Faculty Bibliography
Searched for:
in-biosketch:true
person:willim33
Total Results:
256
Circulation. Cardiovascular quality & outcomes. 2015:8(4):338-46.DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001335
Temporal Trends in Quality of Life Outcomes After Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) Trial Substudy
BACKGROUND: In the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) randomized controlled trial (RCT), which represented the first exposure to transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR) for many clinical sites, high-risk patients undergoing TA-TAVR derived similar health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). With increasing experience, it is possible that HRQoL outcomes of TA-TAVR may have improved. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated HRQoL outcomes at 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups among 875 patients undergoing TA-TAVR in the PARTNER nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry and compared these outcomes with those of the TA-TAVR and SAVR patients in the PARTNER RCT. HRQoL was assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12, and the EuroQoL-5D, with the KCCQ overall summary score serving as the primary end point. The NRCA TA-TAVR and RCT TA-TAVR and SAVR groups were generally similar. The primary outcome, the KCCQ summary score, did not differ between the NRCA TA-TAVR and the RCT TA-TAVR group at any follow-up timepoints, although there were small differences in favor of the NRCA cohort on several KCCQ subscales at 1 month. There were no significant differences in follow-up HRQOL between the NRCA-TAVR and the RCT SAVR cohorts on the KCCQ overall summary scale or any of the disease-specific or generic subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Despite greater experience with TA-TAVR in the NRCA registry, HRQoL outcomes remained similar to those of TA-TAVR in the original RCT cohort and no better than those with SAVR. These findings have important implications for patient selection for TAVR when transfemoral access is not an option. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.
PMCID:4786368
PMID: 26058718
ISSN: 1941-7705
CID: 1684612
5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial
BACKGROUND: Based on the early results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable for surgery. However, little information is available about the late clinical outcomes in such patients. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 21 experienced valve centres in Canada, Germany, and the USA. We enrolled patients with severe symptomatic inoperable aortic stenosis and randomly assigned (1:1) them to transfemoral TAVR or to standard treatment, which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The randomisation was done centrally, and sites learned of the assignment only after a patient had been screened, consented, and entered into the database. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality at 1 year in the intention-to-treat population, here we present the prespecified findings after 5 years. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3015 patients, of whom 358 were enrolled (mean age 83 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality 11.7%, 54% female). 179 were assigned to TAVR treatment and 179 were assigned to standard treatment. 20 patients crossed over from the standard treatment group and ten withdrew from study, leaving only six patients at 5 years, of whom five had aortic valve replacement treatment outside of the study. The risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years was 71.8% in the TAVR group versus 93.6% in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.39-0.65; p<0.0001). At 5 years, 42 (86%) of 49 survivors in the TAVR group had New York Heart Association class 1 or 2 symptoms compared with three (60%) of five in the standard treatment group. Echocardiography after TAVR showed durable haemodynamic benefit (aortic valve area 1.52 cm(2) at 5 years, mean gradient 10.6 mm Hg at 5 years), with no evidence of structural valve deterioration. INTERPRETATION: TAVR is more beneficial than standard treatment for treatment of inoperable aortic stenosis. TAVR should be strongly considered for patients who are not surgical candidates for aortic valve replacement to improve their survival and functional status. Appropriate selection of patients will help to maximise the benefit of TAVR and reduce mortality from severe comorbidities. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.
PMID: 25788231
ISSN: 1474-547x
CID: 1649022
5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial
BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that mortality at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years is much the same with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. We report here the 5-year outcomes. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 25 hospitals, in Canada (two), Germany (one), and the USA (23). We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly assign high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to either SAVR or TAVR with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial tissue valve by either a transfemoral or transapical approach. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat population at 1 year, we present here predefined outcomes at 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3105 patients, of whom 699 were enrolled (348 assigned to TAVR, 351 assigned to SAVR). Overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 11.7%. At 5 years, risk of death was 67.8% in the TAVR group compared with 62.4% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.24; p=0.76). We recorded no structural valve deterioration requiring surgical valve replacement in either group. Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in 40 (14%) of 280 patients in the TAVR group and two (1%) of 228 in the SAVR group (p<0.0001), and was associated with increased 5-year risk of mortality in the TAVR group (72.4% for moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 56.6% for those with mild aortic regurgitation or less; p=0.003). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that TAVR as an alternative to surgery for patients with high surgical risk results in similar clinical outcomes. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.
PMID: 25788234
ISSN: 1474-547x
CID: 1649032
Feasibility and Early Safety of Single-Stage Hybrid Coronary Intervention and Valvular Cardiac Surgery
BACKGROUND: Hybrid percutaneous coronary intervention offers an alternative method of revascularization for high-risk surgical populations. We report the outcomes of a single-stage hybrid strategy in valvular cardiac surgery and explore its effects on operative risk and bleeding. METHODS: In a hybrid operating room, 26 patients underwent hybrid surgery consisting of femoral arterial access, then coronary stenting followed by valve surgery, with appropriate heparin dosing. Clopidogrel (300 mg) was given on anesthesia induction in nonreoperative cases, or at the time of cross clamping (after stenting) for reoperative cases. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 680 +/- 277 days. The planned coronary stenting and surgery was successful in all patients. Major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events occurred in 1 patient, with no inhospital deaths observed. No vascular complication or stent thrombosis was observed with the described antiplatelet regimen. Outcomes were comparable to those of standard bypass valve replacement surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility and early safety of a single-stage hybrid strategy with coronary stenting followed by valvular surgery in patients at increased surgical risk. Hybrid procedures may lower operative risk by eliminating or reducing the need for bypass grafting.
PMID: 25865767
ISSN: 1552-6259
CID: 1626942
Propensity-Matched Comparisons of Clinical Outcomes After Transapical or Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER)-I Trial Substudy
BACKGROUND: The higher risk of adverse outcomes after transapical (TA) versus transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) could be attributable to TA-TAVR being an open surgical procedure or to clinical differences between TA- and TF-TAVR patients. We compared outcomes after neutralizing patient differences using propensity score matching. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2007 to February 2012, 1100 Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER)-I patients underwent TA-TAVR and 1521 underwent TF-TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN balloon-expandable bioprostheses. Propensity matching based on 111 preprocedural variables, exclusive of femoral access morphology, identified 501 well-matched patient pairs (46% of possible matches), 95% of whom had peripheral arterial disease. Matched TA-TAVR patients experienced more adverse procedural events, longer length of stay (5 versus 8 days; P<0.0001), and slower recovery (New York Heart Association class I, 31% versus 38% at 30 days, equalizing by 6 months at 51% versus 47%); stroke risk was similar (3.4% versus 3.3% at 30 days and 6.0% versus 6.7% at 3 years); mortality was elevated for the first 6 postprocedural months (19% versus 12%; P=0.01); but aortic regurgitation was less (34% versus 52% mild and 8.9% versus 12% moderate to severe at discharge, P=0.001; 36% versus 50% mild and 10% versus 15% moderate to severe at 6 months, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of adverse periprocedural events and prolonged recovery is greater after TA-TAVR than TF-TAVR in vasculopathic patients after accounting for differences in cardiovascular risk factors, although stroke risk is equivalent and aortic regurgitation is less. As smaller delivery systems permit TF-TAVR in many of these patients, we recommend a TF-first access strategy for TAVR when anatomically feasible. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.
PMID: 25832034
ISSN: 1524-4539
CID: 1616172
Recommendations for Comprehensive Intraprocedural Echocardiographic Imaging During TAVR
Recent multicenter trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an alternative to surgery in a high risk population of patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis. Echocardiography and multislice computed tomographic imaging are accepted tools in the pre-procedural imaging of the aortic valve complex and vascular access. Transesophageal echocardiography can be valuable for intraprocedural confirmation of the landing zone morphology and measurements, positioning of the valve and post-procedural evaluation of complications. The current paper provides recommendations for pre-procedural and intraprocedural imaging used in assessing patients for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding transcatheter heart valves.
PMID: 25772834
ISSN: 1876-7591
CID: 1523062
Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients
BACKGROUND: The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement mandates attention to outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and very high-risk patients. METHODS: The study population included 141,905 patients who underwent isolated primary SAVR from 2002 to 2010. Patients were risk-stratified by Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) <4% (group 1, n = 113,377), 4% to 8% (group 2, n = 19,769), and >8% (group 3, n = 8,759). The majority of patients were considered at low risk (80%), and only 6.2% were categorized as being at high risk. Outcomes were analyzed based on two time periods: 2002 to 2006 (n = 63,754) and 2007 to 2010 (n = 78,151). RESULTS: The mean age was 65 years in group 1, 77 in group 2, and 77 in group 3 (p < 0.0001). The median STS PROM for the entire population was 1.84: 1.46% in group 1, 5.24% in group 2, and 11.2% in group 3 (p < 0.0001). Compared with PROM, in-hospital mean mortality was lower than expected in all patients (2.5% vs 2.95%) and when analyzed within risk groups was as follows: group 1 (1.4% vs 1.7%), group 2 (5.1% vs 5.5%), and group 3 (11.8% vs 13.7%) (p < 0.0001). In the most recent surgical era, operative mortality was significantly reduced in group 2 (5.4% vs 6.4%, p = 0.002) and group 3 (11.9% vs 14.4%, p = 0.0004) but not in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 80% of patients undergoing SAVR have outcomes that are superior to those by the predicted risk models. In the most recent era, early results have further improved in medium-risk and high-risk patients. This large real-world assessment serves as a benchmark for patients with aortic valve stenosis as therapeutic options are further evaluated.
PMID: 25442986
ISSN: 0003-4975
CID: 1449782
Aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease: what do we know? What don't we know? A comprehensive review of the literature with proposed treatment algorithms
Aortic valve stenosis is the most common form of valvular heart disease in the elderly population and occurs frequently in conjunction with coronary artery disease. The standard treatment option for patients with these two conditions has been surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting. The arrival of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has considerably shifted the treatment paradigms. Nevertheless, a lot of questions remain unanswered regarding the management of coronary artery disease in the setting of the transcatheter options for severe aortic stenosis. This article includes a comprehensive review of the literature and seeks to describe the actual knowledge on the topic of aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease.
PMID: 24970334
ISSN: 1522-9645
CID: 6073090
Long-term outcomes of inoperable patients with aortic stenosis randomly assigned to transcatheter aortic valve replacement or standard therapy
BACKGROUND:The long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:In the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) study, 358 patients were randomly assigned to TAVR or standard therapy. We report the 3-year outcomes on these patients, and the pooled outcomes for all randomly assigned inoperable patients (n=449) in PARTNER, as well, including the randomized portion of the continued access study (n=91). The 3-year mortality rate in the TAVR and standard therapy groups was 54.1% and 80.9%, respectively (P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.68; P<0.001). In survivors, there was significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional class sustained at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of strokes at 3-year follow-up was 15.7% in TAVR patients versus 5.5% in patients undergoing standard therapy (hazard ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-6.26; P=0.012); however, the composite of death or strokes was significantly lower after TAVR versus standard therapy (57.4% versus 80.9%, P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.77; P<0.001). Echocardiography showed a sustained increase in aortic valve area and decrease in transvalvular gradient after TAVR. Analysis of the 449 pooled randomly assigned patients (TAVR, n=220; standard therapy, n=229) demonstrated significant improvement in all-cause mortality and functional status during early and 3-year follow-up. The results of the pooled cohort were similar to the results obtained from the pivotal PARTNER trial. CONCLUSIONS:TAVR resulted in better survival and functional status in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis with durable hemodynamic benefit on long-term follow-up. However, high residual mortality, even in successfully treated TAVR patients, highlights the need for more strategic patient selection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL/BACKGROUND:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.
PMID: 25205802
ISSN: 1524-4539
CID: 5490192
Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation
BACKGROUND:Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. For surgical patients with moderate regurgitation, the benefits of adding mitral-valve repair to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) are uncertain. METHODS:We randomly assigned 301 patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation to CABG alone or CABG plus mitral-valve repair (combined procedure). The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), a measure of left ventricular remodeling, at 1 year. This end point was assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized as the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS:At 1 year, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 46.1±22.4 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 49.6±31.5 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean change from baseline, -9.4 and -9.3 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 6.7% in the combined-procedure group and 7.3% in the CABG-alone group (hazard ratio with mitral-valve repair, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 2.12; P=0.81). The rank-based assessment of LVESVI at 1 year (incorporating deaths) showed no significant between-group difference (z score, 0.50; P=0.61). The addition of mitral-valve repair was associated with a longer bypass time (P<0.001), a longer hospital stay after surgery (P=0.002), and more neurologic events (P=0.03). Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation was less common in the combined-procedure group than in the CABG-alone group (11.2% vs. 31.0%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, deaths, readmissions, functional status, or quality of life at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, the addition of mitral-valve repair to CABG did not result in a higher degree of left ventricular reverse remodeling. Mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation but an increased number of untoward events. Thus, at 1 year, this trial did not show a clinically meaningful advantage of adding mitral-valve repair to CABG. Longer-term follow-up may determine whether the lower prevalence of mitral regurgitation translates into a net clinical benefit. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).
PMID: 25405390
ISSN: 1533-4406
CID: 5451212
