Since the publication of the 2015 EAPCI consensus on rotational atherectomy, the number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed in patients with severely calcified coronary artery disease has grown substantially. This has been prompted on one side by the clinical demand for the continuous increase in life expectancy, the sustained expansion of the primary PCI networks worldwide, and the routine performance of revascularization procedures in elderly patients; on the other side, the availability of new and dedicated technologies such as orbital atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy, as well as the optimization of the rotational atherectomy system, has increased operators’ confidence in attempting more challenging PCI. This current EAPCI clinical consensus statement prepared in collaboration with the EURO4C-PCR group describes the comprehensive management of patients with heavily calcified coronary stenoses, starting with how to use non-invasive and invasive imaging to assess calcium burden and inform procedural planning. Objective and practical guidance is provided on the selection of the optimal interventional tool and technique based on the specific calcium morphology and anatomic location. Finally, the specific clinical implications of treating these patients are considered, including the prevention and management of complications and the importance of adequate training and education.

Background: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days. Results: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P =0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, –7.5% [95% CI, –12.4 to –2.60]; P =0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P =0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P =0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P =0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group. Conclusions: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03192813.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an established treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and is most commonly performed through the transfemoral access route. Percutaneous access site closure can be achieved using dedicated plug-based or suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies, but randomized comparative studies are scarce. Methods: The CHOICE-CLOSURE trial (Randomized Comparison of Catheter-based Strategies for Interventional Access Site Closure during Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter study, in which patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement were randomly assigned to vascular access site closure using either a pure plug-based technique (MANTA, Teleflex) with no additional VCDs or a primary suture-based technique (ProGlide, Abbott Vascular) potentially complemented by a small plug. The primary end point consisted of access site– or access-related major and minor vascular complications during index hospitalization, defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Secondary end points included the rate of access site– or access-related bleeding, VCD failure, and time to hemostasis. Results: A total of 516 patients were included and randomly assigned. The mean age of the study population was 80.5±6.1 years, 55.4% were male, 7.6% of patients had peripheral vascular disease, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1±2.9%. The primary end point occurred in 19.4% (50/258) of the pure plug-based group and 12.0% (31/258) of the primary suture-based group (relative risk, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.07–2.44], P =0.029). Access site– or access-related bleeding occurred in 11.6% versus 7.4% (relative risk, 1.58 [95%CI: 0.91–2.73], P =0.133) and device failure in 4.7% versus 5.4% (relative risk, 0.86, [95% CI, 0.40–1.82], P =0.841) in the respective groups. Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in the pure plug-based group (80 [32–180] versus 240 [174–316] seconds, P <0.001). Conclusions: Among patients treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, a pure plug-based vascular closure technique using the MANTA VCD is associated with a higher rate of access site– or access-related vascular complications but a shorter time to hemostasis compared with a primary suture-based technique using the ProGlide VCD. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04459208.