Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium.

Abstract

To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a worthwhile less invasive treatment in many patients with severe aortic stenosis and since its introduction to the medical community in 2002, there has been an explosive growth in procedures. The integration of TAVI into daily clinical practice should be guided by academic activities, which requires a harmonized and structured process for data collection, interpretation, and reporting during well-conducted clinical trials.
The Valve Academic Research Consortium established an independent collaboration between Academic Research organizations and specialty societies (cardiology and cardiac surgery) in the USA and Europe. Two meetings, in San Francisco, California (September 2009) and in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (December 2009), including key physician experts, and representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and device manufacturers, were focused on creating consistent endpoint definitions and consensus recommendations for implementation in TAVI clinical research programs. Important considerations in developing endpoint definitions included (i) respect for the historical legacy of surgical valve guidelines; (ii) identification of pathophysiological mechanisms associated with clinical events; (iii) emphasis on clinical relevance. Consensus criteria were developed for the following endpoints: mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, and prosthetic valve performance. Composite endpoints for TAVI safety and effectiveness were also recommended.
Although consensus criteria will invariably include certain arbitrary features, an organized multidisciplinary process to develop specific definitions for TAVI clinical research should provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of this new important catheter-based therapy. The broadly based consensus endpoint definitions described in this document may be useful for regulatory and clinical trial purposes.

Full text

Page 1

.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Background
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a worthwhile less invasive treatment in many patients with severe
aortic stenosis and sinceits introductionto the medical community in2002, there hasbeen an explosivegrowthinpro-
cedures.TheintegrationofTAVIintodailyclinicalpracticeshouldbeguidedbyacademicactivities,whichrequiresahar-
monized and structured process for data collection, interpretation, and reporting during well-conducted clinical trials.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Methods
and results
organizations and specialty societies (cardiology and cardiac surgery) in the USA and Europe. Two meetings, in
San Francisco, California (September 2009) and in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (December 2009), including key
physician experts, and representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and device manufacturers,
were focused on creating consistent endpoint definitions and consensus recommendations for implementation in
TAVI clinical research programs. Important considerations in developing endpoint definitions included (i) respect
for the historical legacy of surgical valve guidelines; (ii) identification of pathophysiological mechanisms associated
with clinical events; (iii) emphasis on clinical relevance. Consensus criteria were developed for the following end-
points: mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, and prosthetic
valve performance. Composite endpoints for TAVI safety and effectiveness were also recommended.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Conclusion
Although consensus criteria will invariably include certain arbitrary features, an organized multidisciplinary process to
develop specific definitions for TAVI clinical research should provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the
CLINICAL RESEARCH
Valvular medicine
Standardized endpoint definitions for
transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical
trials: a consensus report from the Valve
Academic Research Consortium†
Martin B. Leon*, Nicolo Piazza, Eugenia Nikolsky, Eugene H. Blackstone,
Donald E. Cutlip, Arie Pieter Kappetein, Mitchell W. Krucoff, Michael Mack,
Roxana Mehran, Craig Miller, Marie-ange `le Morel, John Petersen, Jeffrey J. Popma,
Johanna J.M. Takkenberg, Alec Vahanian, Gerrit-Anne van Es, Pascal Vranckx,
John G. Webb, Stephan Windecker, and Patrick W. Serruys
Columbia University Medical Center, Center for Interventional Vascular Therapy, 173 Fort Washington Avenue, Heart Center, 2nd floor, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Received 8 July 2010; revised 30 September 2010; accepted 6 October 2010
Objectives
To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implan-
tation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful compari-
sons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical
research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health.
The Valve Academic Research Consortium established an independent collaboration between Academic Research
†The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) consists of representatives from several independent Academic Research Organizations, several Surgery and Cardiology
Societies, members of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and several independent experts (Appendices 1 and 2).
*Corresponding author. Tel: +1 212 342 3617, Fax: +1 212 342 3660, Email: mleon@crf.org
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. The article has been co-published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. & The
Author 2010. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article
for non-commercial purposes provided that the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal, Learned Society and Oxford University Press are attributed as the
original place of publication with correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this
must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
European Heart Journal (2011) 32, 205–217
doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq406

Page 2

evaluation of this new important catheter-based therapy. The broadly based consensus endpoint definitions
described in this document may be useful for regulatory and clinical trial purposes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Keywords
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Introduction
Since the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation
(TAVI) in 20021, there has been increasing interest in the field of
catheter-based treatment of high-surgical-risk patients with symp-
tomatic aortic stenosis (AS).2–7Introduction of this new technol-
ogyshouldideallyfollow the
evidence-based medicine pattern, starting with pre-clinical testing
and advancing to clinical investigations. Unfortunately, the explo-
sive growth of TAVI (Figure 1) has created a ‘clinical data conun-
drum’: investigators were not prepared to optimally organize and
interpret clinical data for this radically different treatment, render-
ing thoughtful assessment of clinical trial outcomes difficult and
inter-study results comparisons problematic.8–11
Surgical valve clinical research guidelines have been developed
using a more traditional ‘multi-society approach’, have been
revised approximately every 10 years, incorporate not merely clini-
cal endpoints but also issues such as structural valve deterioration
and non-structural valve dysfunction, and often divide clinical
events into those that are valve and non-valve related.12Interven-
tional cardiology has a tradition of agreed upon clinical endpoint
definitions and clinical trial methodologies13,14and recently has
incorporated a consensus process to standardize key endpoint
definitions by convening an Academic Research Consortium
(ARC) among Academic Research Organizations (AROs) from
the USA and Europe joined by representatives from the USFDA
and device manufacturers.14The ARC process demonstrated the
standardbench-to-bedside
power of a well-managed international goal-directed academic
consortium collaborating effectively with the FDA and industry
to establish consensus clinical endpoint definitions and to
improve the conduct of clinical research.
In the spirit of the ARC-mission statement,14the ‘Valve Aca-
demic Research Consortium’ (VARC) was organized as an
amalgam of the ARO and multi-society guideline models with
strong participation from independent experts, the FDA, and
medical device manufacturers (Appendices 1 and 2). Two
in-person meetings on 19 September 2009 in San Francisco, CA
and on 5–6 December 2009 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
involving VARC study group members and invited guests (including
the FDA and industry representatives) provided much of the sub-
stantive discussion from which this consensus manuscript was
derived.
The goals of VARC are to combine the expertise of surgeons,
interventionalists, medical cardiologists, clinical trialists, and
other specialists (representing relevant disciplines including echo-
cardiography, vascular medicine, and neurology) to arrive at a
consensus for (i) selecting appropriate clinical endpoints reflecting
device, procedure and patient-related effectiveness and safety,
and (ii) standardizing definitions for single and composite clinical
endpoints.
Importantly, this first consensus manuscript was not intended as
a ‘guidelines statement’ or a ‘guidance document’, but rather
should be viewed as a roadmap to facilitate the standardization
of future TAVI and other aortic valve clinical research
Figure 1 Current generation transcatheter aortic valve therapies. (A) balloon-expandable, stainless steel support structure, bovine pericardial
valve; (B) self-expanding, nitinol support structure, porcine pericardial valve.
M.B. Leon et al.
206

Page 3

Principles for selecting and
defining clinical endpoints for
transcatheter aortic valve
implantation investigations:
general considerations
Criteria for endpoint definitions
The definitions of major clinical endpoints must follow a multi-step
thought process.
† Each major endpoint should address issues that establish either
the safety and/or the effectiveness of the proposed new therapy.
– Safety is characterized by the avoidance of device-related or
procedural complications.
– Effectiveness is a more complex descriptor, as it encompasses
both the avoidance of negative disease-related outcomes and
objective measures of clinical functional benefit.
† The endpoints should relate short- and long-term pathophysiolo-
gical mechanisms to meaningful clinical events.
† Endpoint definitions must be consistent with the body of pub-
lished literature, but still reflect unique or evolving aspects of
the new therapy.
† The emphasis should be on definitions that accurately represent
essential patient-oriented clinical outcomes.
† The endpoints must be well defined (preferably through blinded
adjudication processes) such that they can be to be subjected to
statistical analysis.
It is helpful to reference a standardized definition format regarding
(i) the specific treatment, (ii) the place of occurrence, (iii) the time
of occurrence, and (iv) the specific type of endpoint.
Device, procedure, and patient-oriented
outcomes
Endpoint definitions for TAVI will in most cases be characterized in
relation to the specific implant device, the implant procedure, and
the resultant patient-oriented outcomes, which can occur at any
time after the procedure. During the early phases of therapy devel-
opment, particular attention must be directed to the safety and
performance of the device. Therefore, VARC tries to strike a com-
promise by also elucidating device and procedure-related events,
which are essential to the understanding of a new class of catheter-
based therapies.
Since TAVI is fundamentally the placement of a prosthetic aortic
valve and will be compared with surgical aortic valve replacement
(AVR), tradition should be respected and crucial endpoints such as
all-cause mortality and device durability must be assessed longitud-
inally for the life of the implant.12However, primary clinical end-
points used in pivotal clinical trials for regulatory approval of
TAVI devices should incorporate a shorter time domain of 1 to
2 years after the index procedure. These recommended shorter
time horizons should not discourage the standard long-term
follow-up procedures for prosthetic heart valves.
Proposed safety and efficacy
endpoints
Mortality
All-cause mortality in surgical clinical trials has become the ‘gold
standard’ in previously published consensus and guideline docu-
ments.12The advantage of reporting all-cause mortality is that it
is both objective (without bias) and pragmatic from the standpoint
of ascertainment and adjudication. However, the use of all-cause
mortality in high-risk TAVI patients may be misleading, resulting
in disproportionate reporting of mortal events unrelated to
either the treatment device or the procedure. Therefore, VARC
proposes to use all-cause mortality as a primary clinical endpoint,
but also recommends further subdivision of mortality, specifically
denoting cardiovascular mortality as an important secondary end-
point (Table 1). Of note, ‘unknown’ deaths should be considered
as cardiovascular in origin and to improve the ascertainment of
death, the social security death index or national death registries
should be utilized in cases of patients lost to follow-up.
Consistent with surgical guidelines and surgical clinical trial
practices,12mortality should be formally assessed and reported
at 30 days after the index procedure (or longer if the patient
was not discharged from the treatment hospital or a secondary
convalescent facility). Since there may be either unknown or
under-reporting of early device failure modes, a more appropriate
duration for all-cause mortality as a primary endpoint in TAVI
clinical trials is 1 year after the index procedure. After 1 year,
mortality should be recorded at yearly intervals for a minimum
of 5 years, or ideally, for the duration of the prosthetic valve
implant, in the form of well-defined post-approval surveillance
registries.
Myocardial infarction
In 2007, the joint ESC/ACC/AHA/WHF task force for the redefini-
tion of Myocardial infarction (MI) established diagnostic criteria
and updated guidelines for a universal MI definition to be used in
clinical trials.13This universal MI definition is highly sensitive,
relying heavily on the measurement of cardiac biomarkers (prefer-
ably troponin). Conversely, surgical valve guidelines have adopted a
................................................................................
Any one of the following criteria:
Any death due to proximate cardiac cause (e.g. MI, cardiac
tamponade, worsening heart failure)
Unwitnessed death and death of unknown cause
All procedure-related deaths, including those related to a
complication of the procedure or treatment for a complication
of the procedure
Death caused by non-coronary vascular conditions such as
crebrovascular disease, pulmonary embolism, ruptured aortic
aneurysm, dissecting aneurysm, or other vascular disease
Table 1
Mortality
Cardiovascular mortality
VARC consensus endpoints after TAVI for high risk AS
207

Page 4

‘minimalist’ approach to MI definitions, usually ignoring biomarker
diagnoses and excluding both intra-operative and post-operative
MIs, unless the MI was caused by a coronary embolus.12
Valve Academic Research Consortium proposes a more ‘cen-
trist’ approach to MI definitions after TAVI, recognizing that
many patients have coexistent aortic valve and coronary artery
disease,15
which requires an MI definition that does not
exclude peri-procedural or late MIs that may impact patient out-
comes. Valve Academic Research Consortium proposes to define
peri-procedural MI as an acute ischaemic event that is associated
with documented and clinically significant myocardial necrosis
(Table 2). This definition does not include ischaemic events
after TAVI or surgery defined solely by biomarker elevations
without a clinically evident ischaemic insult. Since troponin
measurements are an extremely sensitive biomarker of myocar-
dial necrosis, VARC recommends that CPK-MB should be the
peri-procedural biomarker of choice in TAVI clinical trials. Bio-
marker samples ideally should be obtained at baseline, twice
after the procedure (separated by at least 6 h), and if still elev-
ated, daily thereafter until values are declining. Since TAVI may
involve open surgical procedures (e.g. transapical access), the bio-
marker diagnosis of peri-procedural MI requires a .20% increase
in the second post-procedure sample and a threshold elevation
of ten times the upper normal range. An electrocardiogram
should be collected at baseline and at least once after the pro-
cedure prior to discharge to document the presence or
absence of new Q-waves. The peri-procedural interval is inclusive
of all events that begin within 72 h of the index procedure. Acute
ischaemic events occurring after 72 h are considered spontaneous
MIs and are defined in accordance with the universal MI guide-
lines,13as further modified by ARC14(Table 2). Finally, a con-
firmed coronary embolus, occurring at any time, should be
reported as an independent event, if biomarker changes and
associated findings fulfil definition criteria.
Stroke
Recently, two reports have indicated a high frequency of new per-
fusion abnormalities (presumably embolic) detected by diffusion-
weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies soon after
TAVI,16,17although the clinical significance of these early perfusion
defects remains unclear. Strokes during and after TAVI may occur
due to embolic events from multiple sources, procedure-related
aortic dissections, ischaemia from hypotension, or haemorrhagic
complications associated with adjunctive pharmacotherapy. Insights
on stroke definitions are in a state of evolution and VARC examined
viewpoints derived from several sources, including recent multi-
society consensus documents12,18,19and multi-center randomized
trials, in which stroke was an important endpoint.20–29Valve Aca-
demicResearchConsortiumconsideredfiveimportantissuesinarriv-
ing at clinically relevant stroke definitions, as follows: (i) a clinical
diagnosis of stroke which ruled out metabolic or toxic encephalopa-
thy, pharmacological influences, and non-central neurological symp-
toms, (ii) the role of neuroimaging studies for confirmation of the
diagnosis, (iii) the distinction of stroke vs. transient ischaemic attack
(TIA) (including timing), (iv) categorization of stroke into major and
minor events based on the degree of disability as defined by conven-
tional neurological assessment tools, and (v) sub-classification of
strokes into haemorrhagic, ischaemic, and undetermined categories.
Table 3 outlines the diagnostic criteria and specific definitions for
TIA and stroke as proposed by VARC. There is growing accep-
tance that neuroimaging is an important biomarker for the diagno-
sis of neuronal injury and stroke18,19and diffusion-weighted MRI is
generally considered the procedure of choice in the context of
acute neurological syndromes.30If a stroke is reported without evi-
dence of confirmation of the diagnosis by the methods outlined in
Table 3, the event may still be considered a stroke on the basis of
the clinical presentation alone, but formal adjudication by qualified
neurologists who are members of, or consultants to, a clinical
events committee is mandatory. Patients with a global encephalo-
pathy will not be reported as a stroke without unequivocal neuroi-
maging findings. Diagnosis of stroke in patients with a previously
documented neurological deficit is more problematic and requires
clinical assessment by a neurologist accompanied by appropriate
new CT or MRI findings. In patients with a previous stroke and per-
sistent neurological deficits, baseline pre-treatment neurological
consultation and neuroimaging studies are recommended.
The earliest time of new neurological symptoms is defined as
the time of onset of the stroke or TIA. When a patient awakens
or begins responding (if previously unconscious) after the index
................................................................................
Spontaneous MI (.72 h after the index procedure)
Any one of the following criteria:
Detection of rise and/or fall of cardiac biomarkers (preferably
troponin) with at least one value above the 99th percentile URL,
together with evidence of myocardial ischaemia with at least one
of the following:
ECG changes indicative of new ischaemia [new ST-T changes or
new left bundle branch block (LBBB)]
New pathological Q waves in at least two contiguous leads
Imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium or new wall
motion abnormality
Sudden, unexpected cardiac death, involving cardiac arrest, often
with symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischaemia, and
accompanied by presumably new ST elevation, or new LBBB,
and/or evidence of fresh thrombus by coronary angiography and/
or at autopsy, but death occurring before blood samples could
be obtained, or at a time before the appearance of cardiac
biomarkers in the blood.
Pathological findings of an acute myocardial infarction.
Table 2
Myocardial infarction
Peri-procedural MI (≤72 h After the index procedure)
New ischaemic symptoms (e.g. chest pain or shortness of breath),
or new ischaemic signs (e.g. ventricular arrhythmias, new or
worsening heart failure, new ST-segment changes,
haemodynamic instability, or imaging evidence of new loss of
viable myocardium or new wall motion abnormality),
AND
Elevated cardiac biomarkers (preferably CK-MB) within 72 h after
the index procedure, consisting of two or more post-procedure
samplesthat are .6–8 h apartwith a 20% increase in the second
sampleand a peak valueexceeding10x the 99thpercentile upper
reference limit (URL), or a peak value exceeding 5x the 99th
percentile URL with new pathological Q waves in at least two
contiguous leads.
M.B. Leon et al.
208

Page 5

procedure with obvious new signs of a neurological deficit, the
stroke or TIA is considered to have occurred during the index pro-
cedure. The diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack is defined as
complete resolution of new neurological symptoms usually
within 1–2 h but always within 24 h and also requires a normal
neuroimaging study.18,19A stroke fulfiling the diagnostic criteria
in Table 3 is classified as a major stroke based upon ongoing signifi-
cant clinical disability, defined as a Modified Rankin Score ≥2.
Although the initial Modified Rankin Score should be recorded
after 7 days or at the time of hospital discharge, the attribution
of clinically significant disability requires a Modified Rankin Score
≥2 at both 30 and 90 days follow-up (allowing sufficient time
for stroke disability to stabilize). The Modified Rankin Score deter-
minations should be performed by qualified individuals who have
undergone a certification process.31–34A minor stroke must also
fulfil stroke diagnostic criteria, with either resolution of new
neurological symptoms within 24 h or persistence of symptoms
.24 h and a Modified Rankin Score ,2 at both 30 and 90 days
follow-up. If there is discordance between the 30 and 90-day
Modified Rankin Scores, the final determination of major vs.
minor strokes should be adjudicated by the neurology members
of the clinical events committee. For the purposes of clinical trial
endpoints, VARC advocates that only major strokes should be con-
sidered as an important safety endpoint, however, all neurological
events should be reported as adverse events.
Stroke will be further stratified into ischaemic, haemorrhagic, or
undetermined origin utilizing newly proposed definitions by an
FDA consensus panel.35Ischaemic stroke is as an acute sympto-
matic episode of focal cerebral, spinal, or retinal dysfunction
caused by an infarction of central nervous system tissue. Haemor-
rhagic stroke is an acute symptomatic episode of focal or global
cerebral or spinal dysfunction caused by a non-traumatic intrapar-
enchymal, intraventricular, or subarachnoid haemorrhage. An
undetermined stroke is a stroke with insufficient information to
allow categorization as either of ischaemic or haemorrhagic origin.
Bleeding complications
Bleeding is a critical safety endpoint in evaluating contemporary
pharmacological agents and interventional devices.36–44Valve Aca-
demic Research Consortium carefully reviewed several literature
sources including (i) landmark clinical trials assessing the effects
of anti-thrombotic medications in stable and acute coronary syn-
dromes,45–59(ii) a report by the Control of Anticoagulation Sub-
committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and
Haemostasis,60and (iii) surgery guidelines after cardiac valve
procedures.12
The definition of clinically meaningful bleeding was guided by the
following principles: (i) the definition must be based on objective
criteria, including an obvious source of bleeding or number of
transfusions; (ii) serious or meaningful bleeding must result in
death, be life-threatening, be proven to be associated with
................................................................................
Major bleeding
Overt bleeding either associated with a drop in the haemoglobin
level of at least 3.0 g/dL or requiring transfusion of two or three
units of whole blood/RBC AND
Does not meet criteria of life-threatening or disabling bleeding
................................................................................
Minor Bleeding
Any bleeding worthy of clinical mention (e.g. access site
haematoma) that does not qualify as life-threatening, disabling or
major
Table 4
Bleeding
Life-threatening or disabling bleeding
Fatal bleeding OR
Bleeding in a critical area or organ, such as intracranial, intraspinal,
intraocular, or pericardial necessitating pericardiocentesis, or
intramuscular with compartment syndrome OR
Bleeding causing hypovolemic shock or severe hypotension
requiring vasopressors or surgery OR
Overt source of bleeding with drop in haemoglobin of ≥5 g/dL or
whole blood or packed red blood cells (RBCs) transfusion ≥4
unitsa
aGiven one unit of packed RBC typically will raise blood haemoglobin
concentration by 1 g/dL, an estimated decrease in haemoglobin will be calculated.
................................................................................
Stroke definitions
Transient ischaemic attack:
New focal neurological deficit with rapid symptom resolution
(usually 1–2 h), always within 24 h
Neuroimaging without tissue injury
Stroke: (diagnosis as above, preferably with positive neuroimaging
study)
Minor—Modified Rankin score ,2 at 30 and 90 daysb
Major—Modified Rankin score ≥2 at 30 and 90 days
Table 3
Stroke
Stroke diagnostic criteria
Rapid onset of a focal or global neurological deficit with at least one
of the following: change in level of consciousness, hemiplegia,
hemiparesis, numbness or sensory loss affecting one side of the
body, dysphasia or aphasia, haemianopia, amaurosis fugax, or
other neurological signs or symptoms consistent with stroke
Duration of a focal or global neurological deficit ≥24 h; OR , 24 h,
if therapeutic intervention(s) were performed (e.g. thrombolytic
therapy or intracranial angioplasty); OR available neuroimaging
documents a new haemorrhage or infarct; OR the neurological
deficit results in death
No other readily identifiable non-stroke cause for the clinical
presentation (e.g. brain tumour, trauma, infection,
hypoglycaemia, peripheral lesion, pharmacological influences)a
Confirmation of the diagnosis by at least one of the following:
Neurology or neurosurgical specialist
Neuroimaging procedure (MR or CT scan or cerebral
angiography)
Lumbar puncture (i.e. spinal fluid analysis diagnostic of
intracranial haemorrhage)
aPatients with non-focal global encephalopathy will not be reported as a stroke
without unequivocal evidence based upon neuroimaging studies.
bModified Rankin Score assessments should be made by qualified individuals
according to a certification process. If there is discordance between the 30 and 90
day Modified Rankin Scores, a final determination of major vs. minor stroke will be
adjudicated by the neurology members of the clinical events committee.
VARC consensus endpoints after TAVI for high risk AS
209

Page 6

increased long-term mortality, cause chronic sequellae, or
consume major health-care resources. The VARC definition of
bleeding complications (Table 4) is divided into life-threatening
or disabling bleeding, major bleeding, and minor bleeding; anything
but minor bleeding constitutes a serious or meaningful bleeding
event.
Given the ample body of literature suggesting that administration
of whole blood or red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in patients
with cardiovascular pathology may be potentially harmful,41–44
VARC considers that any whole blood or RBC transfusion needs
to be reported in the case report forms, including the number
of transfused units, regardless of the presence or absence of
overt bleeding. Transfusions also need to be further stratified
into those associated with overt bleeding and those in the
absence of overt bleeding. Bleeding complications and transfusions
should also be characterized relative to the time of occurrence
including during the procedure, within the index hospitalization,
or post-discharge.
Acute kidney injury
The natural history of acute kidney injury (AKI) in a variety of clini-
cal settings61–70is now well understood, including the recognition
that even small decreases in kidney function can have a dramatic
impact on the risk for subsequent mortality.69,70In recent
reports, AKI has been observed in 12–28% of patients undergoing
TAVI and was associated with a four times higher post-procedural
mortality.71,72
In defining the stages of AKI, VARC proposes adopting serum
creatinine criteria from the ‘modified’ RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure,
Loss, and End-stage kidney disease) classification (Table 5).73The
RIFLE classification74–76has been validated in the setting of inten-
sive care units and cardiac surgery77–81and provides practical defi-
nitions for early stages of renal dysfunction when kidney injury can
still be prevented, as well as stages when the kidney has already
been damaged and renal failure is established. Modifications of
the original RIFLE classification include two important changes:
(i) smaller changes in serum creatinine (0.3 mg/dL) are included
in stage 1 (‘Risk’)82; (ii) the ‘Loss’ and ‘End-stage kidney disease’
categories have been removed due to a lack of uniform indications
and timing of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and variability in
RRT resources in different countries. An outer bound of 72 h
from the index procedure for diagnosing AKI was selected based
on evidence that adverse outcomes were observed when the
elevation occurred within 24 to 48 h of the procedure83and to
ensure that the process was both acute and related to the pro-
cedure itself rather than as a consequence of post-procedure
multi-organ system failure. Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage
kidney disease classifications also stress the predictive value of
urine output criteria in defining AKI, but VARC has not included
this measure in the definition of AKI since urine outputs may
not be measured accurately or routinely in all cases.
Valve Academic Research Consortium proposes to utilize the
modified RIFLE classification to (i) capture even the earliest
stages of AKI (stage 1) on case report forms, (ii) define AKI as
either stage 2 or 3, and (iii) report any case of RRT (haemodialysis,
peritoneal dialysis, or haemofiltration) occurring during the index
hospitalization or within 30 days after the index procedure.
Given the well-recognized damaging impact of contrast media on
renal function, VARC also recommends to report the volume
and type of contrast medium used during the index procedure.
Vascular complications
Recent TAVI literature indicates that major vascular complications
using various non-standardized definitions (e.g. with or without
including the need for blood transfusions) occur at a frequency
of 4–34% and are associated with a two- or three-fold higher
30-day mortality.84–87In defining vascular complications, VARC
referenced the reporting standards of the Society of Vascular
Surgery for defining and reporting vascular complications following
endovascular aortic graft repair procedures.88
Valve Academic Research Consortium proposes to report both
major and minor vascular complications, but to only consider
major vascular complications as an important clinical endpoint.
Of note, the ‘access site’ is defined as any location (arterial or
venous) traversed by a guide-wire, a catheter or a sheath [including
the left ventricular (LV) apex and the aorta] and ‘access related’ is
defined as any adverse clinical consequence possibly associated
with any of the access sites used during the procedure. The
VARC definitions for major and minor vascular complications are
described in Table 6.
Many vascular situations require special notice. Femoral vascular
access and closure in many centers is routinely achieved using sur-
gical cut-down procedures, and therefore, pre-planned surgical
access and/or closure should be considered as part of the pro-
cedure and not as a complication. Similarly, uncomplicated non-
femoral (e.g. retroperitoneal, iliac, subclavian, or aortic) surgical
access for sheath entry (planned or unplanned) is not considered
a vascular complication, unless untoward clinical consequences are
documented (e.g. bleeding complications). However, interven-
tional or surgical repair for failed percutaneous closure of the
arteriotomy site during the index procedure without other clinical
sequellae (Table 6) is considered a minor vascular complication.
Considering the recent proliferation of vascular access approaches
and the recognition that specific access sites and techniques may
be associated with either increased or decreased complications,
................................................................................
Stage 1 Increase in serum creatinine to 150–200% (1.5–
2.0 × increase compared with baseline) or increase of ≥0.3 mg/dL
(≥26.4 mmol/L)
Stage 2 Increase in serum creatinine to 200–300% (2.0–
3.0 × increase compared with baseline) or increase between .0.3
mg/dL (.26.4 mmol/L) and ,4.0 mg/dL (,354 mmol/L)
Stage 3aIncrease in serum creatinine to ≥300% (.3 × increase
compared with baseline) or serum creatinine of ≥4.0 mg/dL (≥354
mmol/L) with an acute increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL (44 mmol/L)
Table 5
classification)
Acute kidney injury (modified RIFLE
Change in serum creatinine (up to 72 h) compared with
baseline
aPatients receiving renal replacement therapy are considered to meet Stage 3
criteria irrespective of other criteria.
M.B. Leon et al.
210

Page 7

VARC strongly recommends that detailed information is recorded
on the access site and technique for each procedure.
A special circumstance relates to complications associated with
the left-ventricular apex site during transapical TAVI procedures.
Although such complications are less frequent than transarterial
vascular complications, a recent report indicates that the clinical
consequences (including death) can be more serious.89Major com-
plications associated with transapical TAVI procedures include
bleeding, pseudoaneurysm formation (with or without rupture),
and haemodynamic instability requiring urgent transarterial cardio-
pulmonary bypass support. Valve Academic Research Consortium
proposes that all such complications associated with transapical
TAVI be reported in case report forms and that clinical conse-
quences resulting from such complications be registered under
the appropriate clinical endpoints (e.g. bleeding, stroke, mortality).
Prosthetic valve performance
The clinical presentation of patients with prosthetic valve dysfunc-
tion is usually consistent with symptoms and signs of either valvular
regurgitation or stenosis. Valve Academic Research Consortium
proposes only two criteria to evaluate impaired prosthetic valve
performance: (i) prosthetic valve haemodynamics assessed by
echocardiography and (ii) associated clinical findings indicating
impaired cardiovascular or valvular function (e.g. new or worsening
congestive heart failure). Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is
usually adequate to evaluate prosthetic aortic valve function,90
although transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) may be very
useful in the setting of technically challenging or complex cases.
Serial echocardiography evaluations after surgical AVR and TAVI
should be performed at baseline, soon after the index procedure
(ideally within 24–48 h, but always before discharge), at 1
month (especially for TAVI), 12 months, and yearly thereafter.91,92
This follow-up schedule is more intensive than recommended in
the AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines for follow-up after surgical
AVR,91,92but more frequent documentation of valve function
and position is considered desirable for TAVI clinical trials.
Although the VARC definitions for impaired prosthetic valve
performance discount mechanistic characterizations, valve failure
mode(s) should be recorded whenever possible in case report
forms (Table 7). In addition to echocardiography, multi-slice com-
puted tomography may also provide useful insights into the
responsiblepatho-biological
malfunction.93,94
mechanisms ofdevice
Prosthetic aortic stenosis and
regurgitation
Utilizing the recent prosthetic valve echocardiography guidelines,90
the severity of prosthetic aortic valve stenosis is graded as (i)
normal, (ii) possible, or (iii) significant (Table 8) and prosthetic
aortic valve regurgitation (central or paravalvular) as (i) mild, (ii)
moderate, or (iii) severe (Table 9). The clinical significance of pros-
thetic valve dysfunction is further supported by the presence of
................................................................................
Aortic regurgitation
Pannus
Calcification
Support structure deformation (out-of-round configuration), recoil,
under-expansion, fracture, insufficient radial strength, or trauma
(cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, blunt chest trauma)
Endocarditis
Prosthetic valve thrombosis
Malposition (too high, too low)
Acute mal-coaptation
Leaflet wear, tear/perforation, prolapse, or retraction
Suture breakage or disruption
Native leaflet prolapse impeding prosthetic leaflet motion
Table 7
dysfunction
Potential failure modes of prosthetic valve
Aortic stenosis
Stent creep
Pannus
Calcification
Support structure deformation (out-of-round configuration),
under-expansion, fracture, or trauma (cardio-pulmonary
resuscitation, blunt chest trauma)
Mal-sizing (prosthesis-patient mismatch)
Endocarditis
Prosthetic valve thrombosis
Native leaflet prolapse impeding prosthetic leaflet motion
................................................................................
Minor vascular complications
Access site or access-related vascular injury (dissection, stenosis,
perforation, rupture, arterio-venous fistula or pseudoaneuysms
requiring compression or thrombin injection therapy, or
haematomas requiring transfusion of ≥2 but ,4 units) not
requiring unplanned percutaneous or surgical intervention and
not resulting in irreversible end-organ damage
Distal embolization treated with embolectomy and/or
thrombectomy and not resulting in amputation or irreversible
end-organ damage
Failure of percutaneous access site closure resulting in
interventional (e.g. stent-graft) or surgical correction and not
associated with death, need for significant blood transfusions
(≥4 units), or irreversible end-organ damage
Table 6
complications
Vascular access site and access-related
Major vascular complications
Any thoracic aortic dissection
Access site or access-related vascular injury (dissection, stenosis,
perforation, rupture, arterio-venous fistula, pseudoaneurysm,
haematoma, irreversible nerve injury, or compartment
syndrome) leading to either death, need for significant blood
transfusions (≥4 units), unplanned percutaneous or surgical
intervention, or irreversible end-organ damage (e.g. hypogastric
artery occlusion causing visceral ischaemia or spinal artery injury
causing neurological impairment)
Distal embolization (non-cerebral) from a vascular source requiring
surgery or resulting in amputation or irreversible end-organ
damage
VARC consensus endpoints after TAVI for high risk AS
211

Page 8

clinical signs, symptoms, and/or events (e.g. re-hospitalization for
worsening symptoms, re-operation or death).
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices are associated
with a higher frequency of mild and moderate paravalvular aortic
regurgitation (AR) than surgical AVR.95–107There is a need to
develop improved definitions and to better understand the long-
term clinical implications of paravalvular prosthetic AR. Unfortu-
nately, the precise grading of paravalvular AR remains controversial
and many echocardiography experts believe that grading schemes
for prosthetic central and paravalvular AR should be differ-
ent.90,108–111Recently, in the setting of TAVI, criteria for assessing
paravalvular AR severity have emphasized a ‘jet anatomy’ classifi-
cation, stressing the location, circumferential extent, and width of
the AR jet.90Haemodynamic factors can also be useful to assess
the AR severity immediately after valve implantation (e.g. loss of
aortic dicrotic notch, equalization of end-diastolic aortic and left
ventricular pressures). Since there is lack of clarity concerning
the long-term clinical implications of mild and moderate paravalv-
ular AR after TAVI, echocardiography core laboratories are useful
to ensure consistent evaluation methods. Echocardiograms should
be performed annually in those patients known to have post-
procedural paravalvular AR.
Prosthetic aortic valve thrombosis and
endocarditis
Although prosthetic valve thrombosis and prosthetic valve endo-
carditis have been included as potential failure modes for prosthe-
tic valve dysfunction (Table 7), they require reporting as individual
endpoints. Valve thrombosis is any thrombus attached to or near
an implanted valve that occludes part of the blood flow path, inter-
feres with valve function, or is sufficiently large to warrant treat-
ment.12Furthermore, valve thrombus found at autopsy in a
patient whose cause of death was not valve related or found at
operation for an unrelated indication should also be reported as
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Valve structure and motion
Mechanical or bioprostheticUsually normal
Structural parameters
Left ventricular sizeNormal
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Doppler parameters (qualitative or semi-quantitative)
Jet width in central jets (% LVO diameter): colora
Narrow (≤25%)
Jet density: CW DopplerIncomplete or faint
Jet deceleration rate (PHT, ms): CW Dopplerb
Slow (.500)
LV outflow vs. pulmonary flow: PW Doppler Slightly increased
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Diastolic flow reversal in the descending aorta:
PW Doppler Absent or brief early diastolic
Circumferential extent of paraprosthetic AR (%)c
,10
Doppler parameters (quantitative)
Regurgitant volume (mL/beat)
,30
Regurgitant fraction (%)
,30
Table 9
Prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation criteria (central and paravalvular)
Parameter MildModerateSevere
Usually abnormal Usually abnormal
Normal/mildly dilated Dilated
Intermediate (26–64%)
Dense
Variable (200–500)
Intermediate
Large (≥65%)
Dense
Steep (,200)
Greatly increased
Intermediate
10–20
Prominent, holodiastolic
.20
30–59
30–50
.60
.50
aParameter applicable to central jets and is less accurate in eccentric jets.
bInfluenced by left ventricular compliance.
cFor paravalvular aortic regurgitation.
AR, aortic regurgitation; CW, continuous wave; LVO, left ventricular outflow; PW, pulsed wave.
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Peak velocity (m/s)b
,3
Mean gradient (mmHg)b
,20
Doppler velocity index
≥0.30
Effective orifice area (cm2)
.1.2
Contour of the jet velocity through the prosthetic valveTriangular, early peaking
Acceleration time (ms)
,80
Table 8
Prosthetic aortic valve stenosis criteriaa
ParameterNormalPossible stenosis Significant stenosis
3–4
20–35
0.29–0.25
1.2–0.8
Triangular to intermediate
80–100
.4
.35
,0.25
,0.80
Rounded, symmetrical contour
.100
aIn conditions of normal or near normal stroke volume (50–70 mL).
bThese parameters are more affected by flow, including concomitant aortic regurgitation.
M.B. Leon et al.
212

Page 9

valve thrombosis. The diagnosis of prosthetic valve thrombosis is
best discerned during an echocardiographical examination or
during surgical exploration. There have already been case
reports and anecdotes112of transcatheter prosthetic valve throm-
bosis with and without important clinical consequences.
The diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis is based on one of
the following criteria12:
† reoperation with evidence of abscess, paravalvular leak, pus, or
vegetation confirmed as secondary to infection by histological
or bacteriological studies;
† autopsy findings of abscess, pus, or vegetation involving a
repaired or replaced valve;
† in the absence of reoperation or autopsy, fulfiling the Duke Cri-
teria for endocarditis.113
Isolated case reports of transcatheter aortic valve endocarditis have
alreadybeenpublished.114,115Owingtothevariabilityintranscatheter
valve designs and positioning within the aortic root, meticulous
reporting of the pattern of endocarditis is mandatory.116
Prosthetic valve ‘associated’
complications
Depending on the design characteristics and final implant position,
prosthetic aortic valves may come in close contact with the anterior
mitral valve leaflet, the intervalvular fibrosa, the aortic annulus, the
ventricular septum, the aortic sinuses and root, the coronary
arteries, and the cardiac conduction system. Collectively, these ana-
tomic structures, which are contiguous with the prosthetic aortic
valve, are referred to as the aortic valvar complex (Figure 2). As
such, prosthetic aortic valve procedures, and in particular TAVI,
may have untoward effects on any of these structures which may
result in important clinical consequences. Therefore, VARC
proposes to group these complications as a separate endpoint cat-
egory. However, it must be noted, that some of these adverse
events may not be directly related to The Valve prosthesis itself,
but may occur before or after valve implantation (e.g. conduction
disturbances after pre-implant balloon aortic valvuloplasty).
Conduction disturbances and cardiac
arrhythmias
The close anatomical relationship between the aortic valvar
complex and the branching atrioventricular bundle explains the
possible development of conduction abnormalities following pros-
thetic aortic valve procedures.117,118Following surgical AVR, new-
onset bundle branch block has been reported in 16–32% of
patients and the need for permanent pacemakers in 3–8% of
patients.119–123
In early experiences with TAVI, new-onset
bundle branch block has occurred in up to 45% of patients and
the need for permanent pacemakers has varied from as low as
4% to as high as 33%.95–98,124–128Differences among devices
and heterogeneity in physician and country-based healthcare
thresholds may explain the significant inter-hospital variability in
new permanent pacemaker requirements after TAVI.
Although the implications of persistent left bundle branch block
(LBBB) after TAVI are currently unknown, the presence of new
bundle branch block after surgical AVR has been associated
with increased risk of subsequent arrhythmic events during
follow-up (specifically, syncope, AV dissociation, and sudden
death).119,120Owing to this association between conduction
system abnormalities and adverse patient outcomes following sur-
gical AVR and several anecdotal reports after TAVI of either early
post-discharge severe bradyarrhythmic events or sudden cardiac
death,15VARC recommends to carefully document the occur-
rence of new conduction system abnormalities (left bundle
branch block and third degree atrioventricular block), as well as
the requirements and indications for new permanent pacemakers
within 30 days after the procedure. The timing (days) and location
(intra-procedural, in-hospital, or post-discharge) of the event
should also be recorded. To accurately capture such events,
daily ECGs and continuous telemetry ECG monitoring should
be considered while the patients are in-hospital, and should be
required in patients with any evidence of new conduction
abnormalities or arrhythmias.
Although conduction abnormalities associated with TAVI have
been a recent concern, it bears noting that new onset atrial fibrilla-
tion and ventricular arrhythmias have also been observed after
both TAVI and surgical AVR procedures.128In particular, new
onset atrial fibrillation occurs in as many as 20–30% of patients
after conventional surgical AVR129,130and any valid comparison
of transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve treatment strategies
should include a careful analysis of post-therapy supra-ventricular
and ventricular arrhythmias.
Coronary obstruction
Mechanical coronary artery obstruction following TAVI or surgical
AVR is rare and occurs in ,1% of patients.96,97The obstruction
typically occurs during the index procedure. Importantly, clinical
signs and symptoms may be subtle and not appreciated until
Figure 2 The aortic valvar complex, including the aortic valve,
annulus, sinuses, aorta, coronary arteries, membranous septum,
and the mitral valve.
VARC consensus endpoints after TAVI for high risk AS
213

Page 10

after the procedure. Possible mechanisms for mechanical coronary
obstruction include (i) impingement of the coronary ostia by The
Valve support structure in the setting of suboptimal valve position-
ing and/or ‘small aortic root’ anatomy; (ii) embolization from
calcium, thrombus, air, or endocarditis; (iii) displacement of
native aortic valve leaflets towards the coronary ostia during
TAVI,131,132and (iv) suture-related kinking or obstruction or
cannulation-related obstruction of the coronary ostia associated
with surgical AVR.
The diagnosis of TAVI-associated coronary obstruction can be
determined by imaging studies (coronary angiography, intravascular
ultrasound, multi-slice CT angiography, or echocardiography), sur-
gical exploration, or autopsy findings. Cardiac biomarker elevations
and ECG changes indicating new ischaemia provide corroborative
evidence.
Other prosthesis-related adverse events
The short- and long-term consequences of contact, trauma, or
impingement on the anterior mitral valve leaflet by the ventricular
end of a transcatheter aortic valve are currently unknown. Never-
theless, any new mitral valve dysfunction (e.g. worsening mitral
regurgitation or stenosis) or disruption (e.g. chordal rupture,
leaflet perforation, anterior mitral valve leaflet aneurysm) related
to contact with the transcatheter valve implant or mitral valve
endocarditis114–116should be carefully documented. Other infre-
quent complications following TAVI include new ventricular
septal defects and aortic root rupture/perforation/dissection,
occurring either during the pre-implant balloon aortic valvulo-
plasty, or during the transcatheter valve implant.133,134
Clinical benefit endpoints
In addition to the avoidance of mortality, specific endpoints to
establish the clinical benefit after TAVI are important. Objective
benefit parameters derived from the heart failure literature can
be adapted in valve-related clinical trials.135Several choices are
available, including exerciseperformance,136
New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional status,137and
various quality of life138and frailty questionnaires.139Each of
these symptom evaluation tools has strengths and weaknesses in
the TAVI patient population, which is disproportionately rep-
resented by elderly, frail, individuals with multiple co-morbidities.
For instance, exercise test performance is an appealing endpoint,
but as aortic valve therapy studies are unblinded, they may be
biased and they can be difficult to perform in high-risk TAVI
patients.
Valve Academic Research Consortium has also considered a cat-
egorical endpoint of clinical benefit which captures failure of
current AS therapy; hospitalization for symptoms of cardiac or
valve-related decompensation, at least 30 days after the index pro-
cedure (surgical AVR or TAVI). This endpoint mandates careful
adjudication by a clinical events committee and is defined as hos-
pitalization for symptoms of valve or cardiac deterioration (e.g.
new or worsening heart failure, angina, or syncope) requiring
either a valve procedure (surgery or interventional treatment) or
intensification of medical management (new or increased use of
inotropes, vasopressors, diuretics, and/or vasodilators).
assessmentof
Quality-of-life and healthcare economic instruments can be
useful to assess disability and impairment due to congestive
heart failure (e.g. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire)140
and for mapping health status compared with population-level
utility weights (e.g. EuroQOL questionnaire).141–143However,
quality-of-life questionnaires are also prone to bias and must be
uniformly administered. The time points for assessment of the
aforementioned clinical benefit endpoints should be at 30 days,
at 6 months, and at 1 year after initiating therapy. Valve Academic
Research Consortium recommends that if any measure of clinical
benefit is utilized in clinical trials, there must be careful oversight
and adjudication by experienced clinical events committees.
The assessment of ‘frailty’ in patients with advanced valvular
heart disease has become increasingly important and is usually
not included in surgical-risk algorithms. Frailty is loosely defined
as a biological syndrome of decreased reserve and resistance to
stressors, resulting from cumulative declines across multiple phys-
iological systems, and causing vulnerability to adverse outcomes.139
Various frailty indices have been developed and have been corre-
lated with worsening clinical outcomes in geriatric patients in
intensive care units and after surgery.144–146In general, the evalu-
ation of frailty demands a composite analysis of several categorical
and continuous variables including mobility, strength, endurance,
activities of daily living, cognitive impairment, and nutritional
status (as discerned by body mass index and biomarkers such as
serum albumin).147,148Although there is no standard frailty index
which has been applied and validated in high-risk AS patients, mul-
tiple preliminary efforts are ongoing and VARC proposes to
include measures of frailty in future clinical trials as a component
of clinical benefit endpoints.
Therapy-specific endpoints
Given the complex nature of TAVI procedures and the rapid evol-
ution of devices and procedural techniques, VARC proposes to
record in case report forms (but not as formal endpoints) an
open category of therapy-specific endpoints which may be relevant
to clinical outcomes or device performance. Examples of such
events include the following: (i) the unplanned use of cardio-
pulmonary bypass to manage haemodynamic compromise or to
reverse procedural complications; (ii) conversion from a ‘failed’
percutaneous transcatheter procedure to an ‘open’ surgical AVR
or to a surgical-access TAVI149,150; (iii) ventricular perforation
(for any reason) with and without cardiac tamponade151; (iv) pros-
thetic valve migration or dislocation from the native aortic valve
landing zone152,153; (v) frequency, reasons, and results of post-TAVI
balloon dilation; (vi) frequency, reasons, and results after place-
ment of a second valve over the original valve, so-called TAVI
‘valve-in-valve’154,155; (vii) integrity of the support structure, includ-
ing strut fractures, compression or other evidence of geometry dis-
tortion (requires careful serial imaging modalities including
cine-fluoroscopic analyses and echocardiography)90,156–158; (viii)
instances of device recapture (with or without repositioning), or
retrieval (removal from the body) which occur during the index
procedure; (ix) re-intervention (either percutaneous or surgical)
for any reason after the index procedure.159As appropriate, the
timing of these events (during the index procedure, in-hospital,
M.B. Leon et al.
214

Page 11

or post-discharge) should be carefully recorded. This category is
intended to be a dynamic platform and should be added to the
case report forms.
Clinically relevant composite
endpoints
Although VARC discourages the overuse of composite endpoints,
to achieve overall impressions of safety and effectiveness may
require the incorporation of more than single endpoints. These
strategic assessments of TAVI as an alternative therapy should
ideally include device, procedure, and patient-oriented factors.
Valve Academic Research Consortium proposes three composite
endpoints (Table 10): device success (intra-procedure), a combined
safety endpoint (at 30 days), and a combined efficacy endpoint (at
1 year or longer).
Device success is a ‘technical’ composite endpoint meant to
characterize the acute device and procedural factors which
underlie vascular access, delivery, and performance of the TAVI
system. Echocardiography should be routinely utilized as the stan-
dard for measuring prosthetic valve stenosis and regurgitation
immediately after TAVI, and should always be performed in a
resting state, either within 24–48 h after the index procedure or
before hospital discharge.
The 30-day combined safety endpoint is a hierarchical composite
of the most relevant patient-oriented safety endpoints previously
defined by VARC (Table 10). In addition, a repeat procedure in
the first 30 days (either surgery or intervention) to treat
valve-related dysfunction is also incorporated in this endpoint.
Examples of urgent repeat procedures would include balloon
aortic valvuloplasty or repeat TAVI (valve-in-valve) to treat
either paravalvular or central severe AR after the TAVI. The
focus on 30-day events after the index procedure is meant to
isolate safety concerns largely pertaining to early device perform-
ance and the procedure. Nonetheless, overall patient safety also
requires a careful examination of pertinent individual safety end-
points over the life history of the device.
The time-sensitive assessment of TAVI effectiveness requires a
more delayed combined efficacy endpoint incorporating major clini-
cal and valve performance factors. Valve Academic Research Con-
sortium proposes a 1-year (or longer) time interval for the
combined efficacy endpoint integrating three important endpoints:
(i) all-cause mortality after 30 days, meant to reflect therapy effec-
tiveness by measuring prevention of AS-related mortality over
time; (ii) failure of the current therapy for AS, requiring hospitaliz-
ation for symptoms of valve-related or cardiac decompensation
(adjudicated episodes of heart failure, angina, or syncope requiring
an aortic valve procedure or intensification of medical manage-
ment); (iii) evidence of prosthetic valve dysfunction, defined
using strict echocardiography criteria, possibly in conjunction
with other signs of functional deterioration.
Discussion
The VARC was convened in response to an urgent call for standar-
dized clinical research processes involving the emerging field of
transcatheter valve therapies, and more specifically, TAVI in
high-surgical-risk patients with AS. The inter-disciplinary nature
of TAVI, combining aspects of both surgical and interventional
therapies, presented special challenges and required an enlightened
and collaborative approach to the development of clinical research
recommendations and endpoint definitions.160,161The VARC
initiative is an attempt to achieve a necessary consensus among
the various subspecialties and stakeholders, such that this innova-
tive treatment strategy may be evaluated objectively and according
to a set of practical endpoint definitions.
This consensus manuscript is not intended to be interpreted as
a ‘guidelines’ or ‘guidance’ document and although thoroughly
reviewed by individuals from seven cardiology and cardiac surgery
societies, the content has not been subjected to a formal society
guidelines review process. These standardized endpoints are mea-
sureable, apply to both predicate surgical and new transcatheter
therapies, can be adjudicated by clinical events committees, and
can be used to compare findings from different clinical trials. By
intent, this consensus manuscript was not device-specific and the
definitions can be applied to next generation and iterative TAVI
devices already under early stages of clinical investigation.162–165
Given the rapid growth in transcatheter valve therapies, and the
potential exposure of this technology to lower risk patient popu-
lations, it is certain that this preliminary attempt to arrive at con-
sensus endpoint definitions for TAVI will need refinement in the
future. In principle, the consensus process calls for the highest
standards of clinical research, including (i) inter-disciplinary
experts gathering to arrive at standardized endpoint definitions,
................................................................................
Combined safety endpoint (at 30 days)
All-cause mortality
Major stroke
Life-threatening (or disabling) bleeding
Acute kidney injury—Stage 3 (including renal replacement therapy)
Peri-procedural MI
Major vascular complication
Repeat procedure for valve-related dysfunction (surgical or
interventional therapy)
................................................................................
Combined efficacy endpoint (at 1 year or longer)
All-cause mortality (after 30 days)
Failure of current therapy for AS, requiring hospitalization for
symptoms of valve-related or cardiac decompensation
Prosthetic heart valve dysfunction (aortic valve area ,1.2 cm2and
mean aortic valve gradient ≥20 mmHg or peak velocity ≥3 m/s,
OR moderate or severe prosthetic valve AR)
Table 10
Composite endpoints
Device success
Successful vascular access, delivery and deployment of the device
and successful retrieval of the delivery system
Correct position of the device in the proper anatomical location
Intended performance of the prosthetic heart valve (aortic valve
area .1.2 cm2and mean aortic valve gradient ,20 mmHg or
peak velocity ,3 m/s, without moderate or severe prosthetic
valve AR)
Only one valve implanted in the proper anatomical location
VARC consensus endpoints after TAVI for high risk AS
215

Page 12

(ii) harmonized and well-structured data collection, interpretation,
and reporting for specific TAVI-related clinical events, and (iii) the
consistent use of central core laboratories and independent,
blinded endpoint adjudication.
Many of the endpoints discussed in this manuscript are suffi-
ciently general that they can be applied to other AS populations
and to other valvular heart disease clinical research scenarios,
both surgical and interventional. This is particularly germane to
TAVI clinical research, as new studies involving lower risk AS
patients are already being considered. Importantly, recent
reports and randomized trials using new catheter-based mitral
valve therapies to treat mitral regurgitation166–168also suffer
from non-standardized endpoint definitions and might well
benefit from a comparable VARC consensus effort.
This consensus manuscript, which represents the ‘first step’ in a
much longer road to help improve clinical research in valvular
heart disease, has several limitations. The endpoint definitions
were intended to be reasonably broad, but nonetheless in some
instances are also intentionally narrow to address the specific con-
siderations of TAVI in high-surgical-risk patients with severe AS.
Therefore, application of all of these endpoint definitions to
other patient populations may be problematic. The important
area of pre-clinical device testing, both assessments of valve and
support structure properties and in vivo animal studies, is beyond
the scope of this manuscript. Other aspects of clinical trial
design and clinical trial methodologies are also essential to opti-
mize clinical research, but similarly, a comprehensive treatment
of these subjects could not be included in this manuscript.
Finally, many global endpoints, such as stroke and bleeding and
some specific endpoints, such as paravalvular regurgitation, are
themselves in a state of evolution, subject to modifications by
other consensus committees in the near future.
The VARC process embodied in this manuscript was an ambi-
tious multi-disciplinary attempt to bring order through consensus,
thereby providing standardization of clinical research in the bur-
geoning area of transcatheter aortic valve therapy. Hopefully, this
template can also serve as a model to improve clinical research
methodologies in the evaluation of new therapies for other cardio-
vascular diseases.
Funding
Grants were provided to the ARC Board including representatives of
The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Cardialysis, Duke Clinical
Research Institute and Harvard Clinical Research Institute to cover
the costs of travel, meeting rooms, and lodging for academic attendees
at the San Francisco and Amsterdam meetings by Edwards Lifesciences
and Medtronic Corporation. All funds not utilized for the aforemen-
tioned travel-related purposes have been returned to the sponsors.
Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article
was provided by Cardialysis BV on behalf of the Valve Academic
Research Consortium.
Conflict of interest:
Interest Disclosures individually prior to publication. The VARC meet-
ings involved members of the Interventional Cardiology Devices
Branch, of the Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, USFDA. The opinions or assertions herein are
the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as reflect-
ing the views of the FDA.
VARC Participants will provide Conflict of
Appendix 1
Valve Academic Research
Consortium Contributing Groups
(1) Academic Research Organizations
Cardialysis (Rotterdam, the Netherlands)
Cardiovascular Research Foundation (New York, NY,
USA)
Duke Clinical Research Institute (Durham, NC, USA)
Harvard Clinical Research Institute (Boston, MA,
USA)
(2) Societies
American Association for Thoracic Surgery
American College of Cardiology
American Heart Association
European Association for CardioThoracic Surgery
European Society of Cardiology
Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention
Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
(3) US Food and Drug Administration
(4) Industry Representatives
Appendix 2
Valve Academic Research
Consortium participants
(1) Clinical Research Organizations
(1) Cardialysis/Erasmus MC—Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Morel M.A.
Piazza, N.
Serruys, P.W.
Van Es, G.A.
Van Mieghem, N.
Vranckx, P.
(2) Cardiovascular Research Foundation—New York City,
NY, USA
Caixeta, A.
Dalton, K.
Haratani, N.
Kirtani, A.
Kodali, S.
Lansky, A.
Leon, M.B.
Mehran, R.
Nikolsky, E.
Williams, M.
(3) Duke Clinical Research Institute—Durham, NC, USA
Krucoff, M.W.
Petersen, J.
(4) Harvard Cardiovascular Research Institute—Boston, MA,
USA
Cutlip, D.E.
Pinto, D.
M.B. Leon et al.
216

Page 13

(2) Physician Society Representatives and Experts
Surgeons
Adams, D.—Mt. Sinai Medical Center, New York City,
USA
Kappetein,A.P.—Erasmus
Netherlands
Mack, M.—Medical City Hospital, Dallas, TX, USA
Miller, C.—Stanford University, CA, USA
Mohr,F.—HerzzentrumUniversita ¨t
Germany
Nataf, P.—CHU Bichat, Paris, France
Smith,C.—ColumbiaUniversity
New York City, NY, USA
Verrier, E.—University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Cardiologists
Bailey, S.—University of Texas, San Antonio, TX, USA
Bonan, R.—Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Canada
Bonhoeffer, P.—Great Ormond Street Hospital for Chil-
dren, London, UK
Bonow, R.—Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
Douglas, P.—Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Gillam, L.—ColumbiaUniversity
New York City, NY, USA
Iung, B.—CHU Bichat, Paris, France
Popma, J.J.—Beth Israel—Deaconess Medical Center,
Boston, MA, USA
Thomas, M.—Guys and St Thomas Hospital, London, UK
Tuzcu, M.—Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH,
USA
Vahanian, A.—CHU Bichat, Paris, France
Virmani, R.—CV Pathology Institute, Gaithersburg, MD,
USA
Webb, J.G.—St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Windecker,S.—University
Switzerland
Biostatistics/Clinical Epidemiology
Blackstone, E.—Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland,
OH, USA
Pocock, S.—London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, London, UK
Takkenberg,J.J.M.—Erasmus
Netherlands
US Food and Drug Administration
Hillebrenner, M.
Swain, J.
Zuckerman, B.
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
(MHRA)
Ludgate, S.
Industry Representatives
Akin, J.—Edwards Lifesciences, Orange, CA, USA
Armitage, T.—Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Martin, K.—Sadra Medical, Los Gatos, CA, USA
Sheahan, B.—Direct Flow Medical, Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Simonton, C.—Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA
MC,Rotterdam,the
Leipzig,Leipzig,
MedicalCenter,
MedicalCenter,
HospitalBern,Bern,
MC,Rotterdam,the
Wilson, R.—Heart Leaflet Technologies, Maple Grove,
MN, USA
Appendix 3
Minimum data collection and
endpoint requirements after TAVI
† Mortality (all cause and cardiovascular)
† Myocardial Infarction (peri-procedural and spontaneous)
† Stroke (major and minor)
† Bleeding (life threatening or disabling and major)
† Acute kidney injury (modified RIFLE stage 2 and 3, including
RRT)
† Vascular complications (major)
† Prosthetic valve performance (requires serial echocardiography
assessments)
(a) Prosthetic valve stenosis (possible and significant) and
regurgitation (moderate or severe with special reference
to paravalvular regurgitation)
(b) Prosthetic valve thrombosis
(c) Prosthetic valve endocarditis
† Prosthetic valve-associated complications
(a) Conduction disturbances and cardiac arrhythmias (including
new LBBB, new permanent pacemaker implantation, and
new supra-ventricular or ventricular arrhythmias) and
(b) Coronary obstruction
† Clinical benefit endpoints
(a) Symptom status (global assessments using NHYA classifi-
cation and some measure of quality of life)
(b) Repeat hospitalization (.30 days after the index pro-
cedure) for valve-related or cardiac decompensation)
† Therapy specific endpoints (ventricular perforation at any time
resulting in cardiac tamponade, prosthetic valve embolization,
and acute or delayed valve-in-valve treatment)
† Composite endpoints
(a) Device success
(b) Combined safety endpoint (at 30 days)
(c) Combined efficacy endpoint (at 1 year or longer)
References
1. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, Borenstein N, Tron C, Bauer F, Derumeaux G,
Anselme F, Laborde F, Leon MB. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an
aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description.
Circulation 2002;106:3006–3008.
2. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Tron C, Bauer F, Agatiello C, Sebagh L, Bash A,
Nusimovici D, Litzler PY, Bessou JP, Leon MB. Early experience with percuta-
neous transcatheter implantation of heart valve prosthesis for the treatment
of end-stage inoperable patients with calcific aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol
2004;43:698–703.
3. Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, Delahaye F, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Levang OW,
Tornos P, Vanoverschelde JL, Vermeer F, Boersma E, Ravaud P, Vahanian A. A
prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro
Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J 2003;24:1231–1243.
4. Stuge O, Liddicoat J. Emerging opportunities for cardiac surgeons within struc-
tural heart disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;132:1258–1261.
5. Varadarajan P, Kapoor N, Bansal RC, Pai RG. Clinical profile and natural history
of 453 nonsurgically managed patients with severe aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac
Surg 2006;82:2111–2115.
6. Bramstedt KA. Aortic valve replacement in the elderly: frequently indicated yet
frequently denied. Gerontology 2003;49:46–49.
VARC consensus endpoints after TAVI for high risk AS
217

Page 14

7. Iung B, Cachier A, Baron G, Messika-Zeitoun D, Delahaye F, Tornos P,
Gohlke-Barwolf C, Boersma E, Ravaud P, Vahanian A. Decision-making in
elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery?
Eur Heart J 2005;26:2714–2720.
8. Piazza N, Yoshinobu O, de Jaegere P, Serruys PW. Guidelines for reporting
cardiac mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions—need for a
reappraisal? Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87:357–358.
9. Akins CW, Blackstone EH, Miller C, Kouchoukos NT, Turina MI. Guidelines for
reporting cardiac mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions—
need for a reappraisal? (Response) Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:359–360.
10. Thomas M, Wendler O. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): how to
interpret the data and what data is required? EuroIntervention 2008;5:25–27.
11. Piazza N, Cutlip DE, Yoshinobu O, Kappetein AP, de Jaegere P, Serruys PW.
Clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a call to ARC for
standardised definitons. EuroIntervention 2008;5:28–29.
12. Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and
morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:
732–738.
13. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD, Jaffe AS, Apple FS, Galvani M, Katus HA,
Newby LK, Ravkilde J, Chaitman B, Clemmensen PM, Dellborg M, Hod H,
Porela P, Underwood R, Bax JJ, Beller GA, Bonow R, Van der Wall EE,
Bassand JP, Wijns W, Ferguson TB, Steg PG, Uretsky BF, Williams DO,
Armstrong PW, Antman EM, Fox KA, Hamm CW, Ohman EM, Simoons ML,
Poole-Wilson PA, Gurfinkel EP, Lopez-Sendon JL, Pais P, Mendis S, Zhu JR,
Wallentin LC, Fernandez-Aviles F, Fox KM, Parkhomenko AN, Priori SG,
Tendera M, Voipio-Pulkki LM, Vahanian A, Camm AJ, De Caterina R, Dean V,
Dickstein K, Filippatos G, Funck-Brentano C, Hellemans I, Kristensen SD,
McGregor K, Sechtem U, Silber S, Widimsky P, Zamorano JL, Morais J,
Brener S, Harrington R, Morrow D, Lim M, Martinez-Rios MA, Steinhubl S,
Levine GN, Gibler WB, Goff D, Tubaro M, Dudek D, Al-Attar N. Universal defi-
nition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:2173–2195.
14. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, Steg PG,
Morel MA, Mauri L, Vranckx P, McFadden E, Lansky A, Hamon M,
Krucoff MW, Serruys PW. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case
for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007;115:2344–2351.
15. Antonini-Canterin F, Leiballi E, Capanna M, Burelli C, Cassin M, Macor F,
Grandis U, Nicolosi GL. Association between carotid and coronary artery
disease in patients with aortic valve stenosis: an angiographic study. Angiology
2009;60:596–600.
16. Kahlert P, Knipp SC, Schlamann M, Theilmann M, Al-Rashid F, Weber M,
Johansson U, Wendt D, Jakob HG, Forsting M, Sack S, Erbel R, Eggebrecht H.
Silent and apparent cerebral ischemia after percutaneous transfemoral aortic
valve implantation: a diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging study. Circu-
lation 2010;121:870–878.
17. Ghanem A, Muller A, Nahle CP, Kocurek J, Werner N, Hammerstingl C,
Schild HH, Schwab JO, Mellert F, Fimmers R, Nickenig G, Thomas D. Risk and
fate of cerebral embolism after transfemoral aortic valve implantation: a pro-
spective pilot study with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Am
Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1427–1432.
18. Easton JD, Saver JL, Albers GW, Alberts MJ, Chaturvedi S, Feldmann E,
Hatsukami TS, Higashida RT, Johnston SC, Kidwell CS, Lutsep HL, Miller E,
Sacco RL. Definition and evaluation of transient ischemic attack: a scientific
statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/
American Stroke Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular
Surgery and Anesthesia; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention;
Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; and the Interdisciplinary Council on Periph-
eral Vascular Disease. The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of
this statement as an educational tool for neurologists. Stroke 2009;40:
2276–2293.
19. Saver JL. Proposal for a universal definition of cerebral infarction. Stroke 2008;39:
3110–3115.
20. Ong AT, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Holmes DR Jr,
Mack MJ, van den Brand M, Morel MA, van Es GA, Kleijne J, Koglin J,
Russell ME. The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with
TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) study: design, rationale, and run-in
phase. Am Heart J 2006;151:1194–1204.
21. Farkouh ME, Dangas G, Leon MB, Smith C, Nesto R, Buse JB, Cohen DJ,
Mahoney E, Sleeper L, King S 3rd, Domanski M, McKinlay S, Fuster V. Design
of the Future REvascularization Evaluation in patients with Diabetes mellitus:
Optimal management of Multivessel disease (FREEDOM) trial. Am Heart J
2008;155:215–223.
22. Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, Bajwa TK, Ansel G,
Strickman NE, Wang H, Cohen SA, Massaro JM, Cutlip DE. Long-term results
of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med
2008;358:1572–1579.
23. Ringleb PA, Allenberg J, Bruckmann H, Eckstein HH, Fraedrich G, Hartmann M,
Hennerici M, Jansen O, Klein G, Kunze A, Marx P, Niederkorn K, Schmiedt W,
Solymosi L, Stingele R, Zeumer H, Hacke W. 30 day results from the SPACE trial
of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic
patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2006;368:1239–1247.
24. Hobson RW II, Howard VJ, Roubin GS, Brott TG, Ferguson RD, Popma JJ,
Graham DL, Howard G. Carotid artery stenting is associated with increased
complications in octogenarians: 30-day stroke and death rates in the CREST
lead-in phase. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:1106–1111.
25. Maggioni AP, Franzosi MG, Santoro E, White H, Van de Werf F, Tognoni G. The
risk of stroke in patients with acute myocardial infarction after thrombolytic and
antithrombotic treatment. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza
nell’Infarto Miocardico II (GISSI-2), and The International Study Group. N Engl
J Med 1992;327:1–6.
26. ISIS-3 (Third International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. ISIS-3:
a randomised comparison of streptokinase vs tissue plasminogen activator vs
anistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs aspirin alone among 41,299 cases of
suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1992;339:753–770.
27. Gore JM, Granger CB, Simoons ML, Sloan MA, Weaver WD, White HD,
Barbash GI, Van de Werf F, Aylward PE, Topol EJ. Stroke after thrombolysis.
Mortality and functional outcomes in the GUSTO-I trial. Global use of strategies
to open occluded coronary arteries. Circulation 1995;92:2811–2818.
28. Halperin JL. Ximelagatran compared with warfarin for prevention of throm-
boembolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Rationale, objectives,
and design of a pair of clinical studies and baseline patient characteristics
(SPORTIF III and V). Am Heart J 2003;146:431–438.
29. Ezekowitz MD, Connolly S, Parekh A, Reilly PA, Varrone J, Wang S, Oldgren J,
Themeles E, Wallentin L, Yusuf S. Rationale and design of RE-LY: randomized
evaluation of long-term anticoagulant therapy, warfarin, compared with dabiga-
tran. Am Heart J 2009;157:805–810, 810 e1–2.
30. Totaro P, Toni D, Durastanti L, Bozzao L, Gualdi GF, Raz E, Kouleridou A,
Pantano P. Diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with non-diagnostic CT in the
post-acute phase of cerebral ischemia. Eur Neurol 2010;63:94–100.
31. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, Adams HP Jr, Tomsick T, Barsan WG, Biller J,
Eberle R, Hertzberg V, Walker M. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a
clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989;20:864–870.
32. Bonita R, Beaglehole R. Modification of Rankin Scale: recovery of motor function
after stroke. Stroke 1988;19:1497–1500.
33. Goldstein LB, Samsa GP. Reliability of the National Institutes of Health Stroke
Scale. Extension to non-neurologists in the context of a clinical trial. Stroke
1997;28:307–310.
34. Lyden PD, Lau GT. A critical appraisal of stroke evaluation and rating scales.
Stroke 1991;22:1345–1352.
35. Standardized Definitions for Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials: FDA Draft Rec-
ommendations (personal communication; 24 March 2010).
36. Manoukian SV, Voeltz MD, Eikelboom J. Bleeding complications in acute coron-
ary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention: predictors, prognostic
significance, and paradigms for reducing risk. Clin Cardiol 2007;30:II24–II34.
37. Feit F, Voeltz MD, Attubato MJ, Lincoff AM, Chew DP, Bittl JA, Topol EJ,
Manoukian SV. Predictors and impact of major hemorrhage on mortality follow-
ing percutaneous coronary intervention from the REPLACE-2 trial. Am J Cardiol
2007;100:1364–1369.
38. Ndrepepa G, Berger PB, Mehilli J, Seyfarth M, Neumann FJ, Scho ¨mig A,
Kastrati A. Periprocedural bleeding and 1-year outcome after percutaneous cor-
onary interventions: appropriateness of including bleeding as a component of a
quadruple end point. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:690–697.
39. Budaj A, Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Afzal R, Chrolavicius S, Bassand JP, Fox KA,
Wallentin L, Peters RJ, Granger CB, Joyner CD, Yusuf S; OASIS 5 Investigators.
Improvingclinical outcomesby
non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2009;30:655–661.
40. Mehran R, Pocock SJ, Stone GW, Clayton TC, Dangas GD, Feit F, Manoukian SV,
Nikolsky E, Lansky AJ, Kirtane A, White HD, Colombo A, Ware JH, Moses JW,
Ohman EM. Associations of major bleeding and myocardial infarction with the
incidence and timing of mortality in patients presenting with non-ST-elevation
acute coronary syndromes: a risk model from the ACUITY trial. Eur Heart J
2009;30:1457–1466.
41. Rao SV, Jollis JG, Harrington RA, Granger CB, Newby LK, Armstrong PW,
Moliterno DJ, Lindblad L, Pieper K, Topol EJ, Stamler JS, Califf RM. Relationship
of blood transfusion and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syn-
dromes. JAMA 2004;292:1555–1562.
42. Yang X, Alexander KP, Chen AY, Roe MT, Brindis RG, Rao SV, Gibler WB,
Ohman EM, Peterson ED. The implications of blood transfusions for patients
with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the
CRUSADE National Quality Improvement Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:
1490–1495.
reducing bleedingin patientswith
M.B. Leon et al.
217a

Page 15

43. Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Sadeghi HM, Grines CL, Cox DA, Garcia E, Tcheng JE,
Griffin JJ, Guagliumi G, Stuckey T, Turco M, Fahy M, Lansky AJ, Stone GW. Prog-
nostic impact of blood transfusion after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial
infarction: analysis from the CADILLAC (Controlled Abciximab and Device
Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications) trial. JACC Cardiovasc
Interv 2009;2:624–632.
44. Shishehbor MH, Madhwal S, Rajagopal V, Hsu A, Kelly P, Gurm HS, Kapadia SR,
Lauer MS, Topol EJ. Impact of blood transfusion on short- and long-term mor-
tality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardio-
vasc Interv 2009;2:46–53.
45. The GUSTO investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four
thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;
329:673–682.
46. Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic Regimen
(ASSENT)-3 Investigators. Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination
with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: the ASSENT-3 random-
ised trial in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 2001;358:605–613.
47. White H. Thrombin-specific anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin in
patients receiving fibrinolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: the
HERO-2 randomised trial. Lancet 2001;358:1855–1863.
48. Mehran R, Brodie B, Cox DA, Grines CL, Rutherford B, Bhatt DL, Dangas G,
Feit F, Ohman EM, Parise H, Fahy M, Lansky AJ, Stone GW. The Harmonizing
Outcomes with RevasculariZatiON and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction
(HORIZONS-AMI) trial: study design and rationale. Am Heart J 2008;156:44–56.
49. Antman EM, McCabe CH, Gurfinkel EP, Turpie AG, Bernink PJ, Salein D, Bayes
De Luna A, Fox K, Lablanche JM, Radley D, Premmereur J, Braunwald E. Enox-
aparin prevents death and cardiac ischemic events in unstable angina/
non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results of the thrombolysis in myocardial
infarction (TIMI) 11B trial. Circulation 1999;100:1593–1601.
50. Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel EP, Turpie AG, Fromell GJ, Goodman S,
Langer A, Califf RM, Fox KA, Premmereur J, Bigonzi F. A comparison of
low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coron-
ary artery disease. Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in
Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events Study Group. N Engl J Med 1997;337:447–452.
51. Goodman SG, Fitchett D, Armstrong PW, Tan M, Langer A. Randomized evalu-
ation of the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in
high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes
receiving the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor eptifibatide. Circulation 2003;107:
238–244.
52. Blazing MA, de Lemos JA, White HD, Fox KA, Verheugt FW, Ardissino D,
DiBattiste PM, Palmisano J, Bilheimer DW, Snapinn SM, Ramsey KE,
Gardner LH, Hasselblad V, Pfeffer MA, Lewis EF, Braunwald E, Califf RM.
Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in patients with
non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes who receive tirofiban
and aspirin: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;292:55–64.
53. SYNERGY Executive Committee. The SYNERGY trial: study design and ration-
ale. Am Heart J 2002;143:952–960.
54. Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Afzal R, Pogue J, Granger CB, Budaj A,
Peters RJ, Bassand JP, Wallentin L, Joyner C, Fox KA. Comparison of fondapar-
inux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2006;354:
1464–1476.
55. Lincoff AM, Kleiman NS, Kereiakes DJ, Feit F, Bittl JA, Jackman JD, Sarembock IJ,
Cohen DJ, Spriggs D, Ebrahimi R, Keren G, Carr J, Cohen EA, Betriu A,
Desmet W, Rutsch W, Wilcox RG, de Feyter PJ, Vahanian A, Topol EJ. Long-
term efficacy of bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade vs
heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coron-
ary revascularization: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA 2004;292:696–703.
56. Stone GW, Bertrand M, Colombo A, Dangas G, Farkouh ME, Feit F, Lansky AJ,
Lincoff AM, Mehran R, Moses JW, Ohman M, White HD. Acute Catheterization
and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY (ACUITY) trial: study design and ration-
ale. Am Heart J 2004;148:764–775.
57. Subherwal S, Bach RG, Chen AY, Gage BF, Rao SV, Newby LK, Wang TY,
Gibler WB, Ohman EM, Roe MT, Pollack CV Jr, Peterson ED, Alexander KP.
Baseline risk of major bleeding in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarc-
tion: the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients
Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA
Guidelines) bleeding score. Circulation 2009;119:1873–1882.
58. Mehta SR, Bassand JP, Chrolavicius S, Diaz R, Fox KA, Granger CB, Jolly S,
Rupprecht HJ, Widimsky P, Yusuf S. Design and rationale of CURRENT-OASIS
7: a randomized, 2 × 2 factorial trial evaluating optimal dosing strategies for clo-
pidogrel and aspirin in patients with ST and non-ST-elevation acute coronary
syndromes managed with an early invasive strategy. Am Heart J 2008;156:
1080–1088 e1.
59. James S, Akerblom A, Cannon CP, Emanuelsson H, Husted S, Katus H, Skene A,
Steg PG, Storey RF, Harrington R, Becker R, Wallentin L. Comparison of
ticagrelor, the first reversible oral P2Y(12) receptor antagonist, with clopidogrel
in patients with acute coronary syndromes: rationale, design, and baseline
characteristics of the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO)
trial. Am Heart J 2009;157:599–605.
60. Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of
antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost
2005;3:692–694.
61. Levy EM, Viscoli CM, Horwitz RI. The effect of acute renal failure on mortality. A
cohort analysis. JAMA 1996;275:1489–1494.
62. McCullough PA, Wolyn R, Rocher LL, Levin RN, O’Neill WW. Acute renal
failure after coronary intervention: incidence, risk factors, and relationship to
mortality. Am J Med 1997;103:368–375.
63. Mangano CM, Diamondstone LS, Ramsay JG, Aggarwal A, Herskowitz A,
Mangano DT. Renal dysfunction after myocardial revascularization: risk factors,
adverse outcomes, and hospital resource utilization. The Multicenter Study of
Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:194–203.
64. Gruberg L, Mintz GS, Mehran R, Dangas G, Lansky AJ, Kent KM, Pichard AD,
Satler LF, Leon MB. The prognostic implications of further renal function
deterioration within 48 h of interventional coronary procedures in patients
with pre-existent chronic renal insufficiency. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:
1542–1548.
65. Best PJ, Lennon R, Ting HH, Bell MR, Rihal CS, Holmes DR, Berger PB. The
impact of renal insufficiency on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percu-
taneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1113–1119.
66. Nash K, Hafeez A, Hou S. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis
2002;39:930–936.
67. Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, Berger PB, Ting HH, Best PJ, Singh M, Bell MR,
Barsness GW, Mathew V, Garratt KN, Holmes DR Jr. Incidence and prognostic
importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Cir-
culation 2002;105:2259–2264.
68. Antunes PE, Prieto D, Ferrao de Oliveira J, Antunes MJ. Renal dysfunction after
myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:597–604.
69. Lassnigg A, Schmidlin D, Mouhieddine M, Bachmann LM, Druml W, Bauer P,
Hiesmayr M. Minimal changes of serum creatinine predict prognosis in patients
after cardiothoracic surgery: a prospective cohort study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;
15:1597–1605.
70. Chertow GM, Burdick E, Honour M, Bonventre JV, Bates DW. Acute kidney
injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J Am Soc
Nephrol 2005;16:3365–3370.
71. Aregger F, Wenaweser P, Hellige GJ, Kadner A, Carrel T, Windecker S, Frey FJ.
Risk of acute kidney injury in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis under-
going transcatheter valve replacement. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009;24:
2175–2179.
72. Bagur R, Webb JG, Nietlispach F, Dumont E, De Larochelliere R, Doyle D,
Masson JB, Gutierrez MJ, Clavel MA, Bertrand OF, Pibarot P, Rodes-Cabau J.
Acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: predictive
factors, prognostic value, and comparison with surgical aortic valve replacement.
Eur Heart J 2010;31:865–874.
73. Lameire N, Van Biesen W, Vanholder R. The changing epidemiology of acute
renal failure. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 2006;2:364–377.
74. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, Mehta RL, Palevsky P. Acute renal failure defi-
nition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technol-
ogy needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute
Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care 2004;8:R204–R212.
75. Bellomo R, Kellum JA, Ronco C. Defining acute renal failure: physiological prin-
ciples. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:33–37.
76. Kellum JA, Levin N, Bouman C, Lameire N. Developing a consensus classification
system for acute renal failure. Curr Opin Crit Care 2002;8:509–514.
77. Abosaif NY, Tolba YA, Heap M, Russell J, El Nahas AM. The outcome of acute
renal failure in the intensive care unit according to RIFLE: model application, sen-
sitivity, and predictability. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46:1038–1048.
78. Bell M, Liljestam E, Granath F, Fryckstedt J, Ekbom A, Martling CR. Optimal
follow-up time after continuous renal replacement therapy in actual renal
failure patients stratified with the RIFLE criteria. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;
20:354–360.
79. Hoste EA, Clermont G, Kersten A, Venkataraman R, Angus DC, De Bacquer D,
Kellum JA. RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital
mortality in critically ill patients: a cohort analysis. Crit Care 2006;10:R73.
80. Kuitunen A, Vento A, Suojaranta-Ylinen R, Pettila V. Acute renal failure after
cardiac surgery: evaluation of the RIFLE classification. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:
542–546.
81. Uchino S, Bellomo R, Goldsmith D, Bates S, Ronco C. An assessment of the
RIFLE criteria for acute renal failure in hospitalized patients. Crit Care Med
2006;34:1913–1917.
VARC consensus endpoints after TAVI for high risk AS
217b