(LAA Closure & PFO Closure) - PDF Free Download

18th ANGIOPLASTY SUMMIT-TCTAP 2013 Seoul, Korea, April 23-26, 2013 Review Year and Future To Closure or Not to Close (LAA Closure & PFO Closure) Horst Sievert CardioVascular Center Frankfurt - CVC Frankfurt, Germany

Obviously, holes should be closed...... because they are there!

Tasks I will give you some additional reasons to closed them...... and also draw your attention to some concerns which exist and which have to be taken seriously

Atrial fibrillation ato is one of the most important t stroke causes, especially in the elderly Framingham Study, Wolf, 1991 40 % 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 Age

Anticoagulation in AF Randomised Trials 14 66%* 12 10 71%* 86%* 69%* 52% 79%* 8 6 4 2 0 AFASAK BAATAF SPAF-I CAFA SPINAF EAFT Control Warfarin *p<0.05

Anticoagulation is effective, but unfortunately it does not work in clinical practice not with coumadin and not with newer drugs

Any localized or general physical Cerebral aneurysms condition in which the hazard of Dissecting aorta hemorrhage might be greater than Pericarditis the potential clinical benefits of Pericardial effusions anticoagulation Bacterial endocarditis Any personal circumstance in which Threatened abortion the hazard of hemorrhage might be greater than the potential clinical Eclampsia benefits of anticoagulation Preeclampsia Pregnancy Inadequate laboratory facilities Hemorrhagic tendencies Unsupervised patients Blood dyscrasias. Senility Recent or contemplated surgery of Alcoholism central nervous system Psychosis Recent or contemplated surgery of Lack of patient cooperation the eye Spinal puncture Recent or contemplated traumatic Other diagnostic procedures with surgery resulting in large open potential for uncontrollable bleeding surfaces Therapeutic procedures with Gastrointestinal bleeding potential for uncontrollable bleeding Genitourinary tract bleeding Major regional anesthesia Respiratory tract bleeding Lumbar block anesthesia Cerebrovascular hemorrhage Malignant hypertension

100% Lone Atrial Fibrillationill Only about 1/3 of all eligible patients are taking Coumadin 80% 60% not on Coumadin 40% on Coumadin 20% 0% <65 65-74 75-79 >80

Warfarin Use in General Practice % Discontinuation 100 Age 80 40-64 65-69 70-74 60 75-79 80-84 40 85 20 0 0 2 4 6 Years after starting treatment Gallagher AM et al: J Thromb Haemost 6:1500, 2008

But we know that thrombi arise in the LAA! Not all of them but 90 %

Therefore it is logical l to close the LAA LAA closure is a causal therapy

Where is the evidence?

Multicenter Protect AF (System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients t with Atrial i lfibrillation) ill Prospective randomized, FDA controled WATCHMAN gen 2 vs coumadin 2:1 Non-inferiority trial 800 pts 1500 patient-years t Holmes D, et al Lancet 2009

Primary Efficacy Endpoint Freedom from Stroke, Death, Systemic Embolization 29% l l ti i k i WATCHMAN G 29% lower relative risk in WATCHMAN Group WATCHMAN is non-inferior to Coumadin

Other significant ifi findings

All Stroke 4 3 Events/100 patient years P<0.05 2.7 22% 2 1 2.1 0 Warfarin LAA Closure

Hemorrhagic Stroke 1.5 Events/100 patient years P<0.05 1 12 1.2 0.5 03 0.3 75% 0 Warfarin LAA Closure

Mortality 5 4 Events/100 patient years 4.4 P<0.05 30% 3 3.1 2 1 0 Warfarin LAA Closure

Safety Freedom from device embolization, pericardial effusion, severe bleeding e Prob babilit y Even nt Fre 0.70 0.80 0.90 0 1.0 00 Mostly pericardial effusion without sequelae Mostly stroke and bleeding Watchman Control 244 212 155 53 Control 463 364 303 116 Watchman 0 365 730 1095 Days from Randomization

Performance Learning Curve Effect PROTECT-AF vs. CAP Inc cidence % 15 10 5 0 Procedure/Device Related Safety Adverse Event Within 7 Days 10 5,5 37 3,7 In ncidence % 10 8 6 4 2 Serious Pericardial Effusion Within 7 Days 6,3 3,7 22 2,2 PROTECT AF Early PROTECT AF Late CAP PROTECT AF Early PROTECT AF Late CAP 0 Incidenc ce % 5 4 3 2 1 0 Procedure Related Stroke 1,1 0,7 PROTECT AF Early PROTECT AF Late 0 CAP With increased operator experience, the procedure related adverse events and serious pericardial effusions were reduced significantly. Peri-procedural strokes were eliminated Reddy, Circulation 2011

Nevertheless, LAA closure is not a trivial procedure So there is a risk that with wide spread use complications become more frequent

PREVAIL Similar design to PROTECT AF: prospective randomized 2:1 (device: control) 407 randomized patients Purpose Confirm the results of PROTECT AF Demonstrate improved safety profile Inclusion of new operators to show enhancements to the training i program are effective

First Primary Endpoint Acute (7-day) Procedural Safety (compared to PROTECT AF) 2.67% One-sided 95% upper CI bound for success 2.2% 2.618% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% Percent of patients experiencing an event Significant less complications compared to PROTECT AF (95% Upper confidence bound < 2.67%) - 95% CI = 2.618% Results are preliminary; final validation not yet complete

PREVAIL Technical Success and Complications Higher success rate p=0.0404 Less vascular complications p=0.004004 Less procedural stroke p=0.007007 Less tamponade needing surgery p=0 0.027027 Comparable results in experienced vs inexperienced operators

Second Primary Endpoint 18-month stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death 1.07 0.57 1.88 1.75 95% upper CI bound for non-inferiority 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 18-month Rate Ratio Similar 18-month event rates in both control and device groups = 0.064064 Upper 95% CI bound slightly higher than allowed to meet success criterion (<1.75) - Limited number of patients with follow-up through 18 months thus far (Control = 30 pts, Device = 58 pts) Results are preliminary; final validation not yet complete

Third Primary Endpoint 18-month Thromboembolic Events (beyond 7 days) 0.00510051-0.0191 0.0268 0.0275 95% upper CI bound for non-inferiority 003 0.03-0.0202-0.0101 0 001 0.01 002 0.02 003 0.03 18-month Rate Difference LAA closure non-inferior to anticoagulation (95% CI Upper Bound < 0.0275%) 0275%) Results are preliminary; final validation not yet complete

PREVAIL did confirm the results of PROTECT AF Significant less procedural complications than in PROTECT AF Despite including new operators 18 months stroke, embolism, death rate almost non-inferior to anticoagulation Not significant ifi yet due to small patient t number and low event rate 18 months stroke/embolism rate non inferior to anticoagulation

New anticoagulants

New anticoagulants are better than warfarin Dabigatran 110 0.91 0.74 1.11 n FU (yrs) 12,000 2 0.66 Dabigatran 150 0.53 0.82 0.88 Rivaroxaban 0.74 1.03 12,000 2 14,264 1-2 Apixaban 0.66 0.79 0.95 18,201 1.8 0.77 Watchman 0.42 1.62 707 2.3 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 Better than Warfarin Worse than Warfarin

LAA closure has to be tested against new anticoagulants? Or new anticoagulants against LAA closure? And all new anticoagulants against each other?

New anticoagulants Are easier to take, but - contraindicated in patients with risk of bleeding - not better tolerated than coumadin

All Anticoagulants Per definition - have to be given lifelong - have a bleeding risk Bleeding risk increases with age At some point during life anticoagulants will have to be stopped

In how many of your patients t with Afib should you consider LAA closure?

Lone Atrial Fibrillationill 100% 80% 60% not on Coumadin 40% on Coumadin 20% 0% <65 65-74 75-79 >80

Warfarin Use in General Practice % Discontinuation 100 Age 80 40-64 65-69 70-74 60 75-79 80-84 40 85 20 0 0 2 4 6 Years after starting treatment Gallagher AM et al: J Thromb Haemost 6:1500, 2008

PFO closure is different More common sense Patients t feel more need Easier to do Less evidence

We know that a PFO can cause stroke that this is due to paradoxical embolism "And you want me to wait for a second stroke??"

Today in the slide preview center: Jung Lim Won (Student of physiology): What is a PFO? Horst Sievert: A small hole in the heart. A clot can go through and cause stroke Student: So it is the most important t thing!

Meta-analysis of Event Rates in Patients with Cryptogenic Stroke 12 studies with 943 medically treated t cryptogenic stroke pts (mean age 45 years, mean F/U 34 mos) 12 studies with 1,430 stroke pts after PFO closure (mean age 46 years, mean F/U 18 mos) An nnual ev vent rate % 6.0 5.0 4.0 30 3.0 2.0 1.0 % 00 0.0 Homma S et al. Circulation 2005 Death Stroke TIA Combined medical PFO Closure

And Randomized Trials?

My Prediction: Trials will be negative - Some centers/operators did not have enough experience when they started the trial - Patient numbers are too small - Follow-up is too short - Technology outdated Horst Sievert, PCR 2007

Inclusion Age 18-60 yrs Cryptogenic stroke or TIA Exclusion DVT Hypercoagulopathy CLOSURE I Device Group: Starflex Occuder and Aspirin R 909 patients Enrolled between June 2003 and October 2008 Aspirin 2 years Clopidogrel 6 mths Primary End points All cause death at 30 days 2 year Stroke or TIA Neurological death >30 days Control Group: Aspirin and/or Coumadin 2 years J. Furlan, AHA 2010 Superiority Study

8.0 7.0 50 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 % CLOSURE I Annual Event Rate 6.0 n.s. So this was positive! 00 0.0 Death Stroke TIA Combined medical PFO Closure + Aspirin AJ Furlan, AHA 2010

"CLOSURE I Issues" Study design Device Exclusion- inclusion criteria Pt number and follow-up Procedural complications Residual shunts

Any good news from CLOSURE I? There was a trend towards less events after PFO closure compared to medical therapy after only 2 yrs Despite the high complication rate PFO closure was as safe as medical therapy

The Final Results with Primary End Point Analyses RANDOMIZED EVALUATION OF RECURRENT STROKE COMPARING PFO CLOSURE TO ESTABLISHED CURRENT STANDARD OF CARE TREATMENT JOHN D. CARROLL, MD, JEFFREY L. SAVER, MD, DAVID E. THALER, MD, PHD, RICHARD W. SMALLING, MD, PHD, SCOTT BERRY, PHD, LEE A. MACDONALD, MD, DAVID S. MARKS, MD, MBA, DAVID L. TIRSCHWELL, MD FOR THE RESPECT INVESTIGATORS

Serious Adverse Events Adjudicated as Related to Procedure, Device, or Study 1. For all AE s, atrial fibrillation occurred in 3.0% versus 1.5% in the device and medical groups respectively, p=0.13 2. Pericardial tamponade is a subset of major bleeds, and thus counted in the major bleed category as well 3. For all SAEs, PFO pulmonary embolism closure occurred in 1.2% and 0.2% in is device and as medical groups, safe respectively, p=0.124 medical therapy 4. 1 case of right atrial thrombus resulted in abandonment of device implant procedure (no device received); 1 case of right atrial thrombus (located inferiorly) not attached to device detected in patient with DVT and PE 4 months after procedure 5. 1 ischemic stroke one week post implant; 1 five months post implant with finding of severe shunting related to previously undiagnosed sinus venosus defect, requiring surgical closure 6. For all SAEs, there were 3 device group deaths (0.6%) and 6 medical group deaths (1.2%) all of which were not study related, p= 0.334 7. P-values are calculated using Fisher s Exact test 16

Primary Endpoint Analysis ITT Cohort 50.8% risk reduction of stroke in favor of device 3/9 device group patients did not have a device at time of endpoint stroke 1. Cox model used for analysis 20

Primary Endpoint Analysis Per Protocol Cohort 63.4% risk reduction of stroke in favor of device The Per Protocol (PP) cohort includes patients who adhered to the requirements of the study protocol 1. Cox model used for analysis 21

Primary Endpoint Analysis As Treated Cohort 72.7% risk reduction of stroke in favor of device The As Treated (AT) cohort demonstrates the treatment effect by classifying subjects into treatment groups according to the treatment actually received, regardless of the randomization assignment 1. Cox model used for analysis 22

PERCUTANEOUS CLOSURE OF PATENT FORAMEN OVALEO VERSUS MEDICAL TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH CRYPTOGENIC EMBOLISM: THE PC TRIAL NCT00166257 Bernhard Meier, Bindu Kalesan, Ahmed A. Khattab, David Hildick-Smith, Dariusz Dudek, Grethe Andersen, Reda Ibrahim, Gerhard Schuler, Antony S. Walton, Andreas Wahl, Stephan Windecker, Heinrich P. Mattle, and Peter Jüni

PRIMARY COMPOSITE ENDPOINT DEATH FROM ANY CAUSE, NON FATAL STROKE, TIA AND PERIPHERAL EMBOLISM %) ENCE (% CU UMULATIV VE INCID NO. AT RISK MEDICAL THERAPY PFO CLOSURE 8 6 4 2 0 HR 0.63 (0.24 1.62, p=0.34) RRR 37% 0 1 2 3 4 5 YEARS AFTER RANDOMIZATION 210 185 170 159 131 90 204 186 181 163 142 110

SECONDARY ENDPOINT STROKE %) ENCE (% 8 6 HR 0.20 (0.02 1.72, p=0.14) CU UMULATIV VE INCID 4 2 0 NO. AT RISK MEDICAL THERAPY PFO CLOSURE RRR 80% 0 1 2 3 4 5 YEARS AFTER RANDOMIZATION 210 187 175 164 134 92 204 188 183 167 146 112

SECONDARY ENDPOINT TRANSIENT ISCHEMIC ATTACK %) CU UMULATIV VE INCID DENCE (% 8 6 4 2 0 NO. AT RISK MEDICAL THERAPY PFO CLOSURE HR 0.71 (0.23 2.24); p=0.56 0 1 2 3 4 5 YEARS AFTER RANDOMIZATION RRR 29% 210 187 174 162 135 92 204 187 182 163 142 110

Stroke reduction in randomized d trials n Follow- Risk p up (yrs) ratio CLOSURE I 909 2 09 0.9 ns n.s. RESPECT 980 2.6 0.49 n.s. PC 414 4.1 0.2 n.s.

These randomized d ti trials have confirmed the results of prior non-randomized trials... but they had been under-powered

So if you believe only in randomized trials... you should not close PFOs

Horst Sievert, AHA 2005 So what if these trials are Positive, i.e. PFO closure is better than medical therapy - Neurologist will not believe it Negative, i.e. medical therapy is better than PFO closure - Cardiologists will not believe it Patients t will prefer PFO closure anyway