CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Mitral/Tricuspid Valvular Disease

Abstract

Recommended Article

The management of secondary mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure: a joint position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the ESC Thirty-Day Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results Initial experience with percutaneous mitral valve repair in patients with cardiac amyloidosis Incidence and Standardized Definitions of Mitral Valve Leaflet Adverse Events After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair: the EXPAND Study Mitral Valve Remodeling and Strain in Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Comparison With Primary Regurgitation and Normal Valves Transcatheter Interventions for Tricuspid Valve Disease: What to Do and Who to Do it On Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients with Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: From COAPT Trial Percutaneous Repair or Medical Treatment for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Outcomes at 2 years

Clinical Trial2021 Mar 8;14(5):515-527.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Randomized Evaluation of TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: REFLECT II

TM Nazif, J Moses, REFLECT II Trial Investigators et al. Keywords: cerebral embolic protection; TAVR; RCT

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - The REFLECT II (Randomized Evaluation of TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the TriGUARD 3 (TG3) cerebral embolic protection in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

 

BACKGROUND - Cerebral embolization occurs frequently following transcatheter aortic valve replacement and procedure-related ischemic stroke occurs in 2% to 6% of patients at 30 days. Whether cerebral protection with TriGuard 3 is safe and effective in reducing procedure-related cerebral injury is not known.

 

METHODS - This prospective, multicenter, single-blind, 2:1 randomized (TG3 vs. no TG3) study was designed to enroll up to 345 patients. The primary 30-day safety endpoint (Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined) was compared with a performance goal (PG). The primary hierarchical composite efficacy endpoint (including death or stroke at 30 days, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score worsening in hospital, and cerebral ischemic lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 2 to 5 days) was compared using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method.

 

RESULTS - REFLECT II enrolled 220 of the planned 345 patients (63.8%), including 41 roll-in and 179 randomized patients (121 TG3 and 58 control subjects) at 18 US sites. The sponsor closed the study early after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended enrollment suspension for unblinded safety data review. The trial met its primary safety endpoint compared with the PG (15.9% vs. 34.4% (p < 0.0001). The primary hierarchal efficacy endpoint at 30 days was not met (mean scores [higher is better]: 8.58 TG3 vs. 8.08 control; p = 0.857). A post hoc diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging analysis of per-patient total lesion volume above incremental thresholds showed numeric reductions in total lesion volume >500 mm3 (9.7%) and >1,000 mm3 (44.5%) in the TG3 group, which were more pronounced among patients with full TG3 coverage: 51.1% (>500 mm3) and 82.9% (>1,000 mm3).

 

CONCLUSIONS - The REFLECT II trial demonstrated that the TG3 was safe compared with a historical PG but did not meet its pre-specified primary superiority efficacy endpoint.