CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparison of Safety and Periprocedural Complications of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement Under Local Anaesthesia: Minimalist Versus Complete Heart Team Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes Short Length of Stay After Elective Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Not Associated With Increased Early or Late Readmission Risk Timing of intervention in asymptomatic patients with valvular heart disease Transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve Early Versus Standard Discharge After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-to-Intermediate Surgical Risk Cohort

Original ResearchVolume 13, Issue 8, April 2020

JOURNAL:JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions Article Link

Optimal Timing of Intervention in NSTE-ACS Without Pre-Treatment The EARLY Randomized Trial

G Lemesle, M Laine, M Pankert et al. Keywords: non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome; outcome; PCI; pre-treatment; timing

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to compare a delayed and a very early invasive strategy in patients with nonST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) without pre-treatment.

 

BACKGROUND - The optimal delay of the invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS remains debated and has never been investigated in patients not pre-treated with P2Y12adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists.

 

METHODS - A prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Altogether, 741 patients presenting with intermediate- or high-risk NSTE-ACS intended for an invasive strategy were included. The modified intention-to-treat analysis was composed of 709 patients after 32 withdrew consent. Patients were randomized 1:1 to the delayed invasive group (DG) (n = 363) with coronary angiography (CA) performed 12 to 72 h after randomization or the very early invasive group (EG) (n = 346) with CA within 2 h. No pre-treatment with a loading dose of a P2Y12adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist was allowed before CA. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death and recurrent ischemic events at 1 month, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee.

 

RESULTS - Most patients had high-risk NSTE-ACS in both groups (93% in the EG vs. 92.5% in the DG). The median time between randomization and CA was 0 h (interquartile range [IQR]: 0 to 1 h) in the EG group and 18 h (IQR: 11 to 23 h) in the DG. The primary endpoint rate was significantly lower in the EG (4.4% vs. 21.3% in the DG; hazard ratio: 0.20; 95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.34; p < 0.001), driven by a reduction in recurrent ischemic events (19.8% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001). No difference was observed for cardiovascular death.

 

CONCLUSIONS - Without pre-treatment, a very early invasive strategy was associated with a significant reduction in ischemic events at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with intermediate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. (Early or Delayed Revascularization for Intermediate and High-Risk Non ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes; NCT02750579)