less-invasive transcatheter procedure, prompting a landmark analysis, John K. Forrest, MD, said during the virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, EuroPCR 2021.

“Between 1 and 2 years, there was no convergence of the Kaplan-Meier curves for death or disabling stroke,” with an incidence of 1.9% for the TAVR group and 2.1% for the surgery group (log-rank P = .742), said Dr. Forrest, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “The lines were almost superimposed upon each other.”

Session moderator Bernard Prendergast, MD, observed that the Bayesian analysis, which was reported in 2019 and used 12-month follow-up to predict 2-year outcomes, generated questions and criticism over whether this was an appropriate method, compared with traditional Kaplan-Meier analysis. “Indeed, some people accused the investigators of gaming it with this form of statistical analysis.”

To act as a “fact checker,” Dr. Prendergast called in Christopher Cook, MRC, from the PCR Clinical Research Group and Imperial College London. The key methodologic question, Dr. Cook said, is whether Bayesian methods accurately predict actual clinical outcomes in this randomized clinical trial. “The simple answer to this for me, is yes.”

He pointed out that the Kaplan-Meier data for the primary outcome at 2 years were, in fact, numerically better than Bayesian estimates of 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group.

“This validates the use of the original Bayesian methods to estimate patient outcomes in low-risk TAVI patients and, indeed, it may act as an example of where Bayesian methods can be safely applied in order to fast track potentially transformative procedures and technologies to our patients,” Dr. Cook said.

The rate of disabling stroke with TAVR was 1.5% in the new analysis, up from 1.1% in the Bayesian analysis, and 2.7% with surgery, down from 3.5% in the Bayesian analysis.

All-cause mortality, also noted earlier, was 3.5% with TAVR and 4.4% with surgery, whereas the Bayesian estimate was 4.5% for each group.

Dr. Prendergast of St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said the actual 2-year data are reassuring regarding the statistical tools used and supplement those recently reported from low-risk patients in PARTNER 3.

But, he asked, “what does this mean for practice, what does it mean for guidelines, and how long do we need to wait until we are comfortable and reassured that we can apply TAVI in younger and low-risk patients with a durable outcome?”

Dr. Forrest said that clinicians can be reassured that these patients “are doing very well” but that long-term follow-up is critical.

“We need to be realistic here. We’re really going to be interested in 5- and 10-year outcomes and potentially even thereafter,” he said. “What happens to these valves when they eventually fail? Are superior hemodynamics going to give us longer valve durability in some way or are there going to be other unforeseen things that come up 10 years out? We don’t know those answers.”

TAVR with a supra-annular, self-expanding valve (CoreValve , Evolut R, or Evolut PRO) had superior hemodynamics in the new 2-year analysis with lower aortic valve gradients (9.0 vs. 11.7 mm Hg) and larger valve areas (2.2 vs. 2.0 cm²).

Prosthesis-patient mismatch also favored TAVR, with moderate or severe mismatch occurring in 7.2% and 2.1%, respectively, compared with 19.1% and 4.9%, respectively, with surgery. “We know that this has an impact on long-term outcomes, so it’s important to note that significant difference here,” Dr. Forrest said.

The chink in TAVR’s armor remains paravalvular leak, particularly mild leak, which was significantly higher at 26.6%, compared with only 2.6% with surgery. Moderate to severe leaks were seen in 1.7% and 0.4%, respectively, reflecting the improvement in TAVR with new iterations, he said.

Surgery was also superior to TAVR with regard to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9% vs. 21.1%). This compares with Bayesian estimates of 6.7% and 23.0%, respectively.

Rates of myocardial infarction remained constant in the two analyses for the TAVR (2.2%) and surgery (1.6%) groups, whereas heart failure hospitalizations improved slightly, from 5.4% versus 7.9%, respectively, in the Bayesian analysis to 5.3% versus 7.1%, respectively, in the new analysis.

Fellow discussant Marie-Claude Morice, MD, Institute Hospitalier Jacques Cartier, Massy, France, highlighted several meta-analyses in different risk patients showing “a lot of good news,” including decreased stroke and mortality rates and the combined outcome clearly favoring TAVR.

“The remaining question is the longevity of the valve, but with 5 years’ follow-up we have for comparison [in high-risk patients], it is the same,” she said. “What this illustrates is that the tidal wave of TAVR is continuing, and we can look optimistically to the future. Is it the nonsymptomatic patients?”

Medtronic funded the study. Dr. Forrest reported grant support from, serving on the advisory board, and proctoring for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Prendergast has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences; and speaker/consultancy fees from Abbott, Anteris, and Edwards.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.