Background: Stroke remains a devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which has persisted despite refinements in technique and increased operator experience. While cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been developed to mitigate this risk, data regarding their impact on stroke and other outcomes after TAVR are limited. Methods: We performed an observational study using data from the STS/ACC-TVT Registry. Patients were included if they underwent elective or urgent transfemoral TAVR between January 2018 and December 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. To adjust for confounding, the association between EPD use and clinical outcomes was evaluated using instrumental variable (IV) analysis, a technique designed to support causal inference from observational data, with site-level preference for EPD use within the same quarter of the procedure as the instrument. We also performed a propensity score-based secondary analysis using overlap weights. Results: Our analytic sample included 123,186 patients from 599 sites. The use of EPD during TAVR increased over time, reaching 28% of sites and 13% of TAVR procedures by December 2019. There was wide variation in EPD use across hospitals, with 8% of sites performing >50% of TAVR procedures with an EPD and 72% performing zero procedures with an EPD in the last quarter of 2019. In our primary analysis using the IV model, there was no association between EPD use and in-hospital stroke (adjusted relative risk (0.90 [95% CI: 0.68, 1.13], absolute risk difference -0.15% [95% CI: -0.49, 0.20]). However, in our secondary analysis using the propensity score-based model, EPD use was associated with 18% lower odds of in-hospital stroke (adjusted OR 0.82 [95% CI 0.69, 0.97], absolute risk difference -0.28% [95% CI: -0.52, -0.03]). Results were generally consistent across the secondary endpoints as well as subgroup analyses. Conclusions: In this nationally-representative observational study, we did not find an association between EPD use for TAVR and in-hospital stroke in our primary IV analysis, and found only a modestly lower risk of in-hospital stroke in our secondary propensity-weighted analysis. These findings provide a strong basis for large-scale RCTs to test whether EPDs provide meaningful clinical benefit for patients undergoing TAVR.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the recommended mode of revascularization in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (iLVSD) and multivessel disease. However, contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes have improved with the integration of novel technologies and refinement of revascularization strategies, and PCI is often used in clinical practice in this population. There is a lack of evidence from randomized trials comparing contemporary state-of-the-art PCI versus CABG for the treatment of iLVSD and multivessel disease. This was the impetus for the STICH3C trial (Canadian CABG or PCI in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy), described here. METHODS: The STICH3C trial is a prospective, unblinded, international, multicenter trial with an expected sample size of 754 participants from ≈45 centers. Patients with multivessel/left main coronary artery disease and iLVSD with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% considered by the local Heart Team appropriate for and amenable to revascularization by both modes of revascularization will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to state-of-the-art PCI or CABG. RESULTS: The primary end point is the composite of death from any cause, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization, or heart failure readmission, summarized as a time-to-event outcome. The key hierarchical end point is time to death and frequency of hospitalizations for heart failure. The key safety outcome is a composite of major adverse events. Disease-specific quality-of-life and health economics measures will be compared between groups. Participants will be followed for a median of 5 years, with a minimum follow-up of 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: STICH3C will directly inform patients, clinicians, and international practice guidelines about the efficacy and safety of CABG versus PCI in patients with iLVSD. The results will provide novel and broad evidence, including clinical events, health status, and economic assessments, to guide care for patients with iLVSD and severe coronary artery disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ; Unique identifier: NCT05427370.

The coronary angiogram is the gold standard for evaluating the severity of coronary artery disease stenoses. Presently, the assessment is conducted visually by cardiologists, a method that lacks standardization. This study introduces DeepCoro, a ground-breaking AI-driven pipeline that integrates advanced vessel tracking and a video-based Swin3D model that was trained and validated on a dataset comprised of 182,418 coronary angiography videos spanning 5 years. DeepCoro achieved a notable precision of 71.89% in identifying coronary artery segments and demonstrated a mean absolute error of 20.15% (95% CI: 19.88–20.40) and a classification AUROC of 0.8294 (95% CI: 0.8215–0.8373) in stenosis percentage prediction compared to traditional cardiologist assessments. When compared to two expert interventional cardiologists, DeepCoro achieved lower variability than the clinical reports (19.09%; 95% CI: 18.55–19.58 vs 21.00%; 95% CI: 20.20–21.76, respectively). In addition, DeepCoro can be fine-tuned to a different modality type. When fine-tuned on quantitative coronary angiography assessments, DeepCoro attained an even lower mean absolute error of 7.75% (95% CI: 7.37–8.07), underscoring the reduced variability inherent to this method. This study establishes DeepCoro as an innovative video-based, adaptable tool in coronary artery disease analysis, significantly enhancing the precision and reliability of stenosis assessment.

Background: Clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the trends and outcomes of using DOACs in patients with TAVR and atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results: Data from the STS/ACC TVT (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry was used to identify patients who underwent successful TAVR with preexisting or incident atrial fibrillation who were discharged on oral anticoagulation between January 2013 and May 2018. Patients with a mechanical valve, valve‐in‐valve procedure, or prior stroke within a year were excluded. The adjusted primary outcome was 1‐year stroke events. The adjusted secondary outcomes included bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and death. A total of 21 131 patients were included in the study (13 004 TAVR patients were discharged on a vitamin K antagonist and 8127 were discharged on DOACs.) The use of DOACs increased 5.5‐fold from 2013 to 2018. The 1‐year incidence of stroke was comparable between DOAC‐treated patients and vitamin K antagonist‐treated patients (2.51% versus 2.37%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.81–1.23) whereas DOAC‐treated patients had lower 1‐year incidence of any bleeding (11.9% versus 15.0%; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75–0.89), intracranial hemorrhage (0.33% versus 0.59%; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33–0.87), and death (15.8% versus 18.2%; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85–1.00). Conclusions: In patients with TAVR and atrial fibrillation, DOAC use, when compared with vitamin K antagonists, was associated with comparable stroke risk and significantly lower risks of bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and death at 1 year.

Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices can be used in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to describe trends and outcomes of prophylactic MCS use in elective PCI for patients with stable coronary artery disease in the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s CathPCI registry. Methods: Among 2 108 715 consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI in the CathPCI registry between 2009 and 2018, we examined patterns of prophylactic use of MCS. Propensity score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting compared effectiveness (in-hospital death, cardiogenic shock, or new heart failure) and safety (stroke, tamponade, major bleeding, or vascular complication requiring treatment) between patients treated with intra-aortic balloon pump versus other MCS (Impella or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Results: Overall, 6905 (0.3%) patients underwent elective PCI with prophylactic MCS. MCS use trended up from 0.2% of elective PCIs in 2009 to 0.6% in 2018 ( P <0.0001), driven by other MCS ( P <0.0001), whereas intra-aortic balloon pump use remained low and constant ( P =0.12). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events and cardiovascular complications occurred in 7.1% and 18.8% of elective PCI patients with prophylactic MCS use and 0.5% and 2.3% of patients without prophylactic MCS use. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiac events (9.6% versus 6.0%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.32–1.91]) but lower risk of complications (18.2% versus 19.1%, adjusted odds ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.77–0.99]) than use of other MCS. Conclusions: The use of prophylactic MCS has increased over time for elective PCI in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with higher major adverse cardiac events but lower risk of procedural complications compared with other MCS.