Cerebral Embolic Protection In Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR)

Similar documents
SURGICAL ABLATION OF ATRIAL FIBRILLATION DURING MITRAL VALVE SURGERY THE CARDIOTHORACIC SURGICAL TRIALS NETWORK

SURGICAL TREATMENT OF MODERATE ISCHEMIC MITRAL REGURGITATION: THE CARDIOTHORACIC SURGICAL TRIALS NETWORK

Cerebral Protection In Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement The SENTINEL Study. Susheel Kodali, MD Columbia University Medical Center

Protection Devices for Stroke Prevention Do the Data support their Routine Use?

Sentinel Dual Filter Device: Technology Overview and Status of the CLEAN-TAVI Randomized Trial. Martin B. Leon, MD

Strokes After TAVR. Ioannis Iakovou, MD, PhD. Interventional Cardiology Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center

Biatrial Maze or PVI to Ablate Afib? Marc Gillinov, MD

Neuroprotection During TAVR

Why Cerebral Protection after TAVR Will Become the Standard of Care

Is Stroke Frequency Declining?

TAVR in Intermediate Risk Populations /Optimizing Systems for TAVR

Mitral Valve Surgery: Lessons from New York State

How to Prevent Thromboembolic Complications in TAVI

Building the Evidence for CEP in TAVR: A Critical Review of the Clinical Trial Data

DO WE NEED TO DO BETTER?

Embolic Protection Devices for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Progress in Cerebral Embolic Protection

The Case for and Against Cerebral Embolic Protection During TAVR. Susheel Kodali, MD

Role of Embolic Protection during TAVR

Predictors, incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation complicated by stroke

Igor Palacios, MD Director of Interventional Cardiology Massachusetts General Hospital Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School

Le TAVI pour tout le monde?

Valvular Procedure: John D. Carroll, MD FACC MSCAI Professor of Medicine. University of Colorado

Appropriate Use of TAVR - now and in the future. A Surgeon s Perspective. Neil Moat Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

Early Experience of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Results from the Intrepid Global Pilot Study

Vinod H. Thourani, MD, FACC, FACS

Incorporating the intermediate risk in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)

Appropriate Patient Selection or Healthcare Rationing? Lessons from Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in The PARTNER I Trial Wilson Y.

LOW RISK TAVR. WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

After PARTNER 2A/S3i and SURTAVI: What is the Role of Surgery in Intermediate-Risk AS Patients?

STROKE PREVENTION IN AORTIC ARCH PROCEDURES

HIP ATTACK Trial: Can we improve outcomes after a hip fracture with accelerated surgery? PJ Devereaux, MD, PhD

TAVR-Update Andrzej Boguszewski MD, FACC, FSCAI Vice Chairman, Cardiology Mid-Michigan Health Associate Professor Michigan State University, Central

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients:

TAVR IN INTERMEDIATE-RISK PATIENTS

Aortic Stenosis: Open vs TAVR vs Nothing

Post-TAVI Cerebral Embolisms and Potential Protection Means

Is Cerebral Embolic Protection Needed for TAVR?

e Corrado Tamburino, MD, PhD

Subclinical leaflet thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves: an observational study

Should We Reconsider using Anticoagulation for Biological Tissue Valves

Adjunctive Pharmacotherapy: Current Landscape for Patients Post TAVR

Subclinical Thrombosis of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Is It Clinically Relevant? Tarun Chakravarty, MD

The Sentinel Dual Filter Device Design Features & EU Clinical Trial Results

1-YEAR OUTCOMES FROM JOHN WEBB, MD

PhD in Bioengineering and Medical-Surgical Sciences

SAPIEN 3: Evaluation of a Balloon- Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve in High-Risk and Inoperable Patients With Aortic Stenosis One-Year Outcomes

New Trials in Progress: ACT 1. Jon Matsumura, MD Cannes, France June 28, 2008

Paris, August 28 th Gian Paolo Ussia on behalf of the CoreValve Italian Registry Investigators

Early and One-year Outcomes of Aortic Root Surgery in Marfan Syndrome Patients

Establishing a New Path Forward for Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis THE PARTNER TRIAL CLINICAL RESULTS

The Silent and Apparent Neurological Injury in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Study (SANITY)

Is TAVR Now Indicated in Even Low Risk Aortic Valve Disease Patients

TCT mdbuyline.com Clinical Trial Results Summary

A Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device. Final Report of the MOMENTUM 3 Trial

Reduced Anticoagulation After Mechanical Valve Replacement: Interim Results from the PROACT Randomized FDA IDE Trial

Early Experience of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Results from the Intrepid Global Pilot Study

CIPG Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement- When Is Less, More?

Minimally Invasive Stand Alone Cox-Maze Procedure For Patients With Non-Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

2/15/2018 DISCLOSURES OBJECTIVES. Consultant for BioSense Webster, a J&J Co. Aortic stenosis background. Short history of TAVR

Supplementary Online Content

12/4/2017. Disclosures. Study organization. Stryker Medtronic Penumbra Viz Route 92. Data safety monitoring board Tudor G.

Indication, Timing, Assessment and Update on TAVI

Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Moderate Risk Patients: Implications for Determination of Equipoise in the Transcatheter Era

Update on Percutaneous Therapies for Structural Heart Disease. William Thomas MD Director of Structural Heart Program Tucson Medical Center

Stroke Update. Claire J. Creutzfeldt, MD January 12, 2018

Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) Long Term Outcomes

TAVR today: High Risk, Intermediate Risk Population, and Valve in Valve Therapy

Health Status after Transcatheter Mitral- Valve Repair in Patients with Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Results from the COAPT Trial

TAVI After PARTNER-2 : The Hamilton Approach

APOLLO TMVR Trial Update: Case Presentation

Evolving and Expanding Indications for TAVR

The FORMA Early Feasibility Study: 30-Day Outcomes of Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapy in Patients with Severe Secondary Tricuspid Regurgitation

Role of Embolic Protection Devices in TAVR: Are They Needed? Waste of Time and Money?

The Sentinel US Pivotal Clinical Trial Design

The PROACT Trial: valve choice has changed

Surgical AF Ablation : Lesion Sets and Energy Sources. What are the data? Steven F Bolling, MD Cardiac Surgery University of Michigan

Diagnostic, Technical and Medical

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Qualifying and Outcome Strokes in the RESPECT PFO Trial: Additional Evidence of Treatment Effect

CLOSE. Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale, Oral anticoagulants or Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence

Really Less-Invasive Trans-apical Beating Heart Mitral Valve Repair: Which Patients?

Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes at 30 Days with the SAPIEN 3 TAVR System in Inoperable, High-Risk and Intermediate-Risk AS Patients

30-Day Outcomes Following Implantation of a Repositionable Self-Expanding Aortic Bioprosthesis: First Report From the FORWARD Study

TREATMENT OF MITRAL REGURGITATION RAJA NAZIR FACC

Main Results Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) Trial

PERCUTANEOUS STRUCTURAL UPDATES TAVR WATCHMAN(LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGE OCCLUDERS) MITRACLIP PARAVALVULAR LEAK REPAIRS ASD/PFO CLOSURES VALVULOPLASTIES

Catheter ABlation vs ANtiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) Trial

Strokes After TAVR. Incidence (past and present) Multi-factorial Origin

Prognostic Impact of FMR

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage of Transcatheter Valve Technologies December 2015

Neurocognitive Functional Assessment After TAVR: Methodologies and Clinical Importance

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair

Effect of Having a PFO Occlusion Device in Place in the RESPECT PFO Closure Trial

Carotid Artery Stenosis

Peter A. Soukas, M.D., FACC, FSVM, FSCAI, RPVI

Antithrombotic. DAPT or OAC?

TAVI- Is Stroke Risk the Achilles Heel of Percutaneous Aortic Valve Repair?

Strokes After TAVR Reasons for Declining Frequency

Expanding Relevance of Aortic Valve Repair Is Earlier Operation Indicated?

Transcription:

Cerebral Embolic Protection In Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) Michael Mack, MD, Michael Acker, MD, Steve Messe, MD For the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN) American College of Cardiology Late Breaking Clinical Trials March 19, 2017

Disclosures Co-PI of Partner 3 Trial Sponsor Edwards Lifesciences Co-PI COAPT Trial- Sponsor Abbott Vascular Executive Board Intrepid Trial- Sponsor Medtronic

% of SAVR Patients Background ~50,000 patients undergo SAVR per year in the U.S. The incidence of clinical stroke when examined by a neurologist and postoperative DW MRI in SAVR patients: 100% 80% 60% 61% 40% 20% 0% 17% Radiographic Infarcts Any Clinical Stroke 4% Moderate/Severe Clinical Stroke Messe et al. Stroke after aortic valve surgery: Results from a prospective cohort. Circulation. 2014;129:2253-2261

Purpose Determine the safety and effectiveness of 2 cerebral embolic protection devices in reducing ischemic CNS injury The CardioGard embolic protection cannula The Embol-X intra-aortic filtration device

CONSORT Diagram Assessed for Eligibility (n=4225) Excluded (n=3842) Did not meet inclusion criteria (n=3355) Refused to participate (n=460) Other (n=27) Randomized (n=383) Embol-X (n=133) Shared Control (n=132) CardioGard (n=118) Primary Endpoint Analysis Embol-X (n=133) Control (n=132) Primary Endpoint Analysis CardioGard (n=118) Control (n=120)* *12 subjects were randomized to control prior to the start of randomization in the CardioGard arm

CTSN Clinical Sites-18 383 Patients Baylor Research Institute-70 Mission Hospital-56 University of Pennsylvania-50 University of Virginia-34 Emory University-34 Hôpital Laval-27 Montreal Heart Institute-23 Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center-20 University of Southern California-17 Duke University-12 Montefiore Einstein-12 NIH Heart Center at Suburban Hospital-7 Columbia University Medical Center-6 Cleveland Clinic Foundation-4 Toronto General Hospital-4 University of Alberta-3 Ohio State University -2 University of Maryland-2

Trial Infrastructure Clinical and Data Coordinating Center Annetine Gelijns, PhD, Alan Moskowitz, MD, Michael Parides, PhD InCHOIR, Mount Sinai Network Chairs Richard Weisel, MD University of Toronto Patrick O Gara, MD Brigham and Women s Hospital Funding NHLBI- Marissa Miller, DVM NINDS- Claudia Moy, PhD CIHR Core Labs Magnetic Resonance Imaging University of Pennsylvania MRI Core Lab Michel Bilello, PhD Neurocognitive Duke Neurocognition Core Lab Jeffrey Browndyke, PhD Histopathology CVPath Institute Renu Virmani, MD

Trial Endpoints PRIMARY Freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction at 7 (± 3) days post procedure SECONDARY Composite: 1) clinical ischemic stroke,2) acute kidney injury (AKI), 3) death 30 days after surgery Volume and number of radiographic brain lesions Mortality at 30 days Serious AEs and readmissions within 90 days Delirium 7 days post-operatively Neurocognition at 90 days

Trial Design & Analysis ITT comparison of proportion of pts with evidence of CNS injury, with imputation for missing data Assumed control rate of 50% incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts 90% power to show reduction of 17.5% (absolute) 495 patients,165 per group

Actual Sample Size At interim analysis, randomization was halted due to low conditional power for achieving primary endpoint 383 patients randomized (77% of intended enrollment) when halted

Patient Characteristics Demographics CardioGard (N=118) Control (N=120) Embol-X (N=133) Control (N=132) Age 74.6 ± 6.8 73.4 ± 6.7 73.6 ± 6.6 73.6 ± 6.7 Male 69 (58.5) 77 (64.2) 81 (60.9) 86 (65.2) Medical History Atrial fibrillation 14 (11.9) 16 (13.3) 13 (9.8) 16 (12.1) Diabetes 48 (40.7) 36 (30.0) 36 (27.1) 37 (28.0) MI 16 (13.6) 8 (6.7) 15 (11.3) 10 (7.6) Stroke or TIA 16 (13.6) 8 (6.7) 11 (8.3) 8 (6.1) Cognitive Impairment At least one deficit 37/102 (36.3) 28/109 (25.7) 36/121 (29.8) 31/120 (25.8) Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as count (%).

Surgical Characteristics CardioGard (N=118) Control (N=120) Embol-X (N=133) Control (N=132) Surgical Procedure Isolated AVR 67 (56.8) 73 (60.8) 80 (60.2) 80 (60.6) AVR & CABG 51 (43.2) 47 (39.2) 53 (39.8) 52 (39.4) Concomitant procedures 18 (15.3) 19 (15.8) 26 (19.5) 20 (15.2) Duration of CPB min 104.9± 39.6 102.2 ± 40.2 109.1 ± 42.4 101.7 ± 39.8 Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as count (%).

Debris Captured Debris captured in 75.8% of CardioGard subjects and 99.1% of Embol-X CardioGard filter 6 mm Embol-X filter

Percent of Embol-X Patients with at Least One Particle of a Given Size 0.15 mm 0.5 mm 1 mm 2 mm 16% 61% 88% Percent of Cardiogard Patients with at Least One Particle of a Given Size 99% Valve Tissue Arterial Wall Myocardium Calcium Plaque Thrombus 0.15 mm 68% 0.5 mm 43% 1 mm 14% 2 mm 2% Automated measurement

% of Patients w/ No Infarcts Primary Endpoint* Freedom From Clinical or Radiographic CNS infarction 100 90 80 OR of CNS Infarct: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.60,1.87) P = 0.84 OR of CNS Infarct: 1.40 (95% CI: 0.81,2.40) P = 0.22 70 60 50 40 30 32.7 % 34.8 % 27.1 % 34.8 % 20 10 0 CardioGard Control Embol-X Control *OR and P-value based on analysis of imputed data; bar chart based on observed data

FLAIR Scan (Linearly aligned to T1)

DWI Scan (Linearly aligned to T1)

Segmented DWI Lesion

ROI (region of interest) Segmentation

MRI Lesion Volume: Deciles of Observed Infarct Volume Distribution mm 3 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 CardioGard: Mean (sd): 178.5 (386.4) Median (IQR): 42 (0, 151) Control: Mean (sd): 476.4 (2229.9) Median (IQR): 31 (0, 155) p=0.28 P=0.18 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% CardioGard 0 0 0 19 42 79 133 191 448 Control 0 0 0 17 31 68 121 236 687 mm 3 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Embol-X: Mean (sd): 321.3 (778.3) Median (IQR): 74 (0, 322) Control: Mean (sd): 484.4 (2169.5) Median (IQR): 35 (0, 168) p=0.49 P=0.59 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Embol-X 0 0 11 29 74 117 213 374 641 Control 0 0 0 17 35 69 133 273 736

% of Patients Clinical Stroke 9% 8% 7% 6% 5.1% P=0.61 5.8% 8.3% P=0.49 6.1% P=0.77 Severe (>20) Moderate (5-15) Mild (0-4) 5% 6% P=.99 5.3% 5% 4% 3.4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 7 Days 3 Days

% of Patients Delirium at 7 Days 20% P=0.03 P=0.07 15% 10% Active Control 5% 0% CardioGard vs. Control Embol-X vs Control

% of Patients Composite Clinical Endpoint at 30 Days 40.0% 35.0% P=0.08 Clinical ischemic stroke Acute kidney injury Death 30.0% P=0.61 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% Active Control 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% CardioGard vs. Control Embol-X vs Control

Rate per 100-pt mths Rate per 100-pt mths AEs at 90 Days 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 P=0.55 Bleeding Bleeding P=0.12 Neurological Dysfunction Neurological Dysfunction CardioGard Embol-X P=0.74 P=0.75 P=0.24 P=0.02 Control AKI Cardiac Arrhytmias All Serious AEs Control P=0.35 P<0.01 P=0.22 P=0.08 AKI Cardiac Arrhytmias All Serious AEs

% of Patients w/ Decline % of Patients w/ Decline Neurocognitive Decline at 90 Days 60% 50% 40% P=0.14 P=0.65 CardioGard P=0.82 Control 30% 20% 10% 0% Verbal Memory Executive Function Overall Cognition 60% Embol-X Control 50% 40% P=0.40 P=0.05 P=0.54 30% 20% 10% 0% Verbal Memory Executive Function Overall Cognition

Limitations This trial was first experience with these devices in study sites MRI infarcts were diagnosed with both 1.5T and 3T scanners possibly creating heterogeneity Trial was underpowered for clinical stroke and other endpoints especially since stopped early One third of strokes occurred after day 3 and would not be expected to be impacted by protection devices 90 day follow up does not adequately assess long term neurocognitive outcomes

Summary In patients undergoing SAVR, the use of 2 different embolic protection devices Was NOT associated with an improvement in Freedom from clinical or radiographic infarction Clinical stroke Overall volume of CNS infarcts by MRI Neurocognitive outcomes at 90 days Was associated with Capture of embolic debris in most patients A reduction in delirium An observed difference in infarct size distribution with fewer large volume infarcts An increase in AE s in the Embol-X patients

Conclusions We were unable to demonstrate an increase in freedom from CNS infarction with 2 different devices compared with control Baseline cognitive impairment exists in 1/4-1/3 of neurologically normal patients undergoing SAVR A majority of patients undergoing SAVR have evidence of radiographic infarct by MRI. The association between clinical and radiographic findings in this study and long-term neurocognitive outcomes is the subject of ongoing investigation

Implications This is the first large multicenter trial to collect information on brain injury after SAVR The relationship between brain injury and long term neurocognitive outcomes will be further explored