Original article
REC Interv Cardiol. 2021;3:175-181
Single or dual antiplatelet therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Tratamiento antiagregante plaquetario único o doble tras implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica. Metanálisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados
aDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy bCardio Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy cServicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia, Spain ◊J. Sanz-Sánchez, C. A. Pivato and P. P. Leone contributed equally to this work.

ABSTRACT
Introduction and objectives: Multistate models have proven to be effective tools in survival analyses. We propose modeling disease progression in interventional cardiology studies using a multistate model.
Methods: The model was fitted to the PACO-PCI database including a total of 1057 elderly patients with atrial fibrillation revascularized with drug-eluting stents to assess the efficacy profile and prognosis of different antithrombotic therapies. The model defines a total of 4 states: treatment, myocardial infarction and/or revascularization, bleeding, and death, with significant factors for each transition, and was compared using a multivariate Cox model.
Results: Survival factors common to both analyses were the PreciseDAPT and HAS-BLED scales, anemia, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, number of vessels treated, and left ventricular function. The multistate model also shows that after a new hemorrhage the probability of myocardial infarction and/or revascularization is influenced by the treatment of left main coronary artery disease and the transition to death from previous coronary artery bypass graft. Compared with Cox models, multistate models allow us to tell which transition in the model is influenced by each predictor.
Conclusions: The results illustrate the additional advantages of multistate models in survival analyses through individual predictions for the patients based on their clinical characteristics and disease progression.
Keywords: Multistate models. Survival analyses. Interventional cardiology.
RESUMEN
Introducción y objetivos: Los modelos multiestado son una herramienta eficaz en los análisis de supervivencia. Se propone la modelización de la evolución de la enfermedad en un estudio de cardiología intervencionista mediante el uso de un modelo multiestado.
Métodos: El modelo se ajustó para los datos del registro PACO-PCI, que incluye 1.057 pacientes de avanzada edad con fibrilación auricular revascularizados con stents liberadores de fármacos, con el objetivo de evaluar la eficacia y el pronóstico de distintos tratamientos antitrombóticos. El modelo define cuatro estados (tratamiento, infarto de miocardio o nueva revascularización, sangrados y muerte), junto con los factores significativos para cada transición, y fue comparado con un modelo multivariante de Cox.
Resultados: Los factores de supervivencia comunes a ambos análisis fueron las escalas PreciseDAPT y HAS-BLED, la anemia, la diabetes mellitus, la insuficiencia renal crónica, el número de vasos tratados y la función ventricular izquierda. El modelo multiestado muestra también que, tras un nuevo sangrado, la probabilidad de sufrir un infarto de miocardio o una revascularización está influida por el tratamiento de la enfermedad del tronco coronario izquierdo y el paso a muerte por cirugía coronaria previa. A diferencia de los modelos de Cox, los modelos multiestado permiten discernir en qué transición del modelo influye cada uno de los factores predictores.
Conclusiones: Los resultados reflejan las ventajas adicionales de los modelos multiestado en los análisis de supervivencia mediante predicciones personalizadas para los pacientes basadas en sus características clínicas y la evolución de la enfermedad.
Palabras clave: Modelos multiestado. Análisis de supervivencia. Cardiología intervencionista.
Abbreviations
AMI: acute myocardial infarction. CKD: chronic kidney disease. LMCA: left main coronary artery. MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events.
INTRODUCTION
In clinical research, statistical methodologies used for survival analyses range from the easiest non-parametric models—such as Kaplan-Meier estimates—to semi-parametric models such as the Cox proportional hazards model.1 When multiple adverse events are of interest, it is common practice to create a composite variable, such as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), to indicate whether a patient experienced any event at the follow-up, facilitating the application of these models,2 which provide numerous advantages with some associated limitations; for instance, they usually only consider the time to the index event for each patient, regardless of which component of the composite variable triggered such an event, which complicates the interpretation of the intervention effect since reliable conclusions cannot be drawn about the effects on individual components due to potential bias from competing risks.3,4
For this reason, multi-state models have gained traction in recent years, providing a framework to analyze disease progression.4 In medical applications, states in a multi-state model can represent various adverse events that patients may experience over time.5 A multi-state model is defined by its state structure, consisting of states and transitions across them. This structure allows for defining certain states as absorbing (from which the patient cannot exit, such as death) or transient (intermediate states between the initial and the absorbing states). These models extend competitive risk models—a multi-state model with 1 initial and multiple mutually exclusive absorbing states—by enabling any state structure, for example, extending analysis to what happens after a transient event.6 Additionally, they allow assessment of variables that impact the patients’ probability of transitioning from one state to the other by modeling these transitions, which is particularly useful in long-term clinical trials.7
Multi-state models can incorporate several covariates, such as demographic characteristics or biomarkers, to assess their effects on event rates and time-to-event. This aids in identifying risk factors and understanding their impact on patient prognosis, thus facilitating the efficacy evaluation of various treatments or interventions, and the selection of the most suitable strategy for each patient.8-10
The aim of this study is to model disease progression in the patients of a cardiology study by using a multi-state model and evaluating its applicability and limitations.
METHODS
Data
The database used is the updated version of the multicenter and retrospective PACO-PCI registry (Antithrombotic strategies in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation revascularized with drug-eluting stents),11 which included a total of 1057 patients older than 75 years with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulant therapy after revascularization with drug-eluting stents from 2015 through 2019. The endpoints of this registry included MACE (death, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], revascularization) and bleeding 12 months after treatment. Updated data extend patient follow-up to 5 years. Previous results from the PACO-PCI study11 demonstrated the efficacy of various antithrombotic therapies regarding the onset of MACE and major bleeding events. This study uses such data to illustrate the application of multi-state models, focusing on factors influencing the occurrence of the events of interest to achieve a more individualized model of disease progression.
Data analysis
The multi-state model used includes 4 states (1 initial state, 2 transient ones, and 1 absorbing state) and the possible transitions across them (figure 1). Specifically, a patient enters initial state 1 (treatment) at the time of the intervention. From this state, they can transition to transient state 2 (bleeding) if a major bleeding event occurs, transient state 3 (AMI/revascularization) if they experience an AMI or require re-intervention, or absorbing state 4 (death) if they die. From state 2 (bleeding), patients can transition to state 3 (AMI /revascularization) if they experience an AMI or require re-intervention or vice versa if a new bleeding event occurs. Patients can transition to the absorbing state from any state if they die. Compared with traditional methods—event composition and competing risks—this model distinguishes the severity of adverse events while maintaining a certain simplicity.

Figure 1. Proposed multi-state model. Upon intervention, patients enter the initial state 1 (treatment), from which they can move to transient state 2 (bleeding) if they experience a major bleed, or transient state 3 (acute myocardial infarction [AMI] or revascularization) if they experience an AMI or require re-intervention, or state 4 (absorbing, death) if they die. Patients in state 2 (bleeding) can transition to state 3 (AMI or revascularization) if they experience an AMI or require re-intervention. Patients in state 3 (AMI or revascularization) can move to state 2 (bleeding) if they experience a new bleed and can also transition to state 4 (death) if they die. The number of patients experiencing each adverse event is indicated alongside each transition, based on an initial cohort of 1057 patients. CKD, chronic kidney disease; LMCA, left main coronary artery; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction.
The multi-state model was adjusted using the msm12 package for R,13 which employs an exponential model for the time spent in each state. This package allows fitting a general multi-state model to survival data, requiring a complete data matrix; missing data for quantitative variables were completed with the corresponding mean value.
The proposed model for the time spent in each state allows including factors affecting each transition. For complete model determination purposes, variables associated with each transition were selected, ie, factors influencing the probability of transitioning from one state to the other. We chose a starting set of variables that could impact the occurrence of adverse event based on clinical criteria, as shown in table 1 of the supplementary data. This set includes the most important baseline characteristics, the number of vessels treated, and the scores obtained on the PreciseDAPT,14 HAS-BLED,15 and CHA2DS2-VASc16 scales. Afterwards, a multi-state model was adjusted including these variables each one at a time to identify their individual influence on each transition. Results of this analysis are shown in table 1 of the supplementary data. Subsequently, we tested different combinations of influential variables to achieve models with the best fit based on the Akaike information criterion, which favors model fit with the fewest covariates.12 Finally, we selected the model with the lowest value for this criterion that provided the most clinically relevant information.
Table 1. Covariates selected for the survival model in each state transition
Transition | Variable | HR (95%CI) |
---|---|---|
Treatment → Bleeding (n = 107) | Anemia | 1.42 (0.93-2.16) |
PreciseDAPT | 1.04 (1.03-1.06) | |
Treatment → AMI or RV (n = 84) | Diabetes | 1.31 (0.83-2.08) |
PreciseDAPT | 1.03 (1.01-1.05) | |
AMI or RV → Bleeding (n = 5) | HAS-BLED | 6.58 (1.84-23.58) |
Bleeding → AMI or RV (n = 10) | Treated LMCAD | 9.53 (2.56-5.49) |
Treatment → Death (n = 104) | HAS-BLED | 1.48 (1.19-1.83) |
LVEF | 0.98 (0.97-0.99) | |
No. of vessels treated | 1.48 (1.10-1.99) | |
PreciseDAPT | 1.02 (1.01-1.04) | |
Bleeding → Death (n = 31) | Previous coronary artery bypass graft | 3.70 (1.40-9.78) |
LVEF | 0.93 (0.90-0.96) | |
AMI or RV → Death (n = 15) | CKD | 4.48 (1.25-16.07) |
LVEF | 1.02 (0.98-1.07) | |
95%CI, 95% confidence interval; AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CKD, chronic kidney disease; HR, hazard ratio; LMCAD, left main coronary artery disease; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; RV, revascularization. |
Afterwards, we conducted a goodness-of-fit study of the multi-state model to determine whether the exponential model adequately fit the observed time in each state. This analysis revealed that the model overestimates event-free survival after 1000 days (slightly more than 2.5 years), mainly because it underestimates the prevalence of death beyond this period. Therefore, a maximum follow-up of 1000 days was considered for the final analysis.
Furthermore, we conducted a traditional survival analysis to compare it with our model. Specifically, a Cox regression model was fitted for the MACE variable, defined as AMI, revascularization, bleeding, or death. We conducted Univariate Cox regression analyses to determine factors affecting the occurrence of MACE (table 1 of the supplementary data) using the same initial set considered for the multi-state model. Based on these results, we selected a subset of variables to adjust a multiple Cox regression model. Again, the Akaike information criterion was used to select the best model among all possible models. We performed all calculations with the statistical program R, version 4.1.1; in particular, the Survival17 package was used for the above-mentioned traditional survival analysis.
RESULTS
The database includes information on 20 Spanish centers for a total of 1057 patients older than 75 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents from 2015 through 2019. The patients’ mean age is 81 ± 4.2 years, and most (almost 70%) are men. Diabetes mellitus—a known risk factor for various cardiovascular diseases—was present in 42.4% of the population, and most patients (about 80%) had experienced a prior cardiovascular event. The patients’ baseline characteristics are shown in table 2 of the supplementary data. Only 5 variables had missing data: anemia (4.4%), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (0.9%), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (3.2%), PreciseDAPT score (0.6%), and treated left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) (< 0.1%).
Table 2. Results of the Cox multiple regression model for major cardiovascular adverse events (1000-day follow-up)
Variable | HR (95%CI) | P |
---|---|---|
Diabetes | 1.29 (1.02-1.63) | .036 |
CKD | 1.18 (0.90-1.53) | .232 |
LVEF | 0.98 (0.98-0.99) | .026 |
Anemia | 1.04 (0.81-1.34) | .077 |
HAS-BLED | 1.14 (0.99-1.31) | .079 |
PreciseDAPT | 1.02 (1.01-1.04) | < .001 |
No. of treated vessels | 1.29 (1.06-1.56) | .011 |
95%CI, 95% confidence interval; CKD, chronic kidney disease; HR, hazard ratio; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction. |
The mean follow-up was 854.8 days (2 years and 4 months), with the shortest follow-up being 2 days and the longest one, 2018 days. Figure 1 and table 3 of the supplementary data illustrate that death is the most common event among patients (14.1%), followed by major bleeding (10.6%). After the intervention and stent treatment, a significant number of patients experience a new AMI or require re-intervention (7.9%) as their first adverse event.
Table 3. Characteristics (risk factor values) of hypothetical patients used to demonstrate the predictive capabilities of the multistate model
Variable | Low risk | High risk |
---|---|---|
Diabetes mellitus | No | Yes |
Anemia | No | Yes |
CKD | No | Yes |
LVEF | 65% | 35% |
Number of treated vessels | 1 | 2 |
Precise-DAPT score | 12 | 52 |
HAS-BLED score | 2 | 4 |
LMCAD | No | Yes |
Previous coronary artery bypass graft | No | Yes |
CKD, chronic kidney disease; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LMCAD, left main coronary artery disease. |
Multi-state model
We obtained an estimate and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of the hazard ratio (HR) for each variable and transition following the variable selection process. Table 1 shows the estimated risk associated with each variable in each transition. For the PACO-PCI study data, the resulting multi-state model revealed, for example, that a higher score on the PreciseDAPT scale increases the risk of bleeding after treatment (HR, 1.05; 95%CI, 1.03–1.06), and that LVEF is a protective factor vs after bleeding (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.92–0.97). The transition from treatment to death is influenced by the number of vessels treated and LVEF, and by the PreciseDAPT and HAS-BLED scores. The transition from treatment to bleeding is related to anemia and the PreciseDAPT score. After a bleeding event, the likelihood of experiencing a new AMI or revascularization is associated with treated LMCAD. The transition from bleeding to death depends on the LVEF and previous coronary artery bypass graft. The transition from treatment to AMI or revascularization is related to diabetes and the PreciseDAPT score. After a new AMI has occurred or revascularization has been performed, the likelihood of bleeding is influenced by the HAS-BLED score. Lastly, the transition from AMI or revascularization to death is determined by CKD and LVEF.
Comparison between the multi-state model and Cox regression analysis
The results of the MACE variable study with a Cox regression analysis—which provides the HR for each MACE predictor—are shown in table 2. The factors included in the best multiple Cox regression model were diabetes, CKD, anemia, the PreciseDAPT and HAS-BLED scales, LVEF, and the number of vessels treated (Table 2).
Although the variables treated LMCAD and previous coronary artery bypass graft were not significant predictors of MACE in the multiple Cox regression analysis, they were significant for some transitions in the multi-state model. Diabetes, CKD, anemia, the PreciseDAPT and HAS-BLED scales, LVEF, and the number of vessels treated were significant predictors in the univariate Cox regression analysis (table 1 of the supplementary data) and for some transitions in the multi-state model.
Utility of the multi-state model
In contrast to the Cox regression model, a fitted multi-state model, like the one proposed, can predict the probability of a patient transitioning across states within a specified period of time, that is, the probability of experiencing each type of event after treatment or after experiencing another transient event within a specified timeframe. For example, it is possible to calculate the probability that a patient with certain baseline characteristics who has experienced major bleeding will die within 1 year.
To illustrate the predictive capability of the model, we defined 2 types of patients—low- and high-risk—whose characteristics are shown in table 3. We used the multi-state model to predict the probability of each of these hypothetical patients in each of the possible transitions within the first year after treatment or after an exit event. These predictions for the 2 types of patients are shown in figure 2. For example, the PACO-PCI data reveal that that the probability rates of death 1 year after major bleeding are 75% and 10% for high- and low-risk patients, respectively.

Figure 2. Event-free survival graphs (A, E) and survival graphs (B, C, D, F, G) show the probability of low- (green) and high-risk (red) patients experiencing an adverse event within 1000 days (a little more than 2.5 years). A: probability of bleeding after treatment. B: probability of experiencing a new acute myocardial infarction or revascularization after treatment. C: probability of death after treatment. D: probability of a new acute myocardial infarction or revascularization after bleeding. E: probability of bleeding after a new acute myocardial infarction or revascularization. F: probability of death after bleeding. G: probability of death after a new acute myocardial infarction or revascularization.
DISCUSSION
Results demonstrate the added value of multi-state models in survival analyses within biomedical research. Multi-state models introduce additional predictive variables beyond those identified by traditional survival analyses, and provide information on the expected time and probability of transitioning from one state to the other based on risk factors, treatment characteristics, and previous disease progression. Traditional analyses only provide information on general significant variables, without clarifying which specific adverse event they predict.
In a prior study, a multi-state model with a 3-state structure was applied to data from the Synergy ACS study,9 selecting the most determinant variables for each type of adverse event. Specifically, diabetes mellitus, the number of diseased vessels, and CKD were analyzed in relation to the time elapsed from treatment administration to the occurrence of a new AMI or revascularization; age, LVEF, and previous percutaneous coronary intervention for the time elapsed from treatment administration to death; and diabetes mellitus, the number of diseased vessels, and stent thrombosis for survival from post-treatment AMI or revascularization. In the PACO-PCI study data10 given the patients’ advanced age and baseline characteristics, we observed a high probability of bleeding after treatment, so this variable was included as a transient state in the model. There are common predictors in the 2 studies, such as the number of diseased or treated vessels, LVEF, and CKD, though not all factors corresponded to the same transition in the multi-state model. Moreover, it is notable that each database includes unique variables not found in the other.
In the current dataset, factors such as age and stent thrombosis are not statistically significant due to the patient profile and the fact that most experienced a prior adverse event. Consequently, predictive scales such as the Precise-DAPT and the HAS-BLED—which include multiple events—are crucial regarding adjusting the model.
Multi-state models have been used in other cardiology studies2,6,18-20 with different state structures. In heart failure, using the model applied by Upshaw et al.18, both LVEF and diabetes mellitus were found to be predictors of death. CKD is related directly to death and to death following hospitalization for heart failure. Postmus et al.1 used a multi-state model that was similar to the disability model to predict hospitalization for heart failure and death, identifying AMI, diabetes mellitus, LVEF, and CKD as predictors.
The proposed multi-state model has certain limitations. Regarding data, it is a retrospective observational registry affected by the limitations of all observational studies. Specifically, the most significant limitations of this study are: 1) the heterogeneity of follow-up, which can introduce significant biases; 2) its limited statistical power for a model with 7 transitions; and 3) its retrospective design without event adjudication, implying that many deaths may have been due to unreported ischemic or hemorrhagic events. It is also worth noting that the variables included in the model were selected not only based on statistical criteria but also subjectively by the researcher, meaning that results should be interpreted with caution. Although the management of missing data through multiple imputation would have accounted for variability due to data loss, model selection with missing data in multi-state models has not yet been resolved in the literature.
Finally, multi-state models are currently widely used in fields outside the cardiovascular clinical trial,2 hematology,21 and oncology settings.22,23 Despite their proven utility, there are 3 main limitations in performing multi-state model analysis. First, the msm package in R assumes the Markov property, meaning that in our model, survival after a transient event does not depend on the time from the initial intervention to the corresponding event. Second, multi-state models require sufficient observed events to have statistical power and make reliable predictions. Third, most software for multi-state model analysis is integrated into statistical packages and is not easy to use; for example, each requires a different data structure. Interested readers can consult a systematic review of existing programs.24
CONCLUSIONS
Multi-state models are essential for describing disease progression due to their capacity to adapt to various events or factors through their state structure. Another advantage is that they consider all available follow-up data, including patients who may have or experienced an event. Additionally, they provide information on the estimated time to an event along with the probability of transitioning across states, making them an essential tool in cardiovascular event analysis by providing more accurate estimates of future event risk.
FUNDING
None declared.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The original study (PACO-PCI) was approved by the reference CEIm of the Health Areas of León and El Bierzo (Spain) on 11-26-2019, reference no. 19167. Since this study involved new statistical analysis of observed results without new tests or data collection, ethical committee review was deemed unnecessary.
STATEMENT ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
No artificial intelligence was used in the development of this article.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors contributed equally to the design of the multi-state model. J.M. de la Torre-Hernández and J.L. Ferreiro provided the data. N. Montoya and A. Quirós conducted the data analysis and model implementation. N. Montoya, A. Quirós, and A. Pérez de Prado drafted the manuscript, and all authors substantially contributed to the review process.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
J.M. de la Torre-Hernández is the editor-in-chief of REC: Interventional Cardiology; A. Pérez de Prado is an associate editor of REC: Interventional Cardiology; in both cases, the journal’s editorial procedure to ensure impartial handling of the manuscript has been followed. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest whatsoever.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank all researchers of the PACO-PCI registry.
REFERENCES
1. Ferreira-González I, Alonso-Coello P, SolàI, et al. Composite endpoints in clinical trials. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2008;61:283-290.
2. Montoya N, Quirós A, de la Torre-Hernández JM, Pérez de Prado A. Modelos multiestado para análisis de supervivencia en cardiología:una alternativa a los composite endpoints. REC Interv Cardiol.2022;4:243-250.
3. Ferreira-González I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, et al. Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:651-657;discussion 658-662.
4. Rauch G, Kieser M, Ulrich S, et al. Competing time-to-event endpoints in cardiology trials:a simulation study to illustrate the importance of an adequate statistical analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014;21:74-80.
5. Neumann JT, Thao LTP, Callander E, et al. A multistate model of health transitions in older people:a secondary analysis of ASPREE clinical trial data. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3:e89-e97.
6. Hajihosseini M, Kazemi T, Faradmal J. Multistate Models for Survival Analysis of Cardiovascular Disease Process. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2016;69:714-715.
7. Suri RM, Clavel MA, Schaff HV, et al. Effect of Recurrent Mitral Regurgitation Following Degenerative Mitral Valve Repair:Long-Term Analysis of Competing Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:488-498. Correction in J Am Coll Cardiol.2016;67:1976-1978.
8. Jahn-Eimermacher A, Ingel K, Preussler S, Bayes-Genis A, Binder H. A DAG-based comparison of interventional effect underestimation between composite endpoint and multi-state analysis in cardiovascular trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:92.
9. Anker D, Carmeli C, Zwahlen M, et al. How blood pressure predicts frailty transitions in older adults in a population-based cohort study:a multi-state transition model. Int J Epidemiol. 2022;51:1167-1177.
10. Meira-Machado L, de Uña-Álvarez J, Cadarso-Suárez C, et al. Multi-state models for the analysis of time-to-event data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18:195-222.
11. de la Torre Hernandez JM, Ferreiro JL, Lopez-Palop R, et al. Antithrombotic strategies in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation revascularized with drug-eluting stents:PACO-PCI (EPIC-15) registry. Int J Cardiol.2021;338:63-71.
12. Jackson CH. Multi-State Models for Panel Data:The msm Package for R. J Stat Softw. 2011;38:1-29. Available at: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v38/i08/. Accessed 1 Aug 2024.
13. R Core Team (2021). R:A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 1 Aug 2024.
14. Costa F, van Klaveren D, James S, et al. Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score:a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials. Lancet. 2017;389:1025-1034.
15. Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, de Vos CB, Crijns HJ, Lip GY. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation:the Euro Heart Survey. Chest. 2010;138:1093-1100.
16. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach:the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137:263-272.
17. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling Survival Data:Extending the Cox Model. New York:Springer;2000. 7-287.
18. Upshaw JN, Konstam MA, van Klaveren D, Noubary F, Huggins GS, Kent DM. Multistate model to predict heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality in outpatients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail.2016;9:e003146.
19. Postmus D, van Veldhuisen DJ, Jaarsma T, et al. The COACH risk engine:a multistate model for predicting survival and hospitalization in patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012;14:168-175.
20. Ramezankhani A, Blaha MJ, Mirbolouk MH, Azizi F, Hadaegh F. Multi-state analysis of hypertension and mortality:application of semi-Markov model in a longitudinal cohort study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2020;20:321.
21. Carobbio A, Guglielmelli P, Rumi E, et al. A multistate model of survival prediction and event monitoring in prefibrotic myelofibrosis. Blood Cancer J.2020;10:100.
22. Armero C, Cabras S, Castellanos ME, et al. Bayesian analysis of a disability model for lung cancer survival. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25:336-351.
23. Cheung LC, Albert PS, Das S, Cook RJ. Multistate models for the natural history of cancer progression. Br J Cancer. 2022;127:1279-1288.
24. Hara H, van Klaveren D, Kogame N, et al. Statistical methods for composite endpoints. EuroIntervention. 2021;16:e1484-e1495.

ABSTRACT
Introduction and objectives: There is limited data on the impact of the culprit vessel on very long-term outcomes after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim was to analyze the impact of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) as the culprit vessel of STEMI on very long-term outcomes.
Methods: We analyzed patients included in the EXAMINATION-EXTEND study (NCT04462315) treated with everolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents after STEMI (1498 patients) and stratified according to the culprit vessel (LAD vs other vessels). The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularization at 10 years. Secondary endpoints were individual components of POCE, device-oriented composite endpoint and its individual components and stent thrombosis. We performed landmark analyses at 1 and 5 years. All endpoints were adjusted with multivariable Cox regression models.
Results: The LAD was the culprit vessel in 631 (42%) out of 1498 patients. The LAD-STEMI group had more smokers, advanced Killip class and worse left ventricular ejection fraction. Conversely, non-LAD-STEMI group showed more peripheral vascular disease, previous MI, or previous PCI. At 10 years, no differences were observed between groups regarding POCE (34.9% vs 35.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.79-1.13; P = .56) or other endpoints. The all-cause mortality rate was higher in the LAD-STEMI group (P = .041) at 1-year.
Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of STEMI patients, there were no differences in POCE between LAD as the STEMI-related culprit vessel and other vessels at 10 years follow-up. However, all-cause mortality was more common in the LAD-STEMI group within the first year after STEMI.
Keywords: Acute myocardial infarction. STEMI. Angiography. Coronary. Percutaneous coronary intervention.
RESUMEN
Introducción y objetivos: Existen datos limitados sobre el impacto a muy largo plazo del vaso culpable después de un infarto de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST (IAMCEST). El objetivo fue analizar el efecto de la arteria descendente anterior (DA) como vaso culpable en el IAMCEST en los resultados a muy largo plazo.
Métodos: Se analizaron los pacientes incluidos en el estudio EXAMINATION-EXTEND (NCT04462315) que recibieron stents liberadores de everolimus o stents metálicos después de un IAMCEST (1.498 pacientes) y se estratificaron según el vaso culpable (DA frente a otros vasos). El objetivo primario fue el objetivo combinado orientado al paciente (POCE) que incluyó muerte por cualquier causa, infarto agudo de miocardio (IAM) o revascularización a los 10 años. Los objetivos secundarios fueron los componentes individuales del POCE, el evento compuesto orientado al dispositivo y sus componentes individuales, así como la trombosis del stent. Se realizaron análisis de puntos de referencia a 1 y 5 años. Todos los objetivos fueron ajustados mediante modelos de regresión de Cox multivariantes.
Resultados: De los 1.498 pacientes, la DA fue el vaso culpable en 631 (42%). El grupo IAMCEST-DA mostró mayor proporción de fumadores, una clase Killip más avanzada y una peor fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo. En cambio, el grupo sin IAMCEST-DA mostró mayor prevalencia de enfermedad vascular periférica, IAM previo y angioplastia coronaria previa. A los 10 años no se observaron diferencias entre los grupos para el POCE (34,9 frente a 35,4%; hazard ratio, 0,95; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,79-1,13; p = 0,56) ni para otros objetivos. Hubo una mayor mortalidad por cualquier causa en el grupo IAMCEST-DA (p = 0,041) al primer año.
Conclusiones: En una cohorte contemporánea de pacientes con IAMCEST no hubo diferencias en cuanto al POCE entre la DA como vaso culpable en el IAMCEST y los otros vasos a los 10 años de seguimiento. Sin embargo, en el primer año después del IAMCEST, la mortalidad por cualquier causa fue más común en el grupo IAMCEST-DA.
Palabras clave: Infarto agudo de miocardio. IAMCEST. Angiografía. Coronaria. Intervención coronaria percutánea.
Abbreviations
LAD: left anterior descending coronary artery. LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction. MI: myocardial infarction. PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention. POCE: patient-oriented composite endpoint. STEMI: ST−segment elevation myocardial infarction.
INTRODUCTION
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the first-line therapy in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).1 The STEMI-related culprit vessel is usually considered as one of the most important prognostic factors in STEMI patients.2,3 This assumption comes from previous studies –conducted in the pre-reperfusion or thrombolysis era– which showed that left anterior descending artery (LAD)-related STEMIs were associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with right coronary (RCA) and left circumflex artery (LCX)-related lesions.4-9
However, in the contemporary era of primary PCI there are limited data about the prognostic impact of LAD as the STEMI-related culprit vessel especially in a very long follow-up.10,11
Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the LAD as the STEMI-related culprit vessel on very long-term clinical outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI enrolled in the EXAMINATION-EXTEND study (10-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial).
METHODS
Study design and patients
The EXAMINATION trial (NCT00828087) was an all-comer, multicenter, prospective, 1:1 randomized, 2-arm, single-blind, controlled trial conducted at 12 centers across 3 countries to assess the superiority of EES (Xience V) vs BMS (Multilink Vision, Abbott Vascular) in STEMI patients regarding the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. The study had broad inclusion criteria and few exclusion criteria to ensure an all-comer STEMI population representative of the routine clinical practice. The study outcomes have been reported up to the year 5.12,13 After that, it was reinitiated as the EXAMINATION- EXTEND study to evaluate patient- and device-oriented composite endpoints at 10 years. The latter is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04462315) as an investigator-driven extension of follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial. An independent study monitor (ADKNOMA, Barcelona, Spain) verified the adequacy of the extended follow-up and events reported. All events were adjudicated and classified by an independent event adjudication committee blinded to the therapy groups (Barcicore Lab, Barcelona, Spain). The 10-year primary endpoint results of the EXAMINATION-EXTEND study have been previously published.14 For the aim of this study, baseline, procedural characteristics and outcomes were stratified according to the STEMI-related culprit vessel (LAD vs others). All centers participating in the EXAMINATION trial received the approval of their Medical Ethics Committee, and all enrolled patients who had already signed their written informed consent forms. Medical ethics committee approval for EXAMINATION- EXTEND was granted at the institutions of the principal investigators (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain), and the requirement to obtain informed consent to gather information on 10- year events was waived. The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Study endpoints
The primary endpoint of this study was the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 10 years. Secondary endpoints were each individual components of the primary endpoint, device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization), its individual components and stent thrombosis. Detailed descriptions of the study endpoints and definitions have been published previously.15
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables are expressed as median (interquartile range; IQR), and categorical variables as absolute and relative frequencies (percentages).
Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared between the groups stratified by the STEMI-related artery (LAD vs other vessels) using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, the chi-square, or Fisher’s exact test, where appropriate.
Time-to-event curves for POCE and all-cause death were plotted using the one minus the Kaplan-Meier estimate and the cumulative incidence function for other outcomes. The incidence of events at the follow-up was compared between groups using log-rank or Grey’s test. Landmark analyses were also performed, setting landmark points at 1 and 5 years.
The association between LAD as a STEMI-related culprit vessel and events was analyzed in univariable and multivariable cause-specific Cox regression models. Covariates were added to the multivariable model in 2 blocks. The first model included all clinically relevant baseline characteristics variables with P < .1 in the between-groups comparison (LAD vs other vessels), i.e., sex, smoking status, peripheral vascular disease, previous PCI, previous CABG, previous MI, and Killip class. The second model (expanded adjustment) included both the baseline characteristics and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at discharge.
Two-tailed P-value < .05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using R (R Core Team (2022). R: a language for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria) with the following packages: survival, tidycmprsk, jskm, and gtsummary.
RESULTS
Patient characteristics
In 631 (42%) out of the 1498 STEMI patients included in the EXAMINATION EXTEND trial, the LAD was the culprit vessel (LAD-STEMI group), whereas in 867 patients (58%) it was not (non- LAD-STEMI group). Patients’ inclusion flowchart is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Study flowchart. A total of 1498 patients were initially recruited. At 10 years, clinical follow-up was obtained in 95.2% of the patients. LAD, left anterior descending artery; STEMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
LAD-STEMI group had a higher incidence of active smokers, advanced Killip class and more depressed LVEF vs the non-LAD-STEMI group, which, however, exhibited a higher incidence of peripheral vascular disease, previous MI and previous PCI (table 1). Also, although non-statistically significant, the frequency of late comers and bailout PCI was numerically higher in the LAD-STEMI group.
Table 1. Baseline clinical characteristics
Clinical characteristics | Overall (N = 1498)a | LAD-STEMI (N = 631)a | Non-LAD-STEMI (N = 867)a | |
---|---|---|---|---|
61 [51-71] | 61 [51-71] | 61 [51-70] | .778 | |
1,244 (83%) | 512 (81%) | 732 (84%) | .094 | |
415 (28%) | 197 (31%) | 218 (25%) | .009 | |
655 (44%) | 268 (43%) | 387 (45%) | .419 | |
725 (48%) | 307 (49%) | 418 (48%) | .843 | |
55 (3.7%) | 14 (2.2%) | 41 (4.7%) | .011 | |
31 (2.1%) | 14 (2.2%) | 17 (2.0%) | .726 | |
80 (5.3%) | 23 (3.7%) | 57 (6.6%) | .013 | |
61 (4.1%) | 18 (2.9%) | 43 (5.0%) | .042 | |
10 (0.7%) | 1 (0.2%) | 9 (1.0%) | .052 | |
.126 | ||||
1,268 (85%) | 520 (82%) | 748 (86%) | ||
98 (6.5%) | 51 (8.1%) | 47 (5.4%) | ||
34 (2.3%) | 14 (2.2%) | 20 (2.3%) | ||
97 (6.5%) | 46 (7.3%) | 51 (5.9%) | ||
< .001 | ||||
I | 1,337 (90%) | 525 (83%) | 812 (94%) | |
II | 115 (7.7%) | 76 (12%) | 39 (4.5%) | |
III | 23 (1.5%) | 20 (3.2%) | 3 (0.3%) | |
IV | 18 (1.2%) | 8 (1.3%) | 10 (1.2%) | |
52 (45, 58) | 46 [40-55] | 55 [50-60] | < .001 | |
1.38 (0.70, 3.00) | 1.27 [0.67-3.00] | 1.47 [0.75-3.00] | .353 | |
CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. a>Median [interquartile range] or frequency (%). bWilcoxon rank sum test; Pearson’s chi-squared test; Fisher’s exact test. |
Regarding procedural data, LAD-STEMI group received smaller stent diameter (3.12 mm vs 3.26 mm; P = .001) and had a lower incidence of ST-segment resolution than the non-LAD-STEMI group (73%, vs 50%; P = .001) (table 2). The use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors was numerically lower in the LAD-STEMI group, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. Of note, almost half of the patients (46%) with LAD-STEMI had the lesion in the proximal LAD compared with 44% of them who had it in the mid/distal LAD.
Table 2. Angiographic and procedural characteristics
Procedural characteristics | Overall (N = 1498)a | LAD-related STEMI (N = 631)a | Non-LAD-related STEMI (N = 867)a | |
---|---|---|---|---|
N/A | ||||
LAD | 631 (42) | 631 (100) | 0 (0) | |
LMCA | 3 (0.2) | 0 (0) | 3 (0.3) | |
RCA | 650 (43) | 0 (0) | 650 (75) | |
LCx | 207 (14) | 0 (0) | 207 (24) | |
SVG | 7 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 7 (0.8) | |
188 (13) | 72 (11) | 116 (13) | .256 | |
3.9 [2.7-6.8] | 4.0 [2.7-7.3] | 3.9 [2.7-6.3] | .366 | |
976 (65) | 405 (64) | 571 (66) | .502 | |
785 (52) | 312 (49) | 473 (55) | .051 | |
885 (60) | 390 (63) | 495 (59) | .113 | |
.312 | ||||
DES | 751 (50) | 326 (52) | 425 (49) | |
BMS | 747 (50) | 305 (48) | 442 (51) | |
1.39 (0.65) | 1.37 (0.63) | 1.40 (0.66) | .428 | |
23 (18-35) | 23 (18-33) | 23 (18-35) | .154 | |
3.20 (0.45) | 3.12 (0.40) | 3.26 (0.47) | < .001 | |
221 (15) | 97 (15) | 124 (14) | .564 | |
.607 | ||||
0 | 26 (1.7) | 9 (1.4) | 17 (2.0) | |
1 | 12 (0.8) | 5 (0.8) | 7 (0.8) | |
2 | 59 (4.0) | 29 (4.6) | 30 (3.5) | |
3 | 1396 (94) | 584 (93) | 812 (94) | |
852 (63) | 285 (50) | 567 (73) | < .001 | |
BMS, bare metal stent; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft. DES, drug-eluting stent; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery, LCx, left circumflex artery; LMCA, left main coronary artery; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; RCA, right coronary artery; STEMI: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; SVG, saphenous venous graft; TIMI, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction. aMedian [interquartile range], mean (standard deviation) or frequency (%). bFisher’s exact test; Pearson’s chi-squared test; Wilcoxon rank sum test. |
Ten-year outcomes
At the 10-year follow-up, POCE did not differ between LAD-STEMI and non-LAD-STEMI group (adjusted HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.79-1.13; P = .56) (figure 2). Moreover, no differences were found in terms of each individual component of POCE (all-cause mortality, MI, any revascularization) (figure 3) and other secondary endpoints (figure 1 of the supplementary data). Furthermore, when the expanded adjustment was performed and LVEF was included in the multivariable analysis, there were no inter-group differences between (table 3).

Figure 2. Central illustration. Outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction according to the culprit vessel at the 10-year follow-up. LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; STEMI: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; POCE: patient-oriented composite endpoint.

Figure 3. Time-to-event curves for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (A), all-cause mortality (B), myocardial infarction (C), and any revascularization (D) in patients stratified according to the culprit vessel. LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; MI, myocardial infarction; STEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; POCE, patient-oriented composite endpoint.
Table 3. Ten-year outcomes
10-year outcomes | LAD-related STEMI (N = 631) | Non-LAD-related STEMI (N = 867) | Unadjusted HR (95%CI) | Adjusted HR (95%CI) | Expanded adjusted HR (95%CI) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient-oriented composite endpointc | 220 (34.9) | 307 (35.4) | 0.99 (0.83-1.17) | .87 | 0.95 (0.79-1.13) | .56 | 0.98 (0.78-1.23) | .86 |
All-cause mortalityd | 131 (21.6) | 179 (21.2) | 1.02 (0.82-1.28) | .84 | 0.93 (0.74-1.18) | .56 | 0.81 (0.59-1.09) | .17 |
Any myocardial infarctione | 33 (5.5) | 53 (6.3) | 0.86 (0.56-1.33) | .50 | 0.93 (0.60-1.45) | .76 | 1.14 (0.67-1.93) | .61 |
Any revascularization | 108 (17.4) | 161 (18.8) | 0.93 (0.73-1.18) | .55 | 0.96 (0.75-1.22) | .72 | 1.12 (0.83-1.52) | .45 |
Device-oriented composite endpointf | 94 (14.3) | 132 (14.2) | 0.98 (0.75-1.28) | .88 | 0.91 (0.70-1.20) | .50 | 0.95 (0.67-1.35) | .77 |
Cardiac death | 72 (9.8) | 95 (10.0) | 1.06 (0.78- 1.44) | .71 | 0.89 (0.65- 1.23) | .49 | 0.71 (0.47-1.09) | .12 |
Target vessel myocardial infarction | 16 (2.6) | 36 (4.2) | 0.62 (0.34-1.11) | .10 | 0.69 (0.38-1.25) | .22 | 0.87 (0.43-1.77) | .71 |
Target lesion revascularization | 44 (7.0) | 63 (7.3) | 0.97 (0.66-1.43) | .89 | 1.01 (0.68-1.49) | .96 | 1.20 (0.76-1.93) | .43 |
Definite/probable stent thrombosisg | 17 (2.7) | 28 (3.3) | 0.84 (0.46-1.54) | .57 | 0.83 (0.45-1.55) | .57 | 0.80 (0.38-1.73) | .58 |
95%CI, 95% confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; LAD, left anterior descending artery, STEMI: ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Data are expressed as no. (%). aCause-specific Cox regression model adjusted for sex, smoking status, peripheral vascular disease, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, previous coronary artery bypass graft, previous myocardial infarction, and Killip class. bCause-specific Cox regression expanded model, adjusted for baseline comorbidities and left ventricular ejection fraction at discharge. cComposite endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularization. dDeath was adjudicated according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. eMyocardial infarction was adjudicated according to the World Health Organization extended definition. fComposite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. gStent thrombosis was defined according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. |
Landmark analyses
POCE landmark analysis showed no differences between the 2 groups across different time points. (figure 4A). Looking specifically at the various POCE individual components, the LAD-STEMI group exhibited a higher rate of all-cause mortality within the first year vs the non-LAD-STEMI group (p = 0.041), but this difference disappeared thereafter (figure 4B). Between years 0 and 1, there was also a trend toward a lower rate of myocardial infarction in the LAD-STEMI group vs the non-LAD-STEMI group (p = 0.081), which disappeared after year 1 (figure 4C). No differences were ever found regarding any revascularization (figure 4D) or other secondary endpoints between the 2 groups (figure 2 of the supplementary data).

Figure 4. Landmark analysis for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (A), all-cause mortality (B), myocardial infarction (C), and any revascularization (D) in patients stratified according to the culprit vessel. LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; MI, myocardial infarction; STEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; POCE, patient-oriented composite endpoint.
DISCUSSION
The main findings of this study can be summarized as follows: a) STEMI patients with LAD as the culprit vessel have a different baseline clinical profile vs STEMI patients with other culprit vessels; b) in the contemporary era of primary PCI, LAD as the STEMI-related culprit vessel did not bring worse very long-term outcomes compared with other coronary vessels; c) nevertheless, between years 0 and 1 the LAD-STEMI group exhibited a higher all-cause mortality rate, which disappeared thereafter compared with non-LAD-STEMI group.
Cardiology community knows (as reflected by the ESC guidelines on the management of acute coronary syndromes) that STEMI with LAD involvement as culprit vessel is a clinical marker of high risk of further events.1 LAD-related STEMI represents, approximately, 40% up to 50% of all STEMIs,12,16 and its worse prognosis has been related to the large myocardium covered by the LAD flow compared with the myocardium supplied by other coronary vessels. Of note, those studies were performed in the pre-reperfusion4-7 and early thrombolysis/PCI era,8,9 when PCIs were still not widely available. In the PCI era, there are very few studies (with short or mid-term follow-ups ranging from 1 to 3 years) reporting that LAD-STEMI is associated with an increased risk of stroke, heart failure, all-cause mortality10,17 and cardiovascular death11 after the PCI.
In our analysis, conducted in a cohort where the PCI was extensively performed, LAD as the STEMI culprit vessel did not appear to confer a worse prognosis to patients at the 1- or even 10-year follow-up. Of interest, LAD-STEMI patients exhibited the classical clinical features related to LAD, such as advanced Killip class at the time of presentation, lower ST-segment resolution and lower LVEF, which is similar to previous studies.8-11,17 All these unfavorable clinical characteristics are indeed related to the large amount of myocardium damaged in a LAD-STEMI with subsequent heart failure and ventricular arrhythmias.17-19 Nevertheless, this did not translate into a worse, very long-term clinical outcome. Significantly, even after accounting for variations in LVEF (which we addressed separately in our model due to its perceived role in the outcome cascade) the results showed no differences. This observation stands in contrast to earlier evidence, where the higher mortality rate in this cohort had been partially attributed to the subsequent decline in LVEF after STEMI.9,10
Several explanations may be claimed to understand our main finding. It may be hypothesized that worse outcome related to anterior STEMI may have been overcome by the introduction of the PCI with quick myocardial reperfusion. Pharmacological treatment has been also improved from thrombolysis to the PCI era, not only in terms of antiplatelet agents, but also in terms of secondary prevention (high intensity statins and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors for left ventricular dysfunction).20-23 Furthermore, in our study, the LAD-STEMI group had a higher proportion of active smokers. Smoking cessation remains the most critical preventive measure for coronary artery disease. The relationship between smoking and cardiovascular outcomes has been a matter of discussion, as some studies have suggested improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in the long term, among smokers who experienced STEMI.24 However, many of these studies were observational registries conducted in the pre-PCI era. Recent evidence indicates that smoking is associated with more post-PCI long-term adverse outcomes.25 Therefore, the so-called “smoker’s paradox” might be better explained by factors such as younger age and a lower prevalence of other risk factors among smokers. Indeed, in our study, while the LAD-STEMI group had a higher proportion of smokers, they had a lower prevalence of other risk factors, such as peripheral vascular disease and a history of prior PCI or MI.
Last, but not least, in landmark analysis we found that between years 0 and 1, all-cause mortality was more common in the LAD-STEMI group. Notably, in this period, there was a numerically higher number of cardiac deaths (although not statistically significant, P = .12), a similar finding to other existing evidence that found a higher relatively short-term mortality in the LAD-STEMI group within the first 30 days. In these studies, the elevated short-term mortality was associated with acute sequelae, such as heart failure and was also speculated to be connected to other lethal complications, such as ventricular arrhythmias, cardiogenic shock or mechanical complications.10,11 In our cohort, we found a trend towards a higher rate of reinfarction in the non-LAD-STEMI group (P = .081) that was largely unrelated to TLR, TVMI, or stent thrombosis. This observation contrasts with previous literature that reported a more common occurrence of reinfarction at the follow-up in patients with the SVG as the culprit vessel26 as well as the LAD,8 but not in LCx or the RCA.9-11
Our 10-year follow-up revealed similar clinical event rates between LAD-STEMI and non-LAD-STEMI group, indicating absence of long- term divergence. Previous studies showed a favorable post-acute phase prognosis for LAD-STEMI patients,10,11 which is consistent with our findings. In fact, non-cardiac factors seem to impact long-term mortality more than infarct location does.19 Thus, patients with STEMI should receive uniform management focused on secondary prevention strategies, regardless of the culprit vessel. Unfortunately, insufficient long-term data collection limits deeper insights into these outcomes (such as the presence of heart failure, optimal medical therapy, or other comorbidities).
Limitations
This study presents several limitations. First, this is a non-prespecified post-hoc analysis of the EXAMINATION-EXTEND study and therefore its conclusions must be considered only hypothesis generating. The association between infarction and outcomes may be driven by confounders which have not been recorded in the study. Then, several clinical and procedural characteristics were not available for the analysis, such as specified in-hospital or follow-up clinical data, like optimal medical treatment or compliance to medication at the follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
In a contemporary cohort of STEMI patients, there were no differences in POCE between LAD as the STEMI-related culprit vessel and other vessels at the 10-year follow-up. However, within the first year after STEMI, all-cause death was more common in the LAD-STEMI group. Our results should be considered as hypothesis-generating. Further studies are needed to specifically assess the relationship between infarction location and outcomes in a contemporary setting where interventional and medical treatments are optimized.
FUNDING
The EXAMINATION-EXTEND study was funded by an unrestricted grant of Abbott Vascular to the Spanish Society of Cardiology (promoter). P. Vidal Calés has been supported by a research grant provided by Hospital Clínic at Barcelona, Spain.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The study fully complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by our Institutional Review Committee. All patients signed a written informed consent form before being included in this study. The clinical ethics committee gave its approval for the analysis of the data collected. In this work, SAGER guidelines regarding sex and gender bias have been followed.
STATEMENT ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
No artificial intelligence tools were used during the preparation of this work.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
The authors declare they meet the full criteria and requirements for authorship and have reviewed and agree with the content of the article. P. Vidal Calés, K. Bujak, R. Rinaldi, A. Salazar Rodríguez, S. Brugaletta and M. Sabaté contributed to conceptualization, design, data analysis and drafting of the manuscript. L. Ortega-Paz, J. Gómez-Lara, V. Jiménez-Diaz, M. Jiménez, P. Jiménez-Quevedo, R. Diletti, P. Bordes, G. Campo, A. Silvestro, J. Maristany, X. Flores, A. De Miguel-Castro, A. Íñiguez, A. Ielasi, M. Tespili, M. Lenzen, N. Gonzalo, M. Tebaldi, S. Biscaglia, R. Romaguera, J.A. Gómez-Hospital and P. W. Serruys reviewed and edited the manuscript.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
M. Sabaté declares he has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular and iVascular outside the submitted work. R. Romaguera is associate editor of REC: Interventional Cardiology. The journal’s editorial procedure to ensure impartial handling of the manuscript has been followed. The rest of the authors declared no conflicts of interest whatsoever.
WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC?
- – In STEMI patients, the culprit vessel is often regarded as a crucial prognostic factor.
- – This assumption is based on earlier studies conducted during the pre-reperfusion or thrombolysis era, which demonstrated that STEMIs involving the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) were linked to poorer clinical outcomes vs those involving other vessels.
- – In the current PCI era, there is limited data on the long-term prognostic impact of the LAD as the culprit vessel in STEMI patients.
WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?
- – Patients with LAD as the STEMI-related culprit vessel have a higher all-cause mortality within the first year after STEMI.
- – However, our study found that this difference did not persist beyond the initial year suggesting that the prognostic impact of the culprit vessel might pertain to the immediate post- STEMI period.
- – Moreover, our results support that (irrespective of the location of the infarction) all STEMI patients should receive uniform medical care in the long-term focused on implementing secondary prevention strategies.
REFERENCES
1. Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2023;44:3720-3826.
2. De Luca G, Suryapranata H, van 't Hof AW, et al. Prognostic assessment of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty:implications for early discharge. Circulation. 2004;109:2737-2743.
3. Addala S, Grines CL, Dixon SR, et al. Predicting mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PAMI risk score). Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:629-632.
4. Thanavaro S, Kleiger RE, Province MA, et al. Effect of infarct location on the in-hospital prognosis of patients with first transmural myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1982;66:742-747.
5. Stone PH, Raabe DS, Jaffe AS, et al. Prognostic significance of location and type of myocardial infarction:independent adverse outcome associated with anterior location. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;11:453-463.
6. Hands ME, Lloyd BL, Robinson JS, de Klerk N, Thompson PL. Prognostic significance of electrocardiographic site of infarction after correction for enzymatic size of infarction. Circulation. 1986;73:885-891.
7. Welty FK, Mittleman MA, Lewis SM, Healy RW, Shubrooks SJ, Jr., Muller JE. Significance of location (anterior versus inferior) and type (Q-wave versus non-Q-wave) of acute myocardial infarction in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for postinfarction ischemia. Am J Cardiol. 1995;76:431-435.
8. Kandzari DE, Tcheng JE, Gersh BJ, et al. Relationship between infarct artery location, epicardial flow, and myocardial perfusion after primary percutaneous revascularization in acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2006;151:1288-1295.
9. Elsman P, van 't Hof AW, de Boer MJ, et al. Impact of infarct location on left ventricular ejection fraction after correction for enzymatic infarct size in acute myocardial infarction treated with primary coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2006;151:1239.
10. Entezarjou A, Mohammad MA, Andell P, Koul S. Culprit vessel:impact on short-term and long-term prognosis in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Open Heart. 2018;5:e000852.
11. Koga S, Honda S, Maemura K, et al. Effect of Infarction-Related Artery Location on Clinical Outcome of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Contemporary Era of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention- Subanalysis From the Prospective Japan Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (JAMIR). Circ J. 2022;86:651-659.
12. Sabate M, Cequier A, Iñiguez A, et al. Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION):1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;380:1482-1490.
13. SabatéM, Brugaletta S, Cequier A, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION):5-year results of a randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;387:357-366.
14. Brugaletta S, Gomez-Lara J, Ortega-Paz L, et al. 10-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Everolimus-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1165-1178.
15. SabatéM, Cequier A, Iñiguez A, et al. Rationale and design of the EXAMINATION trial:a randomised comparison between everolimus-eluting stents and cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention. 2011;7:977-984.
16. Nabel EG, Braunwald E. A tale of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:54-63.
17. Reindl M, Holzknecht M, Tiller C, et al. Impact of infarct location and size on clinical outcome after ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol. 2020;301:14-20.
18. Chen ZW, Yu ZQ, Yang HB, et al. Rapid predictors for the occurrence of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction between LAD and non-LAD related ST-elevation myocardial infarction. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016;16:3.
19. Pedersen F, Butrymovich V, Kelbæk H, et al. Short- and long-term cause of death in patients treated with primary PCI for STEMI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2101-2108.
20. Wilt TJ, Bloomfield HE, MacDonald R, et al. Effectiveness of statin therapy in adults with coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1427-1436.
21. Freemantle N, Cleland J, Young P, Mason J, Harrison J. beta Blockade after myocardial infarction:systematic review and meta regression analysis. BMJ. 1999;318:1730-1737.
22. Pfeffer MA, Greaves SC, Arnold JM, et al. Early versus delayed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition therapy in acute myocardial infarction. The healing and early afterload reducing therapy trial. Circulation. 1997;95:2643-2651.
23. Mehran R, Steg PG, Pfeffer MA, et al. The Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition on Major Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction:Insights From the PARADISE-MI Trial. Circulation. 2022;146:1749-1757.
24. Barbash GI, White HD, Modan M, et al. Significance of smoking in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Experience gleaned from the International Tissue Plasminogen Activator/Streptokinase Mortality Trial. Circulation. 1993;87:53-58.
25. Yadav M, Mintz GS, Généreux P, et al. The Smoker's Paradox Revisited:A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Controlled Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:1941-1950.
26. Stone SG, Serrao GW, Mehran R, et al. Incidence, predictors, and implications of reinfarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction:the Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:543-551.

ABSTRACT
Introduction and objectives: Calcified coronary lesions are becoming more prevalent and remain therapeutically challenging. Although a variety of devices can be used in this setting, cutting balloons (CB) and scoring balloons (SB) are powerful and simple tools to treat calcified plaques vs more complex devices. However, there are some drawbacks: these are stiff and bulky balloons that, as a first device, complicate lesion crossing and navigability in the presence of tortuosity, thus making it extremely difficult to recross once the balloon has been inflated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profile of the new Naviscore SB designed to overcome these drawbacks.
Methods: The first-in-man Naviscore Registry is a multicenter, prospective trial that included 85 patients with moderate (34%) or severe (66%) de novo calcified coronary lesions located in the native arteries, with stable angina and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention.
Results: Mean age was 71 ± 11 years, with a high prevalence of comorbidities. Used as the first device, the Naviscore was able to cross 76% of the lesions and was used in 98% of the cases effectively modifying the calcified plaque. Procedural success was achieved in 94% of cases. Basal stenosis of 81 ± 12% decreased to 33 ± 8.5% after Naviscore and to 7.5 ± 2.6% after stent implantation. There were no major adverse cardiovascular events during admission. Perforation, device entrapment or flow-limiting dissections did not occur—only type A/B dissections in 13%—which were fixed with stent implantation. Device performance was deemed superior to the usual SB or CB used by the participant centers.
Conclusions: The Naviscore SB is very effective crossing severely calcified lesions as the first device, with effective plaque modification, stent expansion and an excellent safety profile. The Naviscore improves the behavior of current CB and SB. Due to its simplicity of use and performance, the Naviscore can be the first-choice SB to treat significant calcified lesions.
Keywords: Calcified coronary lesions. Scoring balloon. Plaque modification.
RESUMEN
Introducción y objetivos: Las lesiones coronarias calcificadas son cada vez más prevalentes y suponen un reto terapéutico. Aunque se pueden tratar con distintos dispositivos, los balones de corte (BC) y de scoring (BS) son herramientas potentes y de más fácil uso que otros dispositivos de mayor complejidad. Sin embargo, tienen un alto perfil de cruce, son rígidos y cuesta cruzar la lesión como primer dispositivo; navegan mal y es difícil recruzar cuando ya se ha dilatado el balón. El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad del nuevo BS Naviscore, diseñado para soslayar estos inconvenientes.
Métodos: El Registro Naviscore es un estudio por primera vez en humanos, multicéntrico y prospectivo, en 85 pacientes con lesiones coronarias de novo con calcificación moderada (34%) o grave (66%), localizadas en arterias nativas, con angina estable e indicación de angioplastia.
Resultados: La edad media fue de 71 ± 11 años y hubo una alta prevalencia de comorbilidad. Naviscore cruzó como primer dispositivo en el 76% de los casos y se empleó hasta en el 98% para dilatar la lesión. Se logró el éxito del procedimiento en el 94%. La estenosis basal pasó del 81 ± 12 al 33 ± 8,5% después de Naviscore y al 7,5 ± 2,6% después del stent. No se registraron eventos coronarios adversos durante la hospitalización. Tampoco hubo casos de perforación, atrapamiento del dispositivo ni disección limitante del flujo; solo disecciones tipo A/B en el 13%, resueltas tras el stent. El comportamiento de Naviscore se evaluó como superior al de los BC o BS habituales en los centros participantes.
Conclusiones: Naviscore tiene una alta capacidad de cruce de las lesiones como primer dispositivo, una gran eficacia en la modificación de la placa y un excelente perfil de seguridad. Por su facilidad de uso y eficacia, Naviscore podría considerarse como el BS de primera elección en el tratamiento de lesiones calcificadas complejas.
Palabras clave: Lesiones coronarias calcificadas. Balón scoring. Modificación de placa.
Abbreviations:
CB: cutting balloon. PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention. SB: scoring balloon.
INTRODUCTION
Currently, the number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) involving moderate-to-severe calcified plaques is increasing due to a progressively aging population and extending procedural indications into more comorbid patients. The presence of such calcification is extremely relevant as it is strongly associated with worse outcomes, specially by means of stent underexpansion, a potent predictor of stent thrombosis or in-stent restenosis.1-3 Moreover, calcified plaques can make advancing the devices difficult and trigger stent deformation and entrapment, coronary artery dissection, or perforation.1,4-6. Currently, there is a growing interest in the assessment of plaque morphology and its modification prior to stent implantation, which has led to the development of multiple tools such as rotational atherectomy, lithotripsy, orbitational atherectomy, cutting balloons (CB) and scoring balloons (SB).7-11 The latter are easy to use and aim to create a controlled fracture of calcium deposits and plaque dilatation to facilitate stenting.12-14 However, despite their theoretical simplicity, these devices are bulky and stiff, making it difficult to cross the lesion at the first attempt, navigate the vessel, and recross the lesion once inflated. Therefore, there is a need for a more trackable and better-profiled SB to improve the uptake of these devices to treat calcified coronary artery disease.
The newly designed Naviscore SB (iVascular, Spain) seeks to address these drawbacks. Its structure is based on 125-µm thick nitinol laser cut filaments arranged in an axial pattern placed over a semi-compliant high-pressure balloon with a nominal pressure of 8 atm, a rated burst pressure of 20 atm, and a mean burst pressure of 26 atm (figure 1). A nylon compensation tube in the shaft helps to re-wrap during balloon deflation. The mechanical properties of nitinol tend to regain its original shape once the balloon has been deflated. The nylon compensation tube elongates once the balloon has been inflated and due to its elastic properties, it regains its original length when deflated (video 1 of the supplementary data). The 2 mechanisms produce a powerful re-wrapping of the entire system when the balloon has been deflated, regaining its original crossing profile, which allows for easy lesion recross and further dilatations as many times as required. Axial distribution of scoring elements provides a high push against calcified lesions. Nitinol elastic properties provide a better navigability through tortuous calcific vessels compared with rigid scoring elements, such as stainless steel. The durable hydrophilic coating of the Hydrax Plus catheter (iVascular, Spain) significantly reduces its coefficient of friction to 0.04 by increasing slip and navigability. Also, its axial design enables a far larger contact area with the vessel wall compared with other devices with spiral configuration of nitinol filaments such as the AngioSculpt catheter (Philips Healthcare, The Netherlands) (figure 2). In vitro testing (iVascular, Spain) was conducted to measure the crossing profile of different SBs using a non-contact laser meter where the profile is calculated through the shadow that has been created. This allows us to measure the profile without exerting any pressure on the device.15 The Naviscore crossing profile is 5% lower than Angiosculpt, and 31% lower than Wolverine (Boston Scientific, United States). This catheter is available in a wide range of measures from 1.5 mm up to 3.5 mm in diameter and from 6.0 mm up to 15 mm in length, all of them compatible with a 6-Fr guiding catheter.

Figure 1. Structure of the Naviscore SB. MBP, mean burst pressure; RBP, rated burst pressure.

Figure 2. In vitro model assessment of the AngioSculpt scoring surface (upper image) vs the Naviscore (lower image). The Naviscore scoring surface is 6 times larger than that of the AngioSculpt.
The present study aims to demonstrate the safety and efficacy profile associated with crossing and treating calcified coronary lesions with the Naviscore SB.
METHODS
The Naviscore first-in-man study is a multicentric and prospective registry that evaluated the device safety and efficacy profile in the treatment of calcified lesions in 85 patients from 10 centers (9 in Spain and 1 in Portugal), all from the Euro 4C Group, founded in 2018 and focused on the cardiac care of calcified and complex patients. All operators involved in this study were experts in the treatment of calcified coronary lesions and familiar with most tools designed to treat such lesions.
Inclusion criteria were the presence of de novo moderate-to-severe calcified lesions by angiographic criteria in the native coronary tree of patients with chronic coronary syndrome scheduled for a PCI due to symptom persistence despite optimal medical therapy and/or evidence of inducible ischemia. The only exclusion criterion was the presence of the patient’s hemodynamic compromise.
The study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy profile of Naviscore in terms of delivery success when used as the first device to dilate the lesion, plaque modification capabilities, and complications. Consequently, operators were asked to use the Naviscore in all cases as the first device to cross and dilate the lesion. However, in cases of failed lesion crossing, dilatation with a small balloon was recommended with subsequent re-use of the same Naviscore catheter.
Operators involved in the study had little prior experience with the Naviscore in, at least, 3 cases and were asked to include, at least, 5 patients in the study. The operators assessed the performance of the catheter in each procedure in terms of pushability, navigability, crossing, deflation time, re-wrap, recrossing capabilities and ease of retrieval, and made a subjective comparison with their routinely used SB or CB.
The baseline clinical characteristics were recorded prior to the procedure and angiographical and optical coherence tomography (OCT) images were analyzed separately by 2 different operators. Coronary angiography was performed using, at least, 2 orthogonal projections to show stenosis as it is commonly used in the routine clinical practice. The view with the most severe stenosis was selected for the quantitative analysis of the lesion before and after the PCI. Lesion calcification was angiographically categorized as none/mild, moderate (radiopacities were only noted during the cardiac cycle movement prior to contrast injection) or severe (radiopacities noted without cardiac movement prior to contrast injection involving both sides of the arterial lumen).16 Lesions were categorized as A, B1, B2 and C based on the modified ACC/AHA Task Force classification, which is in turn, based on the morphology and potential complexity of the PCI.17 Procedural success was defined as an angiographically residual percent diameter stenosis < 30% after stent implantation, absence of major complications and final Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade-3 flow.18 OCT analysis was performed as recommended in the routine clinical practice: lesion and proximal and distal references within 5 mm were used to estimate diameters and areas. Calcium cracks were defined as fissures involving a calcified region.19,20
Statistical analysis
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables with a normal distribution, median and interquartile range [IQR] for continuous variables with a non-Gaussian distribution, and counts and percentages for categorical data.
Statistical analyses were performed using the Stata software version 16.1 (College Station, TX, United States).
Ethical considerations
Informed consent was obtained from all the patients and the study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee. The authors declare that procedures were followed according to the regulations established by the Clinical Research and Ethics Committee and the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association.
RESULTS
From November 2021 through February 2022, a total of 85 patients—80% males—with a mean age of 71 ± 11 years were included in the present study. One center included a total of 21 patients and the remaining 9, between 5 and 10 patients each. Baseline patient and lesion characteristics are shown in table 1. Regarding comorbidities, the prevalence of diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease was 44%, 70%, 75%, and 18% respectively. Prior revascularization was present in 43% of the patients (PCI in 38% and coronary artery bypass graft in 16%). The left anterior descending coronary artery was the most common location of target lesions (41%), followed by the right coronary artery (28%), left circumflex artery (16%) and left main coronary artery (15%). Most lesions (87%) were categorized as type B2/C, 66% were severely calcified and 34% had moderate calcification by angiographic assessment. Chronic total occlusion was reported in 10% of treated lesions. Reference vessel diameter was 3.0 ± 0.5 mm; mean lesion length, 20.3 ± 9.4 mm; and diameter stenosis, 81.4 ± 12%.
Table 1. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics
Clinical and angiographic characteristics (n = 85) | n (%) |
---|---|
Age, years | 71 ± 11 |
Male | 68 (80%) |
Diabetes | 37 (44%) |
Dyslipidemia | 59 (70%) |
Hypertension | 67 (75%) |
Chronic kidney disease | 15 (18%) |
Current/former smokers | 53 (62%) |
Prior PCI/CABG | 37 (43%) |
Type B2/C lesions | 74 (87%) |
Severe calcification | 56 (66%) |
Moderate calcification | 29 (34%) |
Basal percent diameter stenosis | 81 ± 12% |
Chronic total occlusion | 8 (10%) |
Lesion location: Left main coronary artery | 13 (15%) |
LAD | 35 (41%) |
RCA | 24 (28%) |
LCx | 13 (16%) |
CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; LCx, left circumflex artery; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; RCA, right coronary artery. |
The Naviscore catheter diameters used to dilate the lesions were 2.0 mm (21%), 2.5 mm (38%), 3.0 mm (31%), and 3.5 mm (10%). Mean number of device inflations was 2.7 ± 1.5 times.
The Naviscore crossing performance of is shown in figure 3. Despite the strong recommendation to use Naviscore as the first device, some operators decided to use Rotablator or small balloons first in 10 patients due to severely narrowed and/or calcified vessels. In all those cases, the Naviscore successfully crossed and dilated the lesion after the first attempt. In the 75 patients in whom the Naviscore was used as the first device, the lesions were crossed and treated successfully in 57 (76%) of them. In the remaining 18 (24%) patients, the Naviscore crossed the lesion after pre-dilatation with a small balloon in 16 (89%) patients. Only 2 patients had non-crossable lesions.

Figure 3. Crossing performance of the Naviscore.
PCI results and in-hospital outcomes are shown in table 2. Procedural success was achieved in 94% of cases. The mean lesion percent diameter stenosis decreased from 81.4 ± 12% at baseline to 33.3 ± 8.5% after Naviscore dilatation, with a residual percent diameter stenosis of 7.5 ± 2.6% after stent implantation. There were no in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events or any cases of perioperative perforation or device entrapment. Coronary dissections occurred in 13% of the cases (all of them type A or B) and resolved after stent implantation.
Table 2. Angiographic and in-hospital results
Angiographic and in-hospital clinical results (n = 85) | n (%) |
---|---|
Procedural success: residual percent diameter stenosis < 30% after stenting, absence of major complications and TIMI grade-3 flow | 80 (94%) |
Percent diameter stenosis pre-Naviscore | 81 ± 12% |
Percent diameter stenosis post-Naviscore | 33 ± 8.5% |
Percent diameter stenosis post-stenting | 7.5 ± 2.6% |
MACE (in-hospital) | 0% |
Death, MI, emergency CABG | 0% |
Perforation | 0% |
Limiting flow dissection | 0% |
Type A or B dissection | 11 (13%) |
Device entrapment | 0% |
CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; MI, myocardial infarction; TIMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction. |
Ten procedures were OCT-guided. Pre-dilatation analysis could only be performed in 5 lesions; the OCT catheter could not cross the remaining lesions. Four of those had Fujino’s scores8 of 4 and in 2 of them the nodules protruded into the lumen. After dilatation, all lesions exhibited dissections that covered the intima and the media. Fractures were seen in all calcified plaques, which were deeper and wider in non-nodular calcified regions. Enlargement of lumen area after treatment with the Naviscore and correct stent apposition and expansion was observed in all imaging-guided cases (figure 4).

Figure 4. Clinical examples of 2 different lesions treated with the Naviscore. Angiography and baseline OCT (A) after dilatation with the Naviscore catheter (B) and post-stent implantation (C). On the left side, panel A shows a severely stenotic fibrocalcific plaque on the left anterior descending coronary artery that Naviscore (B) modifies creating calcium fractures (*) and dissection (arrow) resulting in stent implantation with good apposition and expansion (C). The right side shows a severely calcified plaque on the right coronary artery (A) with an arc of calcium of 180º at its proximal edge (lateral OCT picture) and 360º at its distal edge (central OCT picture) that the Naviscore modifies (B) creating calcium fractures (*) and dissection (arrow) resulting in stent implantation with good apposition and expansion (C). OCT, optical coherence tomography.
Table 3 shows the subjective performance of the Naviscore as evaluated by the operators of the present study. The Naviscore performance including push, navigability, crossing, deflation time, re-wrap, recrossing capabilities and ease of retrieval was deemed superior to the Wolverine, NSE Alpha (Nipro Co. Ltd., Japan), AngioSculpt, and Scoreflex (OrbusNeich, China).
Table 3. Subjective performance of the Naviscore compared with traditional and scoring or cutting balloons of participant centers. Push, capacity to cross the lesion, deflation time, rewrap and recrossing capabilities were the most valued characteristics of the Naviscore
Parameter | Push | Navigability | Crossing | Friction | Device visibility | Deflation time | Rewrap | Recrossing capability | Ease of retrieving | Global evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Better | 60% | 54% | 63% | 52% | 34% | 65% | 65% | 69% | 53% | 78% |
Equal | 38% | 46% | 35% | 46% | 65% | 34% | 34% | 29% | 46% | 21% |
Worse | 2% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
DISCUSSION
Findings of this first-in-man registry with the new SB Naviscore in moderately to severely calcified coronary lesions performed in CHIP (complex and high-risk intervention in indicated patients) by highly experienced operators on this field can be summarized as follows: a) the Naviscore was able to cross the lesions as the first device in 3 out of 4 patients in such difficult scenario; b) this device proved to be effective to treat complex coronary lesions, with procedural success rates of 94%; c) the Naviscore was safe as no major dissection, perforation, or device entrapment were observed and d) the performance of the Naviscore SB was better compared with other commercially available SB and CB as subjectively assessed by the experienced operators in this study.
Calcified coronary lesions account for up to 30% of lesions scheduled for PCI and are associated with worse clinical outcomes.1 Furthermore, these lesions are probably the most challenging ones for PCI operators. Thus, it is of paramount importance to develop specific devices for this scenario.21-23 Although several plaque-modification techniques have appeared in recent years, there are not very many head-to-head comparisons, thus complicating the choice between them. In contrast, several treatment combinations and algorithms have been published.24-27 Ablation techniques, such as rotational or orbital atherectomy, are especially indicated in uncrossable or undilatable lesions with balloon catheters. However, since there are more potential complications and a steeper learning curve associated with these therapies, developing new tools with a better crossing profile would be very positive in this scenario. The good crossability of the Naviscore SB showed in the present study is probably related to its unique nitinol structure in an axial configuration. CB such as the Wolverine or the NSE Alpha have a similar axial configuration of their cutting elements. However, the crossing profile of the Naviscore is 31% smaller than the CB. Although a comparative study on the crossing capabilities of those devices is not available, such a different profile favors the superior crossing capabilities of the Naviscore device. In fact, the operators of the present registry highlighted the ability to cross and recross lesions as one of the best features of the device compared with their usual CB or SB. Compared with the AngioSculpt—a SB that shares a nitinol structure with the Naviscore— the helical configuration of nitinol filaments in front of the axial alignment of the Naviscore nitinol filaments can make a difference. Axial alignment adds push to the device through the lesion, while the helical nitinol configuration can deform the structure under friction, thus reducing its navigability and, in some cases, cause device entrapment.28 Furthermore, as shown in figure 2, helical distribution of nitinol significantly reduces the nitinol scoring surface in front of an axial distribution.
The efficacy of the Naviscore balloon has proven to be good in the present study, with a procedural success rate of 94%. Furthermore, quantitative angiographic analysis showed a reduction of basal stenosis from 81% to 31% after Naviscore dilatation and to 7.5 ± 2.6% after stent implantation. Finally, the OCT evaluation confirmed the presence of extensive calcium fractures caused by the scoring filaments (figure 4). As the balloon gradually inflates, the radial forces concentrate along the surface of the nitinol scoring elements, resulting in a more controlled balloon expansion, increasing the force of the nitinol frame filaments to break down the calcified plaques.29 In vitro experiments comparing a simple SB (Scoreflex) with a conventional balloon catheter to dilate concentric tubes of calcium revealed that the inflation pressure required to break down the calcium tubes was consistently lower with SB. Finite element analysis revealed that the first main stress applied to the calcified plaque was, at least, 3-fold higher when inflating the balloon catheter with scoring elements.30 Naviscore has the largest scoring surface in the SB current market, being 6 times more extensive than the AngioSculpt (figure 2). Pressure concentration of the scoring elements is the mechanism of the increased ability of SB to dilate calcified lesions and facilitate stent expansion. Residual stenosis after stent placement was 7.5 ± 2.6% in our study.
Finally, the Naviscore proved to be safe in the present study, which could be justified by the mechanism of action of the device that uses nitinol filaments as the anchor to avoid balloon slippage, and allows balloon controlled expansion, minimizing the risk of barotrauma, coronary dissection, and perforation. Using OCT imaging, SB broke down the calcified lesion without the undesirable dissection of noncalcified segments, thus allowing successful stent implantation with adequate expansion.29,30
Limitations
One limitation of the study is its own design as a registry and therefore, the absence of a randomized comparator. Instead, expert operators in the treatment of calcified coronary lesions were asked to subjectively compare the device at test with their commonly used SB or CB in terms of push, cross/recross, rewrap, navigability and time of deflation. The subjective nature of this assessment, while providing valuable information, could be a limitation.
Another limitation is the sample size of the study, especially the size of the population involved in the OCT imaging analysis. Unfortunately, in our setting, the use of this technique to analyze calcified lesions, although on the rise, is still far from what would be recommended. However, and despite the limitations in terms of number, the cases analyzed with intracoronary imaging homogeneously show us the effect of the device under study—calcium fractures, dissection and increase in luminal area—as well as the optimal stent expansion.
The small sample of patients in this study does not allow for a disaggregated analysis by sex to draw any valid results.
CONCLUSIONS
The Naviscore SB is a step ahead in this field with an innovative design using a nitinol frame with axial distribution of filaments placed over a high-pressure balloon to improve current SB or CB designs. This provides a strong pushing capability and flexibility to cross the most difficult calcified lesions in 3 out of 4 patients and easily navigate through tortuous anatomy. Superior scoring surface provides strong plaque modification capabilities by facilitating calcium fractures and controlled dissections, and ultimately, optimal stent expansion. Uniform and controlled balloon expansion and the anchor effect provided by the nitinol frame minimizes the risk of uncontrolled dissections and distal embolization, thus providing an outstanding safety profile, confirmed in this study by the absence of major adverse cardiovascular events, device entrapment or flow- limiting dissections. Therefore, the Naviscore can be considered as the front-line SB, either alone or in combination with atheroablative techniques in the treatment of moderate-to-severe calcified lesions.
FUNDING
This study was partly funded by iVascular, Barcelona, Spain, who provided the devices to perform the study.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Informed consent was obtained from all patients and the study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee. The authors declare that the procedures were followed in full compliance with the regulations set forth by the Clinical Research and Ethics Committee and Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association. In accordance with the regulations of the SAGER guidelines, the small sample of patients in this study does not allow for a disaggregated analysis by sex to draw any valid results.
STATEMENT ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
No artificial intelligence has been used in the development of this paper.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
A. Serra Peñaranda designed the protocol, database and study outline, participated in data collection, coordinated data analysis and interpretation, and drafted the article. E. Fernández Peregrina participated in data collection, data analysis and interpretation and drafted the article. M. Jiménez Kockar participated in data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and performed the statistical analysis. B. García del Blanco, S. Romani, J. Martín-Moreiras, E. Pinar Bermúdez, A. Rodrigues, S. Ojeda, N. Gonzalo López, A. Regueiro and A. Serrador Frutos participated in data collection and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave their final approval to the last version for publication.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
S. Ojeda is an associate editor of REC: Interventional Cardiology. The journal’s editorial procedure to ensure impartial handling of the manuscript has been followed. A. Serra Peñaranda and Ander Regueiro received consulting fees from iVascular, Barcelona, Spain. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest whatsoever.
WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?
- Calcified coronary lesions are becoming more prevalent in the routine clinical practice and remain therapeutically challenging for interventional cardiologists.
- Careful plaque modification is mandatory prior to stent implantation to achieve optimal results after the PCI.
- Several techniques and devices have been developed in this regard such as rotational and orbital atherectomy, lithotripsy and modified balloons.
- CB and SB are simple devices that do not require a learning curve. However, their design is that of a bulky and stiff device, which complicates lesion crossing, regarding navigation through vessels with some tortuosity and lesion recrossing once dilated.
WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?
- The new Naviscore SB design is highly effective in crossing severely narrowed and calcified coronary lesions at the first attempt and has powerful plaque modification capabilities, while keeping an excellent safety profile.
- This device is a significant improvement over other CB and SB devices currently available in the market and could be selected as the first-choice SB tool to treat moderate-to-severe calcified lesions.
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Vídeo 1. Serra Peñaranda A. DOI: 10.24875/RECICE.M24000484
REFERENCES
1. Généreux P, Madhavan MV, Mintz GS, et al. Ischemic outcomes after coronary intervention of calcified vessels in acute coronary syndromes:Pooled analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1845-1854.
2. Fujii K, Carlier SG, Mintz GS, et al. Stent underexpansion and residual reference segment stenosis are related to stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation:An intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:995-998.
3. Kobayashi Y, Okura H, Kume T, et al. Impact of target lesion coronary calcification on stent expansion –An optical coherence tomography study –. Circulation. 2014;78:2209-2214.
4. Hendry C, Fraser D, Eichhofer J, et al. Coronary perforation in the drug-eluting stent era:Incidence, risk factors, management and outcome:The UK experience. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:79-86.
5. Madhavan M, Tarigopula M, Mintz GS, Maehara A, Stone GW, Généreux P. Coronary artery calcification:Pathogenesis and prognostic implications. J Am Coll Cardiol.2014;63:1703-1714.
6. Moussa I, Ellis SG, Jones M, et al. Impact of coronary culprit lesion calcium in patients undergoing paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation (a TAXUS-IV Sub Study). Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:1242-1247.
7. McInerney A, Escaned J, Gonzalo N. Calcified coronary artery disease:pathophysiology, intracoronary imaging assessment, and plaque modification techniques. REC Interv Cardiol. 2022;4:216-227.
8. Fujino A, Mintz GS, Matsumura M, et al. A new optical coherence tomography-based calcium scoring system to predict stent underexpansion. EuroIntervention. 2018;13:e2182-2189.
9. Vaquerizo B, Serra A, Miranda F, et al. Aggressive plaque modification with rotational atherectomy and/or cutting balloon before drug-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of calcified coronary lesions. J Interv Cardiol. 2010;23:240-248.
10. Moussa I, Di Mario C, Moses J, et al. Coronary stenting after rotational atherectomy in calcified and complex lesions. Angiographic and clinical follow-up results. Circulation. 1997;96:128-136.
11. de Maria GL, Scarsini R, Banning AP. Management of Calcific Coronary Artery Lesions:Is it Time to Change Our Interventional Therapeutic Approach?JACC:Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;12:1465-1478.
12. Sugawara Y, Ueda T, Soeda T, Watanabe M, Okura H, Saito Y. Plaque modification of severely calcified coronary lesions by scoring balloon angioplasty using Lacrosse non-slip element:insights from an optical coherence tomography evaluation. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2019;34:242-248.
13. Barath P, Fishbein MC, Vari S, Forrester JS. Cutting balloon:A novel approach to percutaneous angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1991;68:1249-1252.
14. Okura H, Hayase M, Shimodozono S, et al. Mechanisms of acute lumen gain following cutting balloon angioplasty in calcified and noncalcified lesions: An intravascular ultrasound study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002;57:429-436.
15. Keyence Telecentric measurement System TM-X5000 series. Available at: https://www.keyence.com/products/measure/micrometer/tm-x5000/. Accessed 12 Sep 2024.
16. Mintz GS, Popma JJ, Pichard AD, et al. Patterns of Calcification in Coronary Artery Disease A Statistical Analysis of Intravascular Ultrasound and Coronary Angiography in 1155 Lesions. Circulation. 1995;91:1959-1965.
17. Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, et al. Coronary Morphologic and Clinical Determinants of Procedural Outcome With Angioplasty for Multivessel Coronary Disease Implications for Patient Selection. Circulation. 1990;82:1193-1202.
18. TIMI Study Group. The thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) trial. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:932-936.
19. Räber L, Mintz GS, Koskinas KC, et al. Clinical use of intracoronary imaging. Part 1 :guidance and optimization of coronary interventions. An expert consensus document of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. Eurointervention. 2018;14:656-677.
20. Fujino A, Mintz G, Lee T, et al. Predictors of calcium fracture derived from balloon angioplasty and its effect on stent expansion assessed by optical coherence tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1015-1017.
21. Généreux P, Lee AC, Kim CY, et al. Orbital Atherectomy for Treating De Novo Severely Calcified Coronary Narrowing (1-Year Results from the Pivotal ORBIT II Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2015;115:1685-1690.
22. Kereiakes DJ, Di Mario C, Riley RF, et al. Intravascular Lithotripsy for Treatment of Calcified Coronary Lesions:Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of the Disrupt CAD Studies. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:1337-1348.
23. Abdel-Wahab M, Toelg R, Byrne R, et al. High- speed rotational atherectomy versus modified balloons prior to drug-eluting stent implatation in severely calcified coronary lesions. The randomized PREPARE CALC Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e007415.
24. Jurado-Román A, Gómez-Menchero A, Gonzalo N, et al. Plaque modification techniques to treat calcified coronary lesions. Position paper from the ACI-SEC. REC Interv Cardiol. 2023;5:46-61.
25. Kawashima H, Kyono H, Nakashima M, et al. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine Prognostic impact of scoring balloon angioplasty after rotational atherectomy in heavily calcified lesions using second-generation drug- eluting stents:A multicenter registry-based study. CRM. 2020;21:322-329.
26. Tang Z, Bai J, Su SP, et al. Aggressive plaque modification with rotational atherectomy and cutting balloon for optimal stent expansion in calcified lesions. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2016;13:984-991.
27. Amemiya K, Hwa M, Maehara A, et al. Effect of cutting balloon after rotational atherectomy in severely calcified coronary artery lesions as assessed by optical coherence tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;94:936-944.
28. Sanchez Recalde A, Galeote G, Martin-Reyes R, Moreno R. Angiosculpt PTCA Balloon entrapment during dilatation of a heavily calcified lesion. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2008;61:1361-1363.
29. Kanai T, Hiro T, Takayama T, et al. Three-dimensional visualization of scoring mechanism of Angiosculpt balloon for calcified coronary lesions using Optical coherence tomography. J Cardiol Cases. 2021;5:e16-e19.
30. Kawase Y, Saito N, Watanabe S, et al. Utility of a scoring balloon for a severely calcified lesion:bench test and finite element analysis. Cardiovasc Interv Therapeutics. 2014;29:134-139.

ABSTRACT
Introduction and objectives: Ultrathin-strut stents (UTS) represent a significant advancement in percutaneous coronary intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and short- to mid-term outcomes of stenting with the thinnest struts on the market (50 μm) using a biodegradable everolimus-eluting polymer (Evermine 50) in real-world patients with coronary artery disease.
Methods: A single-arm, multicenter, prospective study was conducted in real-world patients. A total of 161 patients with de novo lesions who received at least 1 UTS stent were enrolled. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or the need for revascularization of the target lesion at 12 months. The incidence of stent thrombosis at 12 months was also analyzed.
Results: The study included 161 patients with a mean age of 64 ± 14 years; 79% were male, 34% had diabetes, and 66% had hypertension. The most common indication for intervention was non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (42%), followed by ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (22%). The procedural success rate was 100%. At 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of MACE was 2.5%, and the definite stent thrombosis rate was 1.3%.
Conclusions: The use of the 50 μm UTS stent with a biodegradable everolimus-eluting polymer demonstrated a favorable safety profile and good clinical outcomes in unselected patients at 1 year of follow-up.
Keywords: Coronary artery disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention. Ultrathin struts.
RESUMEN
Introducción y objetivos: Los stents de struts ultrafinos (SUF) constituyen una mejora en el campo del intervencionismo coronario percutáneo. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la seguridad y los resultados a corto y medio plazo del stent con los struts más finos del mercado (50 μm), con polímero biodegradable y liberador de everolimus (Evermine 50), en pacientes del mundo real con enfermedad coronaria.
Métodos: Se diseñó un estudio prospectivo, multicéntrico, de un solo grupo, en pacientes del mundo real. Se incluyeron 161 pacientes con lesiones de novo en los que se implantó al menos 1 stent de SUF. La variable principal de seguridad fueron los eventos adversos cardiovasculares mayores, compuesto de muerte cardiaca, infarto de miocardio atribuido al vaso diana y necesidad de revascularización de la lesión diana a los 12 meses de seguimiento. También se analizó la incidencia de trombosis del stent a los 12 meses del procedimiento.
Resultados: De los 161 pacientes incluidos (edad media 64 ± 14 años; 79% varones), el 34% eran diabéticos y el 66% eran hipertensos. La indicación más frecuente fue infarto sin elevación del segmento ST (42%), con un 22% de casos en contexto de infarto con elevación del segmento ST. El porcentaje de éxito del procedimiento fue del 100%. A los 12 meses de seguimiento, la incidencia de eventos adversos cardiovasculares mayores fue del 2,5%, con una tasa de trombosis del stent definitiva del 1,3%.
Conclusiones: El uso de stent con SUF de 50 μm, con polímero biodegradable y liberador de everolimus en pacientes no seleccionados mostró unos buenos resultados clínicos, así como un buen perfil de seguridad a 1 año de seguimiento.
Palabras clave: Enfermedad coronaria. Intervencionismo coronario percutaneo. Strut ultrafino.
Abbreviations
MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events. MI: myocardial infarction. PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention. ST: stent thrombosis. STEMI: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. UTS: ultra-thin strut.
INTRODUCTION
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has grown exponentially along with the technological evolution associated with this procedure. The continuous advancement of technology has enabled the development of stents with thinner struts, which offer a series of advantages over stents with thicker struts. One of the advantages of these new stents is the improved device profile—with increased flexibility—providing better navigability and greater lesion crossing capability. On the other hand, ultra-thin struts (UTS) cause fewer disturbances to normal laminar blood flow at target lesion level, due to the reduced protrusion of material into the vascular lumen. This seems to be associated with a lower degree of platelet activation and muscle cell proliferation,—the processes involved in stent failure—in terms of stent thrombosis (ST) and in-stent restenosis.1,2 In lesions located in small caliber vessels (≤ 2.5 mm), the use of UTS could provide additional advantages due to a higher ratio between the size of the struts and the lesion luminal area.3 Furthermore, UTS stents seem to be associated with less acute damage to the vascular endothelium during stent deployment. This reduced initial aggression could diminish the barotrauma-related inflammatory response and, therefore, prevent in-stent restenosis and promote faster device endothelialization.4,5 Studies have indicated that the use of UTS stents could be associated with lower rates of in-stent restenosis and a reduced need for new revascularizations.6,7
The Evermine 50 EES stent (Meril Life Sciences, India) is a UTS (50 μm) stent with CE marking consisting of a cobalt-chromium alloy platform with an everolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the 1-year safety and efficacy outcomes after UTS stent deployment in real-world patients with coronary artery disease.
METHODS
We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, multicenter study with patients who underwent UTS stent deployment at 4 different Spanish hospitals (data from the Everythin Registry). To be included in the study, patients had to be older than 18 years, with available coronary angiographies in the context of chronic or acute coronary syndrome, and have, at least, 1 target lesion with a 2 mm up to 4.5 mm reference vessel diameter on visual estimation. Overlapping stents was ill-advised and, if necessary, the overlap length should be ≤ 2 mm. PCI in multiple vessels and lesions during the same surgical act was allowed, and deferred procedures within the first 90 days since the initial procedure were also accepted. In these cases, any further procedures were not coded as an event—i.e. need for new revascularization—but as scheduled procedures. Only 1 case—1 target lesion treated with UTS stent deployment—was counted per patient. Deploying the study UTS stent was not mandatory in any of the other treated lesions, only in the target lesion/vessel.
The study followed the privacy policy of each research center, including regulations for the appropriate use of data from patient research. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Drug Research of the coordinating center. Moreover, the study was conducted in full compliance with the terms set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients signed specific informed consent forms prior to being included in the study.
Study device and procedure
The Evermine 50 EES (Meril Life Sciences, India) is a UTS (50 μm) stent with a cobalt-chromium platform coated with a biodegradable polymer composed of poly-L-lactic acid and poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid. The Evermine stent—which has a hybrid design with an open cell in its central part and a closed cell at the edges—releases everolimus (1.25 μg/mm²) as the antiproliferative drug. The stent has received the corresponding CE marking and is available in several lengths from 8 mm up to 48 mm with diameters ranging from 2 mm up to 4.5 mm. The main features of the Evermine 50 EES device are illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1. A: illustrative image of the Evermine 50 stent (Meril Life Sciences, India). B: description of the main characteristics of the stent. C: comparison of the study stent strut thickness vs major competing next-generation stents. PLGA, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); PLLA, poly-L-lactic acid (Images courtesy of Meril Life Sciences. Images reproduced with permission from Meril Life Sciences or its affiliates.)
PCI was performed following each center routine practice within the recommendations outlined in the clinical practice guidelines.8 The PSP algorithm (predilation, sizing [stent size selection], and postdilation) was recommended for optimal device implantation. The study protocol recommended postdilation, especially in cases where any degree of underexpansion was identified immediately after device implantation. Although the study protocol recommended the use of intravascular imaging modalities to guide the procedure, this was left to the operator’s discretion. All patients received a 300 mg loading dose of acetylsalicylic acid prior to the intervention followed by a loading dose of a second antiplatelet agent—clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor—after the PCI, which was maintained for 3 up to 12 months and left to the discretion of the responsible investigator of the center.
Endpoints and definitions
The primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 12 months. MACE were defined as the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or the need for target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the composite endpoint, the overall mortality and ST (both definite and probable) according to the definitions of the Academic Research Consortium9 12 months after implantation. Additionally, the rates of device and procedural success were taken into consideration. Device success was defined as the deployment of the study stent in the target lesion with a final percent diameter residual stenosis < 30% by visual estimation. Procedural success was defined as the success of the device without any in-hospital complications, including death, MI, and target lesion revascularization.
Statistical analysis
Quantitative variables are expressed as mean and standard deviation or as median and interquartile range [IQR], depending on their distribution. Categorical variables are expressed as number and percentage. All analyses were performed using the statistical tool STATA 12 (StataCorp LLC, United States).
RESULTS
Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics
A total of 161 patients were included in the study from November 2020 through April 2022 whose demographic data and clinical characteristics are shown in table 1. The mean age was 64 ± 14 years, and 79% were male. A total of 66% of the patients were hypertensive; 53% had dyslipidemia; 34%, diabetes mellitus, and 59% a history of smoking. A total of 20% of the patients had experienced a prior MI, and 22% a previous PCI. The most common indication for the intervention was the diagnosis of non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (42%), followed by ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (22%) and chronic coronary syndrome (21%).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population
Basal characteristics | Patients (n = 161) |
---|---|
Age (years) ± SD | 64 ± 14 |
Male, n (%) | 126 (79) |
BMI (kg/m²) | 28 ± 3.5 |
Hypertension, n (%) | 106 (66) |
Dyslipidemia, n (%) | 86 (53) |
Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 55 (34) |
Smoking status, n (%) | |
Non-smoker | 65 (40) |
Former smoker | 49 (30) |
Current smoker | 47 (29) |
Previous AMI, n (%) | 33 (20) |
Previous stroke, n (%) | 2 (1.2) |
Atrial fibrillation, n (%) | 7 (4.3) |
Peripheral vascular disease, n (%) | 10 (6.2) |
Previous coronary angioplasty, n (%) | 36 (22) |
Previous coronary artery bypass grafting, n (%) | 4 (2.5) |
COPD, n (%) | 13 (8) |
Chronic kidney disease, n (%) | 14 (9) |
Glomerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m²) | 61 ± 10 |
Left ventricular function, (%) | 55 ± 11 |
Indication for coronary angiography, n (%) | |
Chronic coronary syndrome | 34 (21) |
Unstable angina | 24 (15) |
NSTEMI | 67 (42) |
STEMI | 36 (22) |
AMI, acute myocardial infarction; BMI, body mass index; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; NSTEMI, non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction; SD, standard deviation; STEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. |
Angiographic and procedural characteristics
The lesion angiographic characteristics, and the results of the intervention are shown in table 2. Most patients had significant single-vessel disease (71%), being the presence of 2 or 3-vessel disease far less common (20% and 9%, respectively). The most widely treated vessel was the left anterior descending coronary artery (54%), followed by the right coronary artery (27%) and the left circumflex artery (17%). The target lesion median percent diameter stenosis by visual estimation was 90% [IQR, 75-99]. A total of 29% of the target lesions showed some degree of calcification on angiography. Intracoronary imaging modalities (7% optical coherence tomography) were used to guide the PCI in 11% of the cases. The mean number of stents deployed per lesion was 1.04 ± 0.22, with a median stent diameter of 3.0 mm [IQR 2.75-3.5] and a median stent length of 19 mm [IQR 19-24]. Pre- and postdilation were performed in 71% and 39% of the cases, respectively. The device and procedural success rates were 100%, without any procedure-related complications being reported in patients treated during the inpatient period.
Table 2. Angiographic, procedural and clinical follow-up characteristics of the cohort
Angiographic and procedural characteristics | Patients (n = 161) |
---|---|
Radial access, n (%) | 158 (98) |
Diseased vessels, n (%) | |
1-vessel disease | 114 (71) |
2-vessel disease | 32 (20) |
3-vessel disease | 15 (9) |
Target lesion location, n (%) | |
Left main coronary artery | 3 (1.8) |
Proximal left anterior descending coronary artery | 37 (23) |
Mid left anterior descending coronary artery | 40 (24.8) |
Distal left anterior descending coronary artery | 10 (6.2) |
Proximal left circumflex artery | 10 (6.2) |
Mid left circumflex artery | 11 (6.8) |
Distal left circumflex artery | 6 (3.7) |
Proximal right coronary artery | 13 (8) |
Mid right coronary artery | 18 (11.2) |
Distal right coronary artery | 13 (8) |
Bifurcation lesions, n (%) | 12 (7.5) |
Calcified lesions, n (%) | 46 (29) |
Visual percent diameter stenosis, median [IQR] | 90 [75-99] |
Predilation, n (%) | 114 (71) |
Postdilation, n (%) | 63 (39) |
Intracoronary imaging modalities, n (%) | 18 (11) |
Optical coherence tomography | 11 (7) |
Intravascular ultrasound | 7 (4) |
No. of stents deployed, mean ± SD | 1.04 ± 0.22 |
Stent diameter (mm), median [IQR] | 3.0 [2.75-3.5] |
Stent length (mm), median [IQR] | 19 [19-24] |
Device success, n (%) | 161 (100) |
Procedural success, n (%) | 161 (100) |
Antiplatelet therapy after PCI, n (%) | |
Acetylsalicylic acid | 161 (100) |
Clopidogrel | 78 (48) |
Ticagrelor | 68 (42) |
Prasugrel | 15 (9) |
Clinical follow-up | |
12-month follow-up, n (%) | 158 (98) |
MACE, n (%) | 4 (2.5) |
Cardiac death | 1 (0.6) |
Target vessel MI | 2 (1.3) |
Target lesion revascularization | 2 (1.3) |
Overall mortality, n (%) | 3 (1.9) |
Stent thrombosis, n (%) | |
Definite | 2 (1.3) |
Probable | 1 (0.6) |
IQR, interquartile range; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SD, standard deviation. |
Clinical outcomes at the follow-up
The 12-month follow-up was completed in 158 patients (98%). One year after implantation, 4 patients exhibited MACE (2.5%), and 3 patients died (1.9%). The cause of death was cardiac in 1 patient (due to a probable ST 7 days after the procedure) and non-cardiac in the remaining 2 (one due to lung neoplasm and the other to multiple organ failure). There were 2 non-fatal MIs (1.3%), both due to late definite ST (1 occurred 8 months after stent deployment and was associated with the study UTS stent, while the other one occurred 9 months after deployment due to a different thrombosed non-UTS stent implanted in a lesion of the target lesion same vessel. Only 2 patients required target lesion revascularization at the follow-up (1 due to ST and the other one due to in-stent restenosis).
DISCUSSION
The present study prospectively and multicentrically evaluates the safety and efficacy profile of implanting an UTS stent in a real-world population. Its main findings are that the UTS stent demonstrated a high procedural success rate, without in-hospital complications, acceptable midterm clinical outcomes, and a 2.5% rate of MACE 12 months after implantation.
The baseline characteristics of the study population are similar to the ones reported in previous studies that analyzed various stent technologies in patients with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease.10-12 However, it is noteworthy that in this study, 79% of cases were performed in the context of an acute coronary syndrome, including 22% of patients diagnosed with STEMI. In acute coronary syndrome—especially STEMI—there are factors associated with poorer outcomes of the implanted device, both in the short and long term. Firstly, the state of generalized vasoconstriction of the coronary tree and high thrombotic burden can complicate the appropriate selection of the size of the stent, thus leading to the implantation of smaller devices in relation to the actual size of the vessel, a mechanism involved in ST and in-stent restenosis. Furthermore, in the context of acute lesions, there is a higher risk of embolization and no-reflow or slow-flow phenomena, which can sometimes condition suboptimal final outcomes in terms of distal coronary flow, involving a greater risk of further ST. In our study, no ST occurred in patients with an early diagnosis of STEMI. Although it is worth mentioning that the results of the study stent were good—even in demanding contexts such as STEMI—the absolute number of STEMI patients included was low, meaning that data should be contrasted in larger series.
UTS stents provide better navigability, flexibility, and conformity to the vessel geometry. However, there may be doubts on whether the presence of UTS can lead to a reduction of the stent radial strength, which could have further implications for treating more unfavorable lesions, such as calcified lesions. Although, in the present study, 29% of the treated lesions showed some degree of calcification on angiography, the success rate of the stent reached 100%. This demonstrates the good performance of this UTS stent across different scenarios, achieving excellent radial strength even in the most challenging situations, such as calcified coronary lesions. These results are especially relevant in the specific context of the study, where, despite the recommendation for systematic postdilation, the final rate of stent postdilation was relatively low (39%).
Previous studies have consistently shown good clinical follow-up results for UTS stents with low rates of ST.13-15 The reason for this low rate of ST would be strut thickness per se, which would favor early neointimal coverage, thereby reducing the risk of ST (especially late and very ST).4 In the specific case of the study device (Evermine 50 EES), Patted et al.13 described the 6-month follow-up results of 251 patients. In this single-center, prospective experience, the authors describe a 6-month rate of MACE of 0.8%, with no ST at the follow-up. Regarding differences with respect to our series, nearly one-third of the cases were procedures in asymptomatic patients or with silent ischemia. Additionally, the rate of postdilation (57%) was higher than that of our cohort, which may have influenced the ST outcomes. The same group retrospectively described the results of 171 patients treated with the Evermine 50 EES stent,16 with 2-year rates of procedural success and MACE of 100% (same as in our study) and 2.4%, respectively. Again, the authors noted the absence of definite or probable ST at the follow-up. In this single-center cohort, the rate of stent postdilation was not reported, which may have implications for the prevention of MACE, especially ST. A meta-analysis that analyzed various types of UTS stents found no significant differences in the likelihood of stent failure, including ST across different stents with struts < 70 μm.17 In the present study, although the 1-year rate of definite ST after stent deployment was 1.3%, only 1 of these STs was attributed to the study device. The rate of ST is similar to that of other real-world experiences with second and third-generation stents,18-20 which confirms the good performance of the Evermine 50 EES in unselected real-world patients.
Limitations
The main limitations of the study are the relatively low number of patients included, and the absence of a comparator group. Furthermore, although the events reported at the follow-up were reviewed by the principal investigator of the coordinating center based on the case reports submitted by each principal investigator from the collaborating centers, these events were not allocated by an independent event adjudication committee. The fact that, in our cohort, few intracoronary imaging modalities were used to guide the PCI—reflecting real clinical practice—could be interpreted as a limitation of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
With data from a prospective, multicentric study of real-world patients, the PCIs performed with a 50 μm UTS stent, with a biodegradable polymer and everolimus elution had good clinical outcomes and a favorable safety profile at the 12-month follow-up.
FUNDING
None declared.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The study was approved by the Drug Research Ethics Committee of the coordinating center. The study was conducted in full compliance with the terms outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients signed specific informed consent forms prior to the intervention and before being included in the study.
STATEMENT ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
No artificial intelligence was used for this work.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
J. Casanova-Sandoval and M. García-Guimarães participated in the conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of results, and drafting the manuscript. G. Miñana Escrivà, E. Bosch-Peligero, J.F. Muñoz-Camacho, D. Fernández-Rodríguez, K. Rivera, A. Fernández-Cisnal, and D. Valcárcel-Paz participated in data acquisition and critically reviewed the content of the manuscript. All authors gave their final approval for the publication of the latest draft of the manuscript.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?
- The use of UTS stents may be associated, through various mechanisms, with better clinical outcomes compared with thicker-strut stents. Previous studies suggest that UTS stents are associated with less stent failure, preventing in-stent restenosis and ST.
WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?
- In this prospective, multicentric study of real-world patients, the use of a 50 μm UTS stent with a biodegradable polymer and everolimus elution was associated with good clinical outcomes, and a favorable safety profile at the 12-month clinical follow-up.
REFERENCES
1. Duraiswamy N, Schoephoerster RT, Moreno MR, Moore JE. Stented artery flow patterns and their effects on the artery wall. Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 2007;39:357-382.
2. Chiu JJ, Chien S. Effects of disturbed flow on vascular endothelium:Pathophysiological basis and clinical perspectives. Physiol Rev. 2011;91:327-387.
3. Buiten RA, Ploumen EH, Zocca P, et al. Outcomes in Patients Treated with Thin-Strut, Very Thin-Strut, or Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Coronary Vessels:A Prespecified Analysis of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial. JAMA Cardiology. 2019;4:659-669.
4. Miura T, Ueki Y, Senda K, et al. Early vascular response of ultra-thin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents assessed by optical frequency domain imaging:the EVALUATION study. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2021;36:281-288.
5. Otaegui Irurueta I, González Sucarrats S, Barrón Molina JL, et al. Can an ultrathin strut stent design and a polymer free, proendothelializing probucol matrix coating improve early strut healing?The FRIENDLY-OCT trial. An intra-patient randomized study with OCT, evaluating early strut coverage of a novel probucol coated polymer-free and ultra-thin strut sirolimus-eluting stent compared to a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent. Int J Cardiol. 2022;360:13-20.
6. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, et al. Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results:Strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (ISAR-STEREO) trial. Circulation. 2001;103:2816-2821.
7. Farb A, Weber DK, Kolodgie FD, Burke AP, Virmani R. Morphological predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in humans. Circulation. 2002;105:2974-2980.
8. Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:87-165.
9. Garcia-Garcia HM, McFadden EP, Farb A, et al. Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:2192-2207.
10. Nakamura M, Kadota K, Nakagawa Y, et al. Ultrathin, Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:1324-1334.
11. de la Torre Hernández JM, Ocaranza Sanchez R, Santas Alvarez M, et al. Comparison of One-Year Outcomes Between the ihtDEStiny BD Stent and the Durable-Polymer Everolimus- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents:A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021;31:1-6.
12. De Silva K, Li Kam Wa ME, Wells T, et al. The everolimus eluting Synergy MegatronTM drug-eluting stent platform:Early outcomes from the European Synergy MegatronTM Implanters'Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;102:1222-1228.
13. Patted SV, Patted AS, Turiya PK, Thakkar AS. Clinical Outcomes of World's Thinnest (50 µm) Strut Biodegradable Polymer Coated Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Real-World Patients. Cardiol Res. 2018;9:370-377.
14. Araujo GN, Machado GP, Moura M, et al. Real-World Assessment of an Ultrathin Strut, Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Submitted to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (INSTEMI Registry). Arq Bras Cardiol. 2023;120:e20220594.
15. Kasturi S, Polasa S, Sowdagar MA, et al. Safety and Clinical Performance of Biodegradable Polymer-Coated Ultra-Thin Everolimus-Eluting Stents in “Real-World“Patients:A Multicenter Registry (PERFORM-EVER). Anatol J Cardiol. 2022;26:619-628.
16. Patted SV, Thakkar AS. Clinical outcomes of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. ARYA Atheroscler. 2020;16:130-135.
17. Marengo G, Bruno F, Scudeler L, et al. Comparison Among Ultra-Thin Coronary Stents:A Network Meta-Analysis. Am J Cardiol. 2024;216:9-18.
18. Park S, Rha S-W, Choi BG, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with Biodegradable Polymer UltimasterTM in Unselected Korean Population:A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study From Korean Multicenter Ultimaster Registry. Korean Circ J. 2024;54:339-350.
19. Yu HY, Ahn J, Choi BG, et al. Three-Year Clinical Outcomes With the Cilotax Dual Drug-Eluting Stent vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction. Texas Hear Inst J. 2024;51:e238271.
20. Nakao S, Ishihara T, Tsujimura T, et al. Two-year real world clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging device guided percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent. Int J Cardiol. 2024;399:131686.

ABSTRACT
Introduction and objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for pure aortic regurgitation is challenging due to inadequate device anchoring and increased risks of device embolization and paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). This study aimed to review the safety and efficacy of TAVI for aortic regurgitation with devices specifically designed for this indication.
Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and major conference archives up to April 2024 identified 143 unique results based on predefined criteria.
Results: Fifteen studies (n = 788 patients) were included, with J-Valve used in 357 patients and JenaValve in 431. Men represented 51% of the cohort, with a mean age of 74.7 ± 8.8 years and an STS-PROM score of 5.8 ± 4.9%. Transapical and transfemoral access routes were used in 62.7% and 37.3% of patients, respectively. Overall, procedural success was achieved in 95.9% of cases; surgical conversion was required in 1.8%, device migration/embolization occurred in 3.2%, and a second valve (in-valve) was required in 2.0% of patients. At 30 days, 95.5% of patients were alive, and device success was reported in 93.3% of cases. Mild PVR was observed in 18.0% of patients, moderate-to-severe PVR in 1.7%, and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was required in 13.0%. In studies focusing on transfemoral procedures (all using JenaValve), the pooled estimates showed a procedural success rate of 97.8% (95%CI, 94.4-100), device success of 97.0% (95%CI, 94.8-99.2), 30-day mortality of 1.96% (95%CI, 0.20-3.72), moderate-to-severe PVR of 0.47% (95%CI, 0.00-1.47), and PPI requirement of 18.7% (95%CI, 13.9-23.4)
Conclusions: This systematic review of relatively small observational studies demonstrates the safety and favorable early outcomes of TAVI using J-Valve and JenaValve in patients with pure aortic regurgitation, especially when the transfemoral approach is used. Nevertheless, the need for PPI remains frequent.
Keywords: Aortic regurgitation. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Outcome. Systematic review. J-Valve. JenaValve.
RESUMEN
Introducción y objetivos: El implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica (TAVI) para la insuficiencia aórtica pura es un reto debido al anclaje inadecuado del dispositivo y al mayor riesgo de su embolización y de fuga periprotésica (FPP). Nuestro objetivo fue revisar la seguridad y la eficacia del TAVI para la insuficiencia aórtica con dispositivos dedicados a esta indicación.
Métodos: Una búsqueda exhaustiva mediante criterios predefinidos en PubMed, Web of Science y Cochrane Library, así como en los principales archivos de congresos hasta abril de 2024, identificó 143 resultados únicos.
Resultados: Se incluyeron 15 estudios (n = 788 pacientes), en los que se utilizó J-Valve en 357 pacientes y JenaValve en 431. El 51% eran varones, la edad media fue de 74,7 ± 8,8 años y la puntuación STS-PROM fue de 5,8 ± 4,9%. Se utilizaron accesos transapicales y transfemorales en el 62,7 y el 37,3% de los casos respectivamente. En general, la intervención fue satisfactoria en el 95,9% de los casos; se requirió conversión quirúrgica en el 1,8%, se produjo migración/embolización del dispositivo en el 3,2% y fue necesaria una segunda válvula (in-valve) en el 2%. A los 30 días, el 95,5% de los pacientes estaban vivos y el éxito del dispositivo se alcanzó en el 93,3%. Se observó una FPP leve en el 18,0% y una FPP moderada-grave en el 1,7%, mientras que en el 13,0% fue necesario implantar un marcapasos permanente. En los estudios de intervenciones transfemorales (todas con JenaValve), la estimación conjunta del éxito de la intervención fue del 97,8% (IC95%, 94,4-100), del éxito del dispositivo fue del 97,0% (IC95%, 94,8-99,2), de la mortalidad a 30 días fue del 1,96% (IC95%, 0,20-3,72), de la FPP moderada-grave fue del 0,47% (IC95%, 0,0-1,47) y del implante de marcapasos permanente fue del 18,7% (IC95%, 13,9-23,4).
Conclusiones: Esta revisión sistemática de estudios observacionales relativamente pequeños demuestra la seguridad y los resultados precoces favorables del TAVI con J-Valve y JenaValve en pacientes con insuficiencia aórtica pura, en especial cuando se utiliza el abordaje transfemoral. No obstante, la necesidad de marcapasos permanente sigue siendo frecuente.
Palabras clave: Insuficiencia aórtica. Válvula aórtica percutánea. Resultados. Revisión sistemática. J-Valve. JenaValve.
Abbreviations
AoR: aortic regurgitation. NYHA: New York Heart Association. PPI: permanent pacemaker implantation. PVR: paravalvular regurgitation. TAVI: transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
INTRODUCTION
Aortic regurgitation (AR) results from abnormalities in the valve cusps or the structures supporting them (ie, the aortic root and annulus).1 The prevalence of AR increases with age, affecting 2% of people older than 70 years.2,3 Patients with severe AR have impaired functional capacity and increased mortality compared with the general population.2,4
If left untreated, severe AR leads to left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure in approximately 50% of patients.2 Although surgical aortic valve replacement is the recommended treatment for symptomatic severe AR,5 many elderly patients with this condition are refused surgery due to high operative risk.6
Since the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2002, it has demonstrated good safety and efficacy in various patient groups and several anatomical contexts.7-13 However, due to the high stroke volume, the lack of aortic annular calcification, and the frequent dilatation of the aortic root/annulus, TAVI for pure native AR is associated with an increased risk of adverse events including device dislocation and paravalvular regurgitation (PVR).14 The J-Valve(J.C. Medical, United States) and the JenaValve (JenaValve Technology GmbH, United States) are dedicated, next-generation, self-expanding transcatheter valves designed to address the challenges associated with native pure AR.15,16
To date, the evidence on the safety and efficacy of these technologies in native pure AR is limited. We conducted a systematic review of the current data on the safety and efficacy of TAVI using the J-Valve or JenaValve in patients with native pure AR.
METHODS
This systematic review and associated meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the standards outlined in the PRISMA statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.1.0).17,18 The study protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023460306).
Data collection
We included studies that involved a minimum of 10 patients who underwent TAVI with the J-Valve or JenaValve for native pure or predominant AR. Studies were excluded if they involved mixed aortic valve disease (moderate to severe stenosis and regurgitation) or prior aortic valve replacement (valve-in-valve procedures).
Information sources, search strategy, and study selection
Three online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched up to March 2024 using the following search terms: ((aortic valve insufficiency OR aortic regurgitation OR regurgitant aortic valve OR aortic incompetency OR incompetent aortic valve OR NAVR OR noncalcific aortic valve) AND (transcatheter aortic valve replacement OR transcatheter aortic valve OR transfemoral aortic valve OR transaortic aortic valve OR transapical aortic valve OR transcutaneous aortic valve OR percutaneous aortic valve OR TAVI OR TAVR) AND (J-Valve OR JenaValve)). Additional relevant studies were identified through a manual search of secondary sources, including references of initially identified articles, reviews, commentaries, and archives of major cardiology conferences.
Endnote software (Clarivate Analytics, United States) was used to remove duplicates. The retrieved references were screened in 2 steps: first, all authors independently screened the titles and abstracts to determine their relevance, and second, the full-text articles of the identified abstracts were reviewed for final eligibility in the quantitative analysis. The Rayyan website was used in the selection process.19 For overlapping study populations, the most recent publication was chosen for inclusion.
Data extraction and outcomes
The data were extracted into a standardized data extraction sheet, which included: a) study characteristics, b) the patients’ baseline characteristics, c) echocardiographic and computed tomographic data, d) procedural data, and e) short-term clinical outcomes.
The main endpoints of the current investigation were device success, procedural success, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Additional outcomes of interest included bleeding, vascular complications, stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), and PVR within 30 days.
Assessing the risk of bias
The quality of the retrieved studies was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.1.0, updated March 2011). The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools based on the study design: the National Institutes of Health (NIH) tool for single-arm observational studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for comparative observational studies, and the NIH tool for case-series studies. The individual studies were classified as ‘Low risk’ or ‘Good,’ ‘High risk’ or ‘Poor,’ and ‘Unclear risk’ or ‘Fair’ of bias.
Assessment of heterogeneity
The statistical heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using the chi-square test, specifically the Cochrane Q test. The chi-square statistic, known as Cochrane Q, was used to compute the I-squared value using the following formula: I2 = ([Q – df] / Q) × 100%. Significant heterogeneity was defined as a chi-square P value < .1. An I-squared value equal to or more than 40% was considered indicative of a significant level of heterogeneity.
Quantitative analysis
The DerSimonian and Laird meta-analysis approach was used to obtain the pooled effect size for all outcomes. Proportions and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were computed using R software (version 4.3.1 for Windows) and the Meta package.
A random-effects model, which gives relatively higher weight to smaller studies to account for heterogeneity, was used when heterogeneity was deemed significant. A fixed-effects model was chosen when heterogeneity was lower. Consequently, the predicted effects in our meta-analysis are conservative estimates that account for potential inconsistencies.
Certainty assessment
A certainty evaluation was performed using sensitivity analysis (leave-one-out meta-analysis) to test the robustness of the evidence. This analysis was conducted using R software (version 4.3.1 for Windows) with the Meta package and Metainf function. Sensitivity analyses were was run in several scenarios for each outcome in the meta-analysis, eliminating one study in each scenario, to ensure that the overall effect size was not dependent on any single study.
RESULTS
Literature search
Our search identified 143 results after duplicates were removed. Following title and abstract screening, 29 articles were selected for full-text review. Of these, 15 studies6,14,20-32 were included in the systematic review, with 5 studies of transfemoral TAVI being included in the quantitative meta-analysis. No further articles were included after manually searching the references of the included studies. The selection process is illustrated in a PRISMA flow diagram (figure 1). According to the NIH and NOS scales for quality assessment, the overall quality of the included studies was rated as good for all investigations, as shown in the supplementary data.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the study.
Patient and procedural characteristics
Overall, 788 patients underwent TAVI for native pure or predominant AR (J-Valve, 357 patients; JenaValve, 431 patients). Most J-Valve procedures were performed in China, while most JenaValve procedures were conducted in Europe and North America. The average surgical risk was elevated but showed significant variability, with Log EuroSCORE at 22.8 ± 12.3, EuroSCORE II at 7.1 ± 6.6, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons - Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) at 5.9 ± 4.7.
The mean age was 73.6 ± 7.3 years for J-Valve recipients and 75.9 ± 10.0 years for JenaValve recipients. Males comprised 61.9% of J-Valve recipients and 42.0% of JenaValve recipients. The body mass index (BMI) was 22.6 ± 3.0 for J-Valve recipients and 25.3 ± 5.7 for JenaValve recipients. The STS-PROM score was 6.7 ± 5.9 for J-Valve recipients and 4.4 ± 3.5 for JenaValve recipients. Most patients had severe symptoms, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV dyspnea present in 75.9% of J-Valve recipients and 57.3% of JenaValve recipients. Demographic, clinical, echocardiographic, and computed tomography data from the individual studies are summarized in table 1 and table 2.
Most J-Valve implantations were performed via the transapical approach (92.4%), whereas JenaValve implantations were transapical in 36.7% of cases and transfemoral in 63.3%. The annulus diameter was 26.0 ± 2.4 mm for J-Valve and 25.6 ± 2.3 mm for JenaValve. The device size was 27.2 ± 1.9 mm for J-Valve and 26.1 ± 0.2 mm for JenaValve. The most frequently used device size was 27 mm. Further procedural data from the individual studies are summarized in table 3.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients included in 15 unique studies
Study ID | Countries | Recruitment | Device | Approach | Patient n | Male | Age | BMI (kg/m2) | EuroSCORE I | EuroSCORE II | STS-PROM | NYHA III/IV | HTN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Garcia et al.20 2023 | USA, Canada | May 2018 - Oct 2022 | J-Valve | TFa | 27 | 16 (59) | 79.3 ± 9.6 | - | - | - | 4.1 ± 2.0 | 26 (96.3) | 24 (89) |
Kong et al.21 2022 | China | Sept 2016 - Sept 2022 | J-Valve | TA | 69 | 52 (75.4) | 71.5 ± 7.9 | 22.70 ± 3.15 | - | - | 3.8 ± 3.9 | 53 (76.8) | 48 (69.6) |
Liu et al.b22 2022 | China | March 2014 - June 2019 | J-Valve | TA | 161 | 119 (73.9) | 72.5 ± 6.2 | - | - | - | 9.9 ± 5.7 | 157 (98.1) | 107 (66.5) |
Huan Liu et al.23 2020 | China | May 2014 - October 2018 | J-Valve | TA | 47 | 34 (72.3) | 73.7 ± 7.9 | 22.6 ± 2.9 | 24.3 ± 5.1 | - | 35 (74.5) | 31 (66.0) | |
W. Liu et al.24 2019 | China | June 2017 - December 2018 | J-Valve | TA | 53 | - | 76.4 ± 5.2 | - | - | - | 6.3 ± 1.8 | - | - |
Vahl et al.32 2024 | USA (20 sites) | June 8, 2018 - Aug 29, 2022 | JenaValve | TF | 180 | 95 (53) | 75.5 ± 10.8 | 25.3 ± 6.1 | - | - | 4.1 ± 3.4 | 122 (68) | 149 (83) |
Adamet al.25 2023 | Germany (6 centers) | Sept 2021 - July 2022 | JenaValve | TF | 58 | 37 (63.8) | 76.5 ± 9.0 | 26.19 ± 4.36 | - | 6.10 ± 6.60 | 4.2 ± 4.3 | 43 (74) | 53 (91) |
Baumbach et al.26 2023 | UK | - | JenaValve | TF | 12 | 7 (58) | 83.3 ± 6.7 | - | - | - | 4.6 [4.1-6.6] | 11 (92) | 8 (67) |
Ranard et al.27 2022 | USA | July 2018 - March 2020 | JenaValve | TF | 11 | - | 77.6 ± 8.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Baldus et al.28 2019 | Germany and Netherlands (7 centers) | - | JenaValve | TF | 12 | 4 (33.3) | 75 ± 7.2 | - | - | - | 3.5 ± 2.1 | 8 (67) | - |
Silaschi et al.29 2018 | Germany (15 center) | 2012 - 2015 | JenaValve | TA | 30 | 12 (40.0) | 74.4 ± 9.3 | - | 17.7 ± 14.8 | 6.9 ± 6.5 | 4.9 ± 3.5 | 27 (90) | 24 (80.0) |
Sawaya et al.14 2017 | Europe, North America, and Asia Middle East (18 center) | July 2007 - Sept 2016 | JenaValvec | TA | 23/146 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Yoon et al.6 2017 | Europe, North America, and Asia | Sept 2007 - Feb 2017 | JenaValved | TAe | 64/212 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Seiffert et al.30 2014 | 9 centers, Germany | April 2012 - October 2013 | JenaValve | TA | 31 | 20 (64.5) | 73.8 ± 9.1 | 24.0 ± 4.5 | 23.6 ± 14.5 | 9.3 ± 6.4 | 5.4 ± 3.6 | 28 (90.3) | 26 (83.9) |
Schlingloff et al.31 2014 | Hamburg, Germany | December 2012 - Sept 2013 | JenaValve | TA | 10 | 6 (60) | 79.1 ± 9.3 | - | 28.3 ± 17.1 | - | 7.0 ± 1.0 | 9 (90) | - |
Garcia et al.20 2023 | 5 (19) | 7 (26) | 12 (44) | 4 (15) | NA | 3 (11) | 4 (15) | - | - | 4 (15) | 13 (48) | 4 (15) | |
Kong et al.21 2022 | 9 (13.0) | 14 (20.3) | 18 (26.1) | 7 (10.1) | 5 (7.2) | 2 (2.9) | 6 (8.7) | - | 19 (27.5) | 0 | 4 (5.8) | 1(1.4) | |
Liu et al.b22 2022 | 24 (14.9%) | 50 (31.1) | 36 (22.4)f | - | 34 (21.1) | 5 (3.1) | 51 (31.7) | 53 (32.9) | 52 (32.3) | - | 4 (2.5) | - | |
Huan Liu et al.23 2020 | 4 (8.5) | 9 (19.1) | 9 (19.1) | 10 (21.3) | - | 1 (2.1) | 15 (31.9) | - | 11 (23.4) | 0 (0) | 2 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | |
W. Liu et al.24 2019 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Vahl et al.32 2024 | 26 (14) | 32 (18) | 72 (40) | 21 (12) | 58 (33) | 30 (16) | 19 (11) | - | - | - | 37 (23) | 20 (12) | |
Adamet al.25 2023 | 14 (24) | 9 (16) | 34 (59) | 7 (12) | - | 7 (12) | 8 (14) | - | 25 (43) | 5 (8.6) | 17 (29) | - | |
Baumbach et al.26 2023 | 1 (8) | 2 (17) | 7 (58) | - | 4 (33) | - | 2 (17) | - | - | - | 2 (17) | ||
Ranard et al27 2022 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Baldus et al.28 2019 | - | - | 5 (42) | - | - | - | - | 3 (25) | - | - | 2 (17) | - | |
Silaschi et al.29 2018 | 5 (16.7) | 5 (16.7) | 9 (30.0) | 3 (10.0) | 11 (36.7) | 4 (13.3) | 2 (6.7) | 10 (33.3) | 14 (46.7) | 1 (3.3) | 8 (26.7) | 5 (16.7) | |
Sawaya et al.14 2017 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Yoon et al.6 2017 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Seiffert et al.30 2014 | 4 (12.9) | 9 (29.0) | 6 (19.3) | 6 (19.3) | - | 3 (9.7) | 6 (19.3) | 6 (20) | 20 (64.5) | 11 (35.5) | 10 (32.2) | 7 (22.6) | |
Schlingloff et al.31 2014 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
AF, atrial fibrillation; AS, aortic stenosis; BMI, body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; CAD, coronary artery disease; COPD, chronic (obstructive) pulmonary disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; EuroSCORE, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation; HTN, hypertension; MI, myocardial infarction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; STS-PROM, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk Of Mortality; TA, transapical; TF, transfemoral. The data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, median [IQR], or No. (%). a F in 21. Other access: 1 carotid, 4 subclavian, 1 transcaval. b Liu et al. 22 (2022) included 29 (18.0%) patients with concomitant mild AS and 1 patient (0.6%) with bioprosthetic valve failure. c Sawaya et al. 14 (2017) included different devices; the number of JenaValve recipients was 23. d Yoon et al. 6 (2017) included different devices, but number of JenaValve patients was 64. e Yoon et al. 6 (2017) included 63 transapical implantations. f Atrial fibrillation/flutter. |
Table 2. Echocardiographic and computed tomographic data
Study ID | LVEF (%) | LVEDD (mm) | MR, ≥ moderate | Aortic regurgitation grade | Bicuspid AV | Ascending aorta diameter | Aortic annulus diameter | Aortic annulus perimeter | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moderate | Severe | ||||||||
Garcia et al.20 2023 | 54 [37–60] | 55 ± 90 | - | 5 (19) | 22 (81) | 1 (4) | - | 25.6 ± 3 | 81 ± 10.5 |
Kong et al.21 2022 | 50.8 ± 12.4 | - | - | 69 (100) | - | - | - | - | |
Liu et al.b22 2022 | 52.3 ± 12.8 | 65.1 ± 9.3 | - | - | 161 (100) | 13 (8.1) | 41.4 ± 5.2 | 26.2 ± 2.4 | - |
Huan Liu et al.23 2020 | 52.3 ± 12.4 | 59.2 ± 8.4 | 5 (10.6) | 0 | 47 (100) | 3 (6.4) | 40.1 ± 4.9 | 27.1 ± 2.2a | - |
W. Liu et al.24 2019 | - | - | - | 0 | 53 (100) | - | - | - | - |
Vahl et al.32 2024 | 53.8 ± 11.4 | - | - | 5 (3) | 116 (64) | - | 37·3 ± 5·0 | - | 79·1 ± 6·1 |
Adamet al.25 2023 | - | - | 25 (43.1)b | 2 (3.4) | 56 (96.6)c | - | - | - | 80.3 ± 9.7 |
Baumbach et al.26 2023 | 47 [39–56] | 60 [59–66] | - | - | 12 (100) | - | - | 27 × 24d | - |
Ranard et al27 2022 | 44.6 ± 10.4 | 64 ± 8 | - | 11 (100) | - | - | - | - | |
Baldus et al.28 2019 | 53.0 ± 8.5 | - | 10 (83) | - | 12 (100) | - | - | 25 ± 2.3 | - |
Silaschi et al.29 2018 | 49.6 ± 13.3 | - | 15 (50) | 1 (3.3) | 29 (96.7) | - | - | 24.3 ± 1.9 | - |
Sawaya et al.14 2017 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Yoon et al.6 2017 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Seiffert et al.30 2014 | 46.8 ± 16.1 | - | 8 (25.8) | 1 (3.2) | 30 (96.8) | - | 36.6 ± 7.0 | 24.7 ± 1.5 | - |
Schlingloff et al.31 2014 | 48.2 ± 15.8 | 62 ± 2.2 | 3 (30) | - | 10 (100) | - | - | - | - |
AR, aortic regurgitation; Bicuspid AV, bicuspid aortic valve; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVEDD, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; MR, mitral regurgitation. The data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, No. (%), or median [IQR]. a Perimeter-derived diameter. b Including mild to moderate MR. c Including moderately-severe and severe AR. d Data presented as median. |
Table 3. Procedural characteristics
Study ID | Device | Access | Valve prosthesis size (mm) | Average prosthesis size, mm | BPostD | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21 mm | 23 mm | 25 mm | 27 mm | 29 mm | |||||
Garcia et al.20 2023 | J-Valve | TFa | - | - | - | - | - | 26.9 ± 1.8 | 0 (0) |
Kong et al.21 2022 | J-Valve | TA | - | - | - | - | 59 (85.9) | 29c | - |
Liu et al.b22 2022 | J-Valve | TA | 4 (2.5) | 15 (9.3) | 35 (21.7) | 64 (39.75) | 43 (26.7) | 26.6 ± 2.0 | - |
Huan Liu et al.23 2020 | J-Valve | TA | - | 1 (2.1) | 7 (14.9) | 26 (55.3) | 13 (27.7) | 27.2 ± 1.4 | 0 (0) |
W. Liu et al.24 2019 | J-Valve | TA | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Vahl et al.32 2024 | JenaValve | TF | - | 40 (23) | 35 (20) | 102 (58) | - | 25.7 ± 1.6 | 7 (4) |
Adamet al.25 2023 | JenaValve | TF | - | 4 (6.9) | 16 (27.6) | 38 (65.5) | - | 26.2 ± 1.2 | 2 (3.4) |
Baumbach et al.26 2023 | JenaValve | TF | - | - | 3 (25) | 9 (75) | - | 26.5 ± 0.9 | - |
Ranard et al27 2022 | JenaValve | TF | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Baldus et al.28 2019 | JenaValve | TF | - | 2 (16.7) | 2 (16.7) | 8 (66.7) | - | 26 ± 1.6 | 0 (0) |
Silaschi et al.29 2018 | JenaValve | TA | - | 4 (13.3) | 11 (36.7) | 15 (50.0) | - | 25.7 ± 1.4 | 1 (3.3) |
Sawaya et al.14 2017 | JenaValve | TA | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Yoon et al.6 2017 | JenaValve | TAb | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Seiffert et al.30 2014 | JenaValve | TA | - | 4 (12.9) | 7 (22.6) | 20 (64.5) | - | 26.3 ± 1.5 | 2 (6.4) |
Schlingloff et al.31 2014 | JenaValve | TA | - | 1 (10) | 2 (20) | 7(70) | - | 26.2 ± 1.4 | - |
BPostD, balloon postdilatation; TA, transapical; TF, transfemoral. The data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or No. (%). a Transfemoral in 21. Other access: 1 carotid, 4 subclavian, 1 transcaval. b Transapical in 63/64. c Data presented as mean. |
In-hospital outcomes
Overall, in-hospital outcomes were favorable. Procedural success was achieved in 95.9% (n = 518/540). Surgical conversion was required in 1.8% (n = 12/678), device migration or embolization occurred in 3.2% (n = 17/540), and a second valve (in-valve) was required in 2.0% (n = 13/651). Only 1 patient (out of 502) experienced coronary obstruction, and no patients developed annular rupture (among 449). Details of in-hospital outcomes from the individual studies are summarized in table 4.
Study ID | Procedural success | Conversion to surgery | Coronary obstruction | Annulus rupture | Device migration/embolization | Need for second valve | Bleeding, major or life-threatening | Vascular and access-related complications | Acute kidney injury | In-hospital mortality | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | |
Garcia et al.20 2023 | 22 (81) | 27 | 2 (7) | 27 | - | - | - | - | 3 (11.1) | 27 | 3 (11.1) | 27 | - | - | 5(18.5) | 27 | - | - | 1 (3.7) | - |
Kong et al.21 2022 | 67 (98.5) | 68 | 1 (1.4) | 69 | - | - | - | - | 1(1.4) | 68 | - | - | 5 (7.4) | 68 | - | - | - | - | 0 (0) | 68 |
Liu et al.b22 2022 | - | - | 4 (2.5) | 161 | 1 (0.6) | 161 | 0 (0) | 161 | 4 (2.5) | 161 | 0 (0) | 161 | 1 (0.6) | 161 | - | - | - | - | 3 (1.9) | 161 |
Huan Liu et al.23 2020 | 46 (97.9) | 47 | 0 (0) | 47 | 0 (0) | 47 | 0 (0) | 47 | 1(2.1) | - | 1 (2.1) | 47 | 0 | 47 | 0 (0) | 47 | 8(17.0) | 47 | - | - |
W. Liu et al.24 2019 | 51 (96.2) | 53 | 2 (3.8) | 53 | 0 (0) | 53 | - | - | 2 (3.8) | 53 | 1 (1.9) | 53 | 5 (14.3) | 53 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Vahl et al.32 2024 | 171 (95) | 180 | 1 (< 1) | 180 | 0 (0) | 180 | 0 (0) | 180 | 4(2.2) | 180 | 1 (< 1) | 180 | 8 (4) | 180 | 7 (4) | 180 | 2 (1) | 180 | 0 (0) | 180 |
Adamet al.25 2023 | 58 (100) | 58 | 0 (0) | 58 | - | - | - | - | 0 (0) | 58 | 0 (0) | 58 | 0 (0) | 58 | 4 (6.9) | 58 | 7 (12) | 58 | 0 (0) | 58 |
Baumbach et al.26 2023 | 12 (100) | 12 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (8.3) | 12 | 5(41.7) | 12 | 1 (8.3) | 12 | - | - |
Ranard et al.27 2022 | 11 (100) | 11 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Baldus et al.28 2019 | 11 (92) | 12 | 1 (8.3) | 12 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (8.3) | 12 | - | - | 0 (0) | 12 |
Silaschi et al.29.2018 | 29 (96.7) | 30 | 1 (3.7) | 27 | 0 (0) | 30 | 0 (0) | 30 | 1 (3.3) | 30 | 0 | 30 | 1 (3.3) | 30 | 1 (3.3) | 30 | 0 (0) | 30 | - | - |
Sawaya et al.14 2017 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2(8.7) | 23 | - | - | - | - |
Yoon et al.6 2017 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6 (9.4) | 64 | 5 (7.8) | 64 | 1 (1.6) | 64 | 4 (9.4) | 47 | - | - |
Seiffert et al.30 2014 | 30 (96.8) | 31 | 0 (0) | 31 | 0 (0) | 31 | 0 (0) | 31 | 1 (3.2) | 31 | 1 (3.2) | 31 | 3 (9.7) | 31 | 4 (13) | 31 | 7 (22.5) | 31 | - | - |
Schlingloff et al.31 2014 | 10 (100) | 10 | 0 (0) | 10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 (0) | 10 | - | - | - | - | 0 (0) | 10 |
The data are presented as No (%). |
Thirty-day outcomes
At 30 days, 95.5% of patients were alive (n = 716/750), and device success was achieved in 93.3% (n = 498/534). Mild PVR was observed in 18.0% (n = 86/478), while moderate-to-severe PVR occurred in 1.7% (n = 12/703; including 10 patients with J-Valve and 2 patients with JenaValve). PPI was required in 13.0% (n = 86/711; with 25 patients receiving J-Valve and 61 receiving JenaValve). Further 30-day outcomes from the individual studies are summarized in table 5.
Study ID | Device success | 30-day all-cause mortality | 30-day Stroke | 30-day PPI | 30-day mild PVR | 30-day PVR ≥ moderate | 30-day EOA (cm2) | 30-day mean AVPG | 30-day repeat procedure for valve-related dysfunction | NYHA class III/ IV | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | Event | Total | |||
Garcia et al.20 2023 | - | - | 1 (4) | 24 | 1 (4) | 24 | 3 (13) | 24 | 8 (33) | 24 | 0 (0) | 24 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 7 ± 4 | - | - | 3 (12) | 24 |
Kong et al.21 2022 | - | - | 1 (1.5) | 68 | 2 (2.9) | 68 | 5 (7.5) | 67 | 19 (28) | 68 | 4 (5.9) | 68 | - | - | - | - | 7 (10) | 68 |
Liu et al.b22 2022 | 153 (95.0) | 161 | 3 (1.9) | 161 | 1 (0.6) | 161 | 13 (8.3) | 155 | - | - | 4 (1.9) | 161 | - | 8.5 ± 2.9 | 1 (0.6) | 161 | 1 (0.6) | 161 |
Huan Liu et al.23 2020 | - | - | 1 (2.1) | 47 | 0 (0) | 47 | 2 (4.3) | 46 | 14(30.4) | 47 | 1 (2.1) | 47 | - | 7.9 ± 2.4 | 0 (0) | 47 | 2 (4.5) | 44 |
W. Liu et al.24 2019 | - | - | 5 (9.2) | 53 | 0 (0) | 53 | 2 (5.7) | 53 | 3 (5.6) | 53 | 1 (1.9) | 53 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Vahl et al.32 2024 | 174 (96.7)b | 180 | 4 (2) | 180 | 4 (2) | 180 | 36 (24) | 180a | 31 (19) | 180 | 1 (0.6) | 180 | 2.8 ± 0.6e | 3·9 ± 1·6 | - | - | 16 (9) | 180 |
Adamet al.25 2023 | 47 (98) | 48 | 1 (1.7) | 58 | 0 (0) | 57 | 10 (19.6) | 51 | 2 (4.1) | 49 | 0 (0) | 49 | 2.65 ± 0.6c | 4.5 ± 2.0 | - | - | 4 (7.7) | 52 |
Baumbach et al.26 2023 | - | - | 0 (0) | 12 | - | - | 2 (17) | 12 | 3 (33) | 12 | 0 | 12 | - | - | - | - | 3 (25) | 12 |
Ranard et al.27 2022 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0 (0) | 11 | 0 (0) | 11 | 2.7 ± 0.4 | 4.1 ± 1.7 | - | - | - | - |
Baldus et al.28 2019 | - | - | 0 (0) | 12 | 0 (0) | 12 | 1 (8.3) | 12 | 2 (20) | 10 | 0 (0) | 10 | 2.4 ± 0.5 | 4.3 ± 1.7 | - | - | 0 (0) | 9 |
Silaschi et al.29 2018 | 24 (88.9) | 27 | 3 (10.0) | 30 | 1 (3.3) | 30 | 1 (3.8) | 26 | 4 (15.4) | 26 | 0 (0) | 26 | - | 11.4 ± 3.7d | 1 (3.3) | 30 | 11 (41) | 27 |
Sawaya et al.14 2017 | 18 (78.2) | 23 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Yoon et al.6 2017 | 52 (82.8) | 64 | 8 (12.5) | 64 | 5 (7.8) | 64 | 7 (15.8) | 47 | - | - | 1 (1.6) | 64 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Seiffert et al.30 2014 | 30 (96.8) | 31 | 4 (12.9) | 31 | 0 (0) | 31 | 2 (71.4) | 28 | - | - | - | - | - | 7.9 ± 4.0d | - | - | 4 (15.3) | 26 |
Schlingloff et al.31 2014 | - | - | 3 (30) | 10 | - | - | 2 (20) | 10 | 0 (0) | 6 | 0 (0) | 6 | - | 7.2 ± 4.3 | - | - | 0 (0) | 10 |
AVPG, aortic valve pressure gradient; EOA, effective orifice area; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PPI, permanent pacemaker; PVR, prosthetic valve regurgitation. The data are presented as No. (%). a 30 patients had a previous pacemaker. b Data of device success reported in the abstract presented in TCT 2023. Makkar et al.33 2023. c Assessed at discharge. d Immediate postprocedural measurement. e Data of EOA mentioned in the abstract published in JAAC. Reference: Hamid et al.342024. |
Quantitative analysis of the outcomes of transfemoral TAVI for aortic regurgitation
A meta-analysis of 5 studies25-28,32 of transfemoral TAVI for AR (all with the JenaValve) included 273 patients (mean age, 77.6 years; 52.4% male). Pooled estimates were as follows: procedural success was 97.8% (95%CI, 94.4%-100%, I2 = 43%, P value = .13) (figure 2A), conversion to surgery was 0.49% (95%CI, 0.0%-1.5%, I2 = 0%, P value = .56) (figure 2B), device migration/embolization was 1.2% (95%CI, 0.0-3.3%, I2 = 47%, P value = .17) (figure 2C), and the need for a second valve was 0.46% (95%CI, 0.0%-1.44%, I2 = 0%, P value = .67) (figure 2D). Further details of in-hospital outcomes are summarized in table 6 and in the supplementary data.
Figure 2. A. Forest plot of procedural success of TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Baumbach et al.26 2023, Ranard et al.27 2022, Baldus et al.28 2019, Vahl et al.32 2024; B. Forest plot of conversion to surgery TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Baldus et al.28 2019, Vahl et al.32 2024; C. Forest plot of device migration/embolization TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Vahl et al.32 2024; D. Forest plot of need for a second valve TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Vahl et al.32 2024. 95%CI, 95% confidence interval.
Table 6. Quantitative analysis of in-hospital outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic regurgitation
Variables | Reporting studies (n) | Total patients (n) | Proportion with the endpoint (95%CI) | Heterogeneity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Procedural success | 5 | 273 | 0.9782 (0.9438-1.000) | I2 = 43%, P = .13 |
Device success | 2 | 228 | 0.9704 (0.9484-0.9924) | I2 = 0%, P = .61 |
Conversion to surgery | 3 | 250 | 0.0049 (0.0000-0.0147) | I2 = 0%, P = .56 |
Device migration/ embolization | 2 | 238 | 0.0116 (0.0000-0.0334) | I2 = 47%, P = .17 |
Need for a second Valve | 2 | 238 | 0.0046 (0.0000-0.0144) | I2 = 0%, P = .67 |
Bleeding, major or life-threatening | 3 | 250 | 0.0249 (0.0000-0.0656) | I2 = 66%, P = .05 |
Vascular complications | 4 | 262 | 0.0572 (0.0174-0.0969) | I2 = 61%, P = .05 |
Acute kidney injury | 3 | 250 | 0.0592 (0.000-0.1386) | I2 = 72%, P = .03 |
In-hospital mortality | 3 | 250 | 0.0000 (0.0000-0.0073) | I2 = 0%, P = 1.00 |
95%CI, 95% confidence interval. |
At 30 days, the pooled estimate of device success was 97.0% (95%CI, 94.8%-99.2%, I2 = 0%, P value = .61) (figure 3A), and the pooled estimate of all-cause mortality was 2.0% (95%CI, 0.2%-3.7%, I2 = 0%, P value = .95) (figure 3B). The rate of PPI was 18.7% (95%CI, 13.9%-23.4%, I2 = 0%, P value = .58) (figure 3C). Mild PVR rate was 10.6% (95%CI, 1.7%-19.4%, I2 = 75%, P < .01) (figure 4A) with statistically significant heterogeneity resolved by omitting Vahl et al.32 yielding a rate of 4.7% (95%CI, 0.0%-9.5%, I2 = 38%) (supplementary data), while the rate of moderate-severe PVR was 0.47% (95%CI, 0.0%-1.47%, I2 = 0%, P- = 1.00) (figure 4B). Further 30-day outcomes are summarized in table 7 and in the supplementary data.
Figure 3. A. Forest plot of device success TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Makkar et al.33 2023; B. Forest plot of 30-day all-cause mortality TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Baumbach et al.26 2023, Baldus et al.28 2019, Vahl et al.32 2024; C. Forest plot of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Baumbach et al.26 2023, Baldus et al.28 2019, Vahl et al.32 2024.
Figure 4. A. Forest plot of 30-day of mild prosthetic valve regurgitation TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Baumbach et al.26 2023, Ranard et al.27 2022, Baldus et al.28 2019, Vahl et al.32 2024; B. Forest plot of 30-day of greater than mild prosthetic valve regurgitation TF JenaValve. The bibliographical references mentioned in this figure correspond to: Adam et al.25 2023, Baumbach et al.26 2023, Ranard et al.27 2022, Baldus et al.28 2019, Vahl et al.32 2024.
Table 7. Quantitative analysis of 30-day outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic regurgitation
Variables | Reporting studies (n) | Total patients (n) | Proportion with the endpoint (95%CI) | Heterogeneity |
---|---|---|---|---|
30-day all-cause mortality | 4 | 262 | 0.0196 (0.0020-0.0372) | I2 = 0%, P = .95 |
30-day stroke | 3 | 250 | 0.0112 (0.0000-0.0316) | I2= 0%, P = .38 |
30-day PPM implantation | 4 | 255 | 0.1867 (0.1391-0.2344) | I2 = 0%, P = .58 |
30-day mild PVR | 5 | 262 | 0.1056 (0.0168-0.1944) | I2 = 75%, P < .01 |
30-day moderate PVR | 5 | 262 | 0.0047 (0.0000-0.0147) | I2 = 0%, P = 1.00 |
95%CI, 95% confidence interval; PPM, permanent pacemaker; PVR, prosthetic valve regurgitation. |
DISCUSSION
In this study, we included data from 788 patients who underwent TAVI using 1 of the 2 dedicated devices specifically designed for use in pure/predominant AR: the J-Valve and the JenaValve (figure 5). Studies published up to April 2024 were included, providing a contemporary and comprehensive analysis of published data in this field to date. Overall, 357 patients received the J-Valve (in 5 studies), while 431 received the JenaValve (in 10 studies). These patients were generally at increased surgical risk. J-Valve recipients were predominantly Chinese, tended to be slightly younger, had a smaller BMI, wand showed a clear male predominance compared with JenaValve recipients.
Figure 5. Central illustration. Features of the contemporary generations of 2 TAVI systems dedicated to aortic regurgitation.
The use of the 2 technologies (J-Valve and JenaValve) was influenced by their geographical availability, leading to differences between the populations treated with each device. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the 2 groups differed in age, sex, and STS-PROM scores. Additionally, most of the transfemoral implantations involved the JenaValve, while the vast majority of J-Valve implantations were transapical. Consequently, direct statistical comparison between the 2 devices and the 2 access routes was deemed inappropriate. For similar reasons, we avoided pooling data from all JenaValve procedures (mixing transapical and transfemoral implantations) and from all transapical procedures (mixing J-Valves and JenaValves). This approach minimized the risk of drawing invalid conclusions by mixing heterogeneous data or comparing outcomes without accounting for important independent confounders. Patients receiving the JenaValve via the transfemoral approach constituted a homogeneous subgroup, allowing for pooled/quantitative analysis. The findings of this latter analysis are particularly important, as transfemoral access currently dominates the TAVI field.
Our systematic review combines prospective and retrospective studies, which share common limitations such as small sample sizes and nonrandomized designs. Therefore, the findings should be regarded as preliminary and require validation in larger randomized studies. From the available data, our major observations can be summarized as follows: first, TAVI using AR-dedicated devices demonstrated a high success rate with a reassuring early safety profile. Second, the rates of surgical conversion, device dislocation, and second valve implantation were low (2%-3%). Third, both dedicated devices effectively eliminated or reduced AR, with only 1% to 2% of patients having ≥ moderate residual AR. Fourth, the results of transfemoral TAVI for AR using the JenaValve were particularly encouraging, although the PPI rate was still relatively high. Taken together, these initial findings suggest that transcatheter treatment of AR, especially through transfemoral access, may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery in appropriately selected patients.
Treating AR with TAVI using the first/older generations of transcatheter heart valves has been associated with suboptimal results.35,36 However, subsequent studies showed that next/newer generation transcatheter heart valves can improve outcomes, bringing them closer to those achieved in patients with AS.13 With the introduction of dedicated devices, several key outcomes have shown further improvement, yielding very high procedural and device success rates and low rates of conversion to surgery, device migration or embolization, the need for a second valve, and PVR. Although annular injury is a concern given the frequent association of AR with aortopathy, no cases of annular rupture were reported with the 2 self-expanding dedicated devices. We also observed low rates of acute kidney injury, bleeding, vascular complications, and in-hospital mortality. Whether this low rate of early complications will translate into improved long-term clinical outcomes remains to be determined and should be explored in longitudinal prospective studies.
A major challenge associated with TAVI for native pure/predominant AR is the risk of device migration/embolization and paravalvular leakage. This risk arises from the absence of calcification in the landing zone, the large size of the aortic annulus, and the high stroke volume in AR patients. The design of the 2 AR-dedicated TAVI devices aims is to mitigate this risk (figure 5).
The JenaValve device features an natomically-oriented design with ‘supporting arms’ that can be positioned in the sinuses of the aortic root, ensuring precise placement of the valve stent. Additionally, the fixation of the oriented device to the native valve leaflet through clip attachment provides an extra axial expansion force, enabling secure fixation even in the absence of leaflet calcifications.37
The J-Valve device is characterized by its U-shaped grasper that captures the aortic valve leaflets, achieving ‘axial’ fixation, which complements the ‘radial’ fixation, which is less reliable in the absence of calcification. Furthermore, the dual-phase release mechanism of this device (the graspers are initially released, followed by the valve) can aid in precise placement of the graspers prior to valve deployment and decrease the likelihood of damage to the native valve.38
Our data suggest that these innovative designs are associated with very low rates of device dislocation and paravalvular leakage, which in turn results in low rates of second valve requirement and surgical conversion. Importantly, these benefits did not come at the expense of increased risk of annular injury or coronary obstruction. However, a relatively high rate of PPI was observed with JenaValve, reaching nearly 19% in 5 studies of its updated transfemoral version. This may reflect a tendency for a relatively deeper implantation, a common issue with early experience of nearly all TAVI systems that tends to improve over time and typically portends a decline in PPI rates.39-42
While the current review includes preliminary single-arm, observational, small-scale studies, several randomized trials are have been conducted on J-Valve and JenaValve.43-47 While the results of these trials are pending, our data suggest a positive outcome.
In the currently available data, there is a dominance of transapical access procedures among J-Valve implantations. However, with the trend toward more minimalistic TAVI procedures, the transapical approach may only be a precursor, with the transfemoral approach expected to eventually become the standard, as already observed with the JenaValve. The most recent data, presented in 2023, on transfemoral J-Valve procedures (from the compassionate use experience in North America) is particularly reassuring.20
Study limitations
The scope of our investigation was restricted to observational studies, abstracts, and conference presentations;, none of which were randomized controlled trials. This inherently limits the quality of the evidence produced. Additionally, the present findings may have been influenced by publication bias favoring TAVI for native pure or predominant AR, which was mitigated by our. However, we sought to mitigate this bias through an exhaustive review of the available literature and the meticulous exclusion of overlapping or duplicate data. The total patient population remained relatively small, and follow-up was restricted to 30-day outcomes, so the findings should be interpreted with these limitations in mind.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review provides a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of data on TAVI with dedicated devices for native pure/predominant AR. The initial experience discussed in the present review demonstrates the safety and favorable early outcomes of TAVI using J-Valve and JenaValve in patients with pure/predominant AR, especially when the transfemoral approach is used. Nevertheless, PPI requirement remains frequent.
FUNDING
None.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The present article is a literature review and, as such, ethics approval was not required. The study did not involve patient recruitment or access to disaggregated information on individuals and therefore informed consent was not required. Possible sex/gender biases have been taken into account in the preparation of this article.
STATEMENT ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
No artificial intelligence was used in the preparation of this article.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
A. Hassan, M. Abdelshafy, and R.A. Diab performed the literature review, data analysis, and initial manuscript drafting. H. Wienemann, M. Adam, S. García, and M. Saad critically reviewed the manuscript. M. Abdelghani conceived the idea, designed and supervised data collection and analysis, and finalized the manuscript.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
M. Adam reports personal fees and speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Medtronic. S. Garcia reports institutional grants from J.C. Medical and JenaValve. All other authors have no conflict of interest to report.
WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?
- The off-label use of the next-generation nondedicated TAVI devices to treat pure AR is associated with an increased risk of device embolization and PVR.
WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?
- TAVI for AR with devices specifically designed for this indication (J-Valve and JenaValve) shows favorable early safety and efficacy, especially when the transfemoral approach is used. Nevertheless, the need for PPI remains frequent.
REFERENCES
1. Flint N, Wunderlich NC, Shmueli H, Ben-Zekry S, Siegel RJ, Beigel R. Aortic Regurgitation. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019;21:65.
2. Maurer G. Aortic regurgitation. Heart. 2006;92:994-1000.
3. Singh JP, Evans JC, Levy D, et al. Prevalence and clinical determinants of mitral, tricuspid, and aortic regurgitation (the Framingham Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:897-902.
4. Dujardin KS, Enriquez-Sarano M, Schaff HV, Bailey KR, Seward JB, Tajik AJ. Mortality and morbidity of aortic regurgitation in clinical practice. A long-term follow-up study. Circulation. 1999;99:1851-1857.
5. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al. 2008 Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease:a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease):endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2008;118:523-661.
6. Yoon S-H, Schmidt T, Bleiziffer S, et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2752-2763.
7. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis.N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1790-1798.
8. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187-2198.
9. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597-1607.
10. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1321-1331.
11. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609-1620.
12. Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA. 2014;312:162-170.
13. Yoon S-H, Bleiziffer S, De Backer O, et al. Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2579-2589.
14. Sawaya FJ, Deutsch M-A, Seiffert M, et al. Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation in native valves and failing surgical bioprostheses:results from an international registry study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1048-1056.
15. Zhu D, Chen Y, Zhang J, Hu J, Guo Y. Transapical implantation of a new second-generation transcatheter heart valve in patients with pure aortic regurgitation:a preliminary report. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20:860-862.
16. Treede H, Rastan A, Ferrari M, Ensminger S, Figulla H-R, Mohr F-W. JenaValve. EuroIntervention. 2012;8 Suppl Q:Q88-93.
17. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement:an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:71.
18. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions(5.1.0). Available at: https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org. Accessed 19 July 2024.
19. Systematic review screening tool/software. Available at: https://www.rayyan.ai/. Accessed 19 July 2024.
20. Garcia S, Ye J, Webb J, et al. Transcatheter treatment of native aortic valve regurgitation:the north american experience with a novel device. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:1953-1960.
21. Kong M, Hong Z, Liu X, Zhu X, Wang J, Dong A. 30-Day Outcomes after Surgical or Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Aortic Regurgitation. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2022;9:224.
22. Liu L, Peng Y, Shi J, Qian H, Guo Y. Initial experience with repositionable J-Valve for severe aortic regurgitation:a single-center experience. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2022;63:521-528.
23. Liu H, Liu S, Lu Y, et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation for predominant aortic regurgitation with a self-expandable valve. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:538-549.
24. Liu W, Zhou YJ, Zhang HB, Meng XU, Gao YN. P1852The clinical experience of J valve transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement system in high-risk patients with severe pure aortic regurgitation. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(Supplement_1):ehz748.0603.
25. Adam M, Tamm AR, Wienemann H, et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Isolated Aortic Regurgitation Using a New Self-Expanding TAVR System. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:1965-1973.
26. Baumbach A, Patel KP, Kennon S, et al. A heart valve dedicated for aortic regurgitation:Review of technology and early clinical experience with the transfemoral Trilogy system. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;102:766-771.
27. Ranard LS, Gogia S, Hamid N, et al. Left ventricular remodeling after jenavalve trilogy transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79:647.
28. Baldus S, Treede H, Kempfert J, Kim WK, Rudolph T and Bleiziffer S, Mieghem NV. A Feasibility Study to Assess Safety and Effectiveness of the JenaValve Transfemoral TAVR System in the Treatment of Patients With Severe Aortic Regurgitation. Euro PCR 2019. Paris, France.
29. Silaschi M, Conradi L, Wendler O, S et al. The JUPITER registry:One-year outcomes of transapical aortic valve implantation using a second generation transcatheter heart valve for aortic regurgitation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91:1345-1351.
30. Seiffert M, Bader R, Kappert U, et al. Initial German experience with transapical implantation of a second-generation transcatheter heart valve for the treatment of aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:1168-1174.
31. Schlingloff F, Schäfer U, Frerker C, Schmoeckel M, Bader R. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation of a second-generation valve for pure aortic regurgitation:procedural outcome, haemodynamic data and follow-up. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19:388-393.
32. Vahl TP, Thourani VH, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with high-risk symptomatic native aortic regurgitation (ALIGN-AR):a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study. Lancet. 2024;403:1451-1459.
33. Makkar R. Valve Hemodynamics and Device Performance:A New Era in Safety and Technical Success for TAVR in AR [video]. TCT 2023. Available at: https://www.crfconnect.com/episode/valve-hemodynamics-and-device-performance-a-new-era-in-safety-and-technical-success-for-tavr-in-ar-1700.
34. Hamid, N, Vahl, T, Thourani, V. al. Hemodynamic performance of the JenaValve Trilogy™system from the ALIGN-AR trial - the first dedicated transcatheter aortic valve for aortic regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;83(Suppl 13):803.
35. Ullah W, Suleiman A-RM, Osman H, et al. Trends and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in aortic insufficiency:A nationwide readmission database analysis. Curr Probl Cardiol. 202449(1 Pt A):102012.
36. Haddad A, Arwani R, Altayar O, Sawas T, Murad MH, de Marchena E. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with pure native aortic valve regurgitation:A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2019;42:159-166.
37. Seiffert M, Diemert P, Koschyk D, et al. Transapical implantation of a second-generation transcatheter heart valve in patients with noncalcified aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:590-597.
38. Zhu D, Hu J, Meng W, Guo Y. Successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure aortic regurgitation using a new second generation self-expanding J-Valve(TM) system - the first in-man implantation. Heart Lung Circ. 2015;24:411-414.
39. Sammour Y, Banerjee K, Kumar A, et al. Systematic Approach to High Implantation of SAPIEN-3 Valve Achieves a Lower Rate of Conduction Abnormalities Including Pacemaker Implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:009407.
40. Eliav R, Elitzur Y, Planer D, et al. Predictors for permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve implantation:trends over the past decade. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2021;62:299-307.
41. Vora AN, Gada H, Manandhar P, et al. National variability in pacemaker implantation rate following TAVR:insights from the STS/ACC TVT registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024;17:391-401.
42. Mauri V, Abdel-Wahab M, Bleiziffer S, et al. Temporal trends of TAVI treatment characteristics in high volume centers in Germany 2013-2020. Clin Res Cardiol. 2022;111:881-888.
43. J-Valve Compassionate Use. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03876964. Accessed 15 July 2024.
44. Clinical Trial in China. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05580952?tab=results. Accessed 15 July 2024.
45. Safety &Efficacy of the J-Valve Ausper System in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and/or Aortic Regurgitation. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03025971. Accessed 15 July 2024.
46. THE ALIGN-AR EFS TRIAL:JenaValve Pericardial TAVR Aortic Regurgitation Study. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02732704. Accessed 15 July 2024.
47. JUPITER Study:Transapical Aortic Valve Implantation for Aortic Regurgitation (JUPITER). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01598844. Accessed 15 July 2024.
- Incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion following transradial coronary procedures
- Percutaneous treatment of the left main coronary artery in older adults. Impact of frailty on mid-term results
- High rate of uncovered struts in latest generation drug-eluting stents with durable, biodegradable polymer or lack of it 1 month after implantation
- Single or dual antiplatelet therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Original articles
Editorials
Infective endocarditis in surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Same incidence and same prognosis?
aServicio de Cardiología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Instituto de Ciencias del Corazón (ICICOR), Valladolid, Spain
bCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Spain
Original articles
Debate
Debate: Intravascular imaging in percutaneous revascularization procedures
For a more widespread approach
aServicio de Cardiología, Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
bServicio de Cardiología, Hospital QuironSalud Valencia, Valencia, Spain
For an optimized and still selective approach
aServicio de Cardiología, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
bCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Spain