Tamim M Nazif1, Jeffrey Moses1, Rahul Sharma2, Abhijeet Dhoble3, Joshua Rovin4, David Brown5, Philip Horwitz6, Rajendra Makkar7, Robert Stoler8, John Forrest9, Steven Messé10, Sarah Dickerman9, Joseph Brennan9, Robert Zivadinov11, Michael G Dwyer11, Alexandra J Lansky12. 1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 2. Division of Cardiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 3. University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Morton Plant Hospital, Clearwater, Florida, USA. 5. Heart Hospital Baylor, Plano, Texas, USA. 6. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 8. Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA. 9. Division of Cardiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 10. Department of Neurology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 11. Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA. 12. Division of Cardiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Barts Heart Centre, London and Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: alexandra.lansky@yale.edu.
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.
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.
Authors: Christian Frerker; Tobias Schmidt; Max M Meertens; Sascha Macherey; Sebastiaan Asselberghs; Samuel Lee; Jan Hendrik Schipper; Barend Mees; Ingo Eitel; Stephan Baldus Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 6.138
Authors: Nicholas Aroney; Tiffany Patterson; Christopher Allen; Simon Redwood; Bernard Prendergast Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Carolina Donà; Matthias Koschutnik; Christian Nitsche; Max-Paul Winter; Veronika Seidl; Jolanta Siller-Matula; Markus Mach; Martin Andreas; Philipp Bartko; Andreas Anselm Kammerlander; Georg Goliasch; Irene Lang; Christian Hengstenberg; Julia Mascherbauer Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-21
Authors: Anat Berkovitch; Amit Segev; Elad Maor; Alexander Sedaghat; Ariel Finkelstein; Matteo Saccocci; Ran Kornowski; Azeem Latib; Jose M De La Torre Hernandez; Lars Søndergaard; Darren Mylotte; Niels Van Royen; Azfar G Zaman; Pierre Robert; Jan-Malte Sinning; Arie Steinvil; Francesco Maisano; Katia Orvin; Gianmarco Iannopollo; Dae-Hyun Lee; Ole De Backer; Federico Mercanti; Kees van der Wulp; Joy Shome; Didier Tchétché; Israel M Barbash Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-06-28