5

Click here to load reader

EVEREST II trial - Summary & Results

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

http://www.theheart.org/web_slides/1146109.do The first randomized trial to compare outcomes with MitraClip vs surgery

Citation preview

Page 1: EVEREST II trial - Summary & Results

EVEREST II (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-

Edge Repair Study)

Page 2: EVEREST II trial - Summary & Results

EVEREST II (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair Study)

•The first randomized trial to compare outcomes with MitraClip vs surgery

•Population and treatment:

279 patients with significant mitral regurgitation (3+ to 4+); patients had to

be symptomatic or have documented LV dysfunction

Randomized 2:1 to the MitraClip procedure or to surgical repair or

replacement at the surgeon's discretion

•Outcomes:

Primary efficacy end point: major adverse events at 30 days (to show

superiority) and clinical success ratea

Primary safety end point: wide-ranging combination of adverse events

including death, major stroke, reoperation, urgent/emergent surgery, MI,

renal failure, and blood transfusions, among others

T Feldman (Evanston Hospital, Evanston, IL) American College of Cardiology 2010 Scientific Sessions/i2 Summit

a. Freedom from a combination of death, mitral-valve surgery or reoperation for mitral-valve dysfunction, and an improvement of at least two grades of mitral regurgitation at 12 months (designed to demonstrate noninferiority of the clip device)

Page 3: EVEREST II trial - Summary & Results

End point Clip (%) Surgery (%)

Safety, per protocol 9.6 57.0

Efficacy, per protocol 72.4 87.8

Safety, intention to treat 15 47.9

Efficacy, intention to treat 66.9 74.2

Safety and efficacy end points at 30 days

• The primary safety end point (per-protocol analysis) significantly favored the

percutaneous procedure at 30 days—need for blood transfusions was the main

driver (8.8% vs 53.2%)

•The overall clinical success rate was numerically higher in the surgery group for

the primary efficacy end point (per-protocol analysis)—87.8% vs 72.4%—but

this difference met the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis of 31%

EVEREST II: Results

All between-group differences statistically significant

Page 4: EVEREST II trial - Summary & Results

EVEREST II: Commentary*

*All comments from EVEREST II: Mitral-clip device noninferior to surgical repair or replacement

(http://www.theheart.org/article/1054941.do)

"The most striking thing in our experience is the remarkable clinical response. I've had

patients who literally could not walk across the road without getting shortness of breath

and who go home after this procedure and, in less than a week, are doing water

aerobics."

- Dr Ted Feldman

"This is going to be considered banner news at a cardiology meeting, but it's not terribly

surprising for sites that have been involved in the trials."

- Dr Craig Smith

"There are very few surgeons who would leave an operating room with a 2+ mitral

regurgitation after an attempted valve repair and feel good about it."

- Dr Scott Millikan

Page 5: EVEREST II trial - Summary & Results

theheart.org is the leading online source of independent cardiology news.

We are the top provider of news and opinions for over 100 000 physicians.

Become a member of http://www.theheart.org

Become a fan on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/theheartorg

Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/theheartorg